Good Manners Cost Nothing...

This interesting article by Paul Melcher raises issues that I alluded to in blog posts written some time ago, which generated a lot of feedback at the time.

As I've argued before, the Creative Commons (CC) licensing system hasn't proved itself to be really appropriate for photography, although many amateur and professional photographers continue to use it, without really understanding its implications.

And neither do many publishers...last year there was one notable balls-up involving a commercial rights grab of an image on Flickr carrying a CC license - which simply wasn't appropriate for what should have been an All Rights Reserved image (a non-model released image of a child).

There's really no reason why existing copyright law isn't capable of facilitating a photo-sharing, mashup culture while simultaneously providing protection against infringement or commercial theft.

In the UK, you don't even need to issue a CC image license - you don't need to do anything. You have copyright in the image the moment you take it. It's legally binding, and if someone wants to use the image for non-commercial sharing (e.g. personal blogs, school projects) they can under existing Fair Use conditions*

If they want to use the image commercially (which includes editorial publishing), they have to make a deal with you, BY LAW.

Who needs some convoluted CC 'Attribution-Non-Commercial-NoDerivatives 2.0 England and Wales' wheel-reinvention, when you can already share the image under Fair Use and have legal protection against infringement, by simply doing nothing?

In his most recent blog post, photographer and former software developer Dan Heller lays out the argument comprehensively here, about why CC licensing is not appropriate for photography. Its well worth reading more than once.

Its not copyright, but perceptions of copyright which is changing, fuelled by disruptive technological change and widespread ignorance amongst amateur photographers about image licensing (and why should they know? A lot of professional photographers are just as useless**).

Creative Commons licensing just seems to be muddying the waters and encouraging the very 'I can use anything on the internet I damn well please' mentality which it claims to be mitigating. I often wonder how many people read the full terms of CC licenses, or understand how many different licenses there are.

As Dan Heller says,

"Supporting a model of shared information is a wonderful idea that I support, and it as as simple as just allowing people to use your photos or other IP, provided they contact you and confirm its usage.

CC does no more to support this model than just acting according to your principles."

Which is what Paul Melcher calls for - instead of Creative Commons, try using this cutting-edge internet business model:

If you're not sure about using an image?

Just get in touch and ask.

(* a notification, with a link back or credit is usually all that is expected. That's the Moral Rights clause in existing copyright law. **Thanks to Stanley Rowin's great Pro Photo Business Blog for the YouTube find.)

Comments

[Patrick Yen]

Yo Sion, I was curious..

have you ever heard of icopyright.net?

I just found it and I intend to do more research about it.

They license articles and such for publication,
and it appears they have a deal with the AP.

I'd love to hear your thoughts.

[Sion Touhig]

Hi Patrick,

There seems to be more than one company like this - Attributor is another one. On first