Bubble Video: This Thing Ain't Over

Earlier today I e-mailed a few of the photographers listed in the credits of the now-infamous "Here Comes Another Bubble" video. (For background, see previous posts here and here.) Four of them wrote back right away. Of those four, none had given permission for their image to be used in this video, and all objected, in varying degrees, to how the crediting was handled. Here's some of what they said:

Ramona Rosales: "I'm totally against the unauthorized use of my image.  I was never asked permission nor have I received any compensation for it's use; furthermore I don't feel it is justified simply because they gave me credit. I don't consider (nor does copyright law) the use 'fair use' or 'use in parody' since it is a slide show of the original images. The Richter Scales are benefiting from the video because they are promoting themselves and selling a product (their CD) on their website/blog.  Because of the free use of my image (and all the other photographers/artists involved), they stand to make a profit. I will be contacting the Richter Scales today to remove my image."

Jeremiah Owyang: "I knew the photo was being used when I saw the video. I wish I was credited. I don't mind it was used as I'm open to sharing, but attribution needs to be respected. Photographers who make a living doing this really need to have their rights respected and protected."

Roger Lean-Vercoe: "The photo of the yacht Maltese Falcon is certainly mine, and I didn't release the image for use in any video but did release it to the Lectronic Latitude website from which it was downloaded. And yes, as a professional photographer, of course I am concerned about picture piracy. I'd always like to be contacted before any of my images are used so that I can either grant free use of the image or ask for a royalty."

Brian Solis: "I didn't know, and don't mind, that they used my pictures. It would have been nice if they also linked back to me instead of just listing my name. I think there's an incredible disillusion with Fair Use and what's really fair. It's not terribly difficult to link/credit people so why everyone is picking on Lane for standing up for herself and other photographers is absurd. If they don't like it, then they shouldn't use protected content." [Brian also has a very thorough post about this video here.]

These new comments follow those of photographer Lane Hartwell, who provoked a fierce blog debate when she asked to be compensated for the use of her photo in the video. The Richter Scales eventually re-edited the video without her image. The first video was viewed nearly a million times before it was pulled from YouTube. Version 1.1, which was posted Monday, has now been viewed more than 11,000 times. Will there be a version 1.2?

Comments

[Jim Goldstein]

Its great to see that these other photographers were contacted. There seems to be a great deal of misunderstanding of how the work of photographers need to be handled for these types of use. Much of my comments on the subject on various blogs, where I've replied, including the Richter Scales blog, Scobleizer, etc. reflect this lack of awareness. Unfortunately Lane has been an easy target being the first to stand up for her rights and work. I'm looking forward to following how this continues to play out.

[Preston]

Everyone is getting all greedy with their rights, and now, the video is just going to fizzle into nothing. It's a parody and a compilation -- two things you don't have rights in. You only have rights in that small slice of a photo that no one cares about when it's all by its lonesome.

It'd be nice if photographers would quit acting like they're trapped in an oppressive industrial factory. It's not that bad to be included in one of the most popular internet videos of now. Use it to your advantage, or find a way to do that.

[Anon]

I wonder how many of these photogs/bloggers have ever criticized DRM and downloading music??

[Sean]

It seems to me, that photographers are the ones with illusions about fair use.

[Ayrkain]

Tell ya what. Go on strike, like the writers (who actually have a point), and we'll see how long it takes anyone to notice.

[Glen]

Preston, you are an unlearned idiot. Copyright law covers the right to copy, which rests in the creator of the work. The law does not specify that the image cannot appear in a compilation; in fact, it specifically addresses a "derivative work" that the original artist retains the rights to.

Parody is indeed a "fair use," but fair use is not a right; it is a defense of what is essentially admitting breaking the law. And in this case, none of these images were parodied; instead, the images were used without modification in a derivate work. A parody is OF something - you parody a song or a picture. In this case, it's simply a humorous song that steals other peoples work to make a quick buck from.

[alan p]

The more this sort of nonsense goes on, the more clear it becomes that copyright abuse, not copyright theft, is the bigger issue.

There are some clear lessons from this episode, ignore them at your own risk:

http://broadstuff.com/archives/617-Fair-Use....some-lessons.html

[alan p]

The more this sort of nonsense goes on, the more clear it becomes that copyright abuse, not copyright theft, is the bigger issue.

There are some clear lessons from this episode, ignore them at your own risk:

http://broadstuff.com/archives/617-Fair-Use....some-lessons.html

[Peter Thornvig]

Rely nice to see colleges go into this issue!
To many sites of "YouTube" type have to often neglected copyrights.

Earlier this year I got no where by complaining over video using images of al the photo masters:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I80OC5gGjsA

YouTube answer: Sorry it have to be the right holders the self complaining. Most of them are dead.
An advertisement on Danish www.djfotograferne.dk (Photographers in Danish Union of Journalists) came out with no result.

So it is nice to se that some still stand up fore Copyright !
Peter Thornvig

[Derek]

Internet = Public Domain

Get used to it.

[Michael K. Pate]

Why do you say "This Thing Ain't Over?" It sounds like the most upset on your list, Rosales, is demanding the image be removed - none are asking for compensation. It sounds pretty over to me.

[Bob]

This will continue to keep this video in the limelight. Everyone associated with the video, good or bad, will get their 15 minutes of publicity. Someone should turn this into a marketing trick for future projects, it's a great way to get your name out.

[Pete Bardo]

Wow, there sure are a bunch of comments from folks who don't have a clue about copyright. "Fair use" is not simply a defense against copyright abuse. It is no more a right than driving with a license. Photographers have just as much right to protect their works as any other artist.

Internet does not equal public domain, and public domain does not mean you get to use it for free--it just means you don't need permission. You still have to pay for using it.

Copyright infringement does not have to involve profits for the infringer. And, as Jammie is finding out, penalties are not necessarily related to proven loss of revenue for the copyright holder.

It's definitely a twisted mess with no simple solution. Take a look from a "blue collar" prospective. How about you work for me for 8 hours, I pay someone else and you don't get a dime? Would that be fair use?

[Oops!]

Huh? Public Domain IS free - head to Archive.org and see if you need to pay or anything...

Go to the Library of Congress and copy a Public Domain picture (one of over 1 MILLION that they have available for you). Who do you need to pay for that?

Good Lord.... If you're going to get on a high horse, at least make sure it has legs.

I sympathize with the compensation issue, etc. But you're dead wrong on Public Domain (works without copyright, etc.), the likes of which are freely available for ANYONE via the Library of Congress itself.

If you start taking advantage of services like iStockphoto and Fotolia, you'll be able to receive $ - and credit - for your work; have international distribution; and you're free to include a link to your personal photography site, which will lead to more work, etc. etc.

[Peter Thornvig]

Fair use is not an issue accepted outside US. Most other country’s have copyright laws protecting the holder of the copyright against any unauthorized use.

In European copyright laws is quiet clear. Use as the one on YouTube is illegal.

I’s only as a private copy, at private use, not published and only spread inside “the four walls” of your privacy, free use is allowed.

[Ian Aleksander Adams]

what about appropriation? hasn't it been defended in art?

Haven't many famous photographs been produced of other photographs, including some of the best selling of all time?

Isn't photography itself one of the most heavily contested mediums, for "stealing" other artists images and using them? Aren't photographers often protesting someone trying to get them to stop taking pictures of their buildings, sculptures, faces, etc?

With the internet comes the next level of this debate, and I see it as one that traditional art and copyright is set to lose. Artists will do whatever it takes to make whatever points they want to make, as trivial or earthshattering as they may be.

I say use it to your benefit and don't end up lost with the flow.

[Ian Aleksander Adams]

I want to add that I think in different circumstances the response of the photographer should be appropriate.

some examples of unapproved use and what I think is appropriate:

Corporate ad - Send bill or use legal action

Editorial usage (in a publication for sale) - send bill or use legal action

Website Usage for corporation - Send bill or use legal action

Website for nonprofit - send email asking if they knew they forgot to ask, possibly compensation if they are able, ask for credit

non-profit publication - ask for credit, possible compensation

arts non-profit publication (zine) - ask for credit

arts usage (appropriation, gallery, etc) - ask for credit

internet video - ask for credit, postdated royalties if video ever becomes popular and makes large amounts of money (never)

myspace, livejournal, imageboard (such as 4chan.org), etc - laugh, post credit yourself as anon, stop being such a stickler and realize the internet is always going to be a den of scum and villainy. Go have an ice cream.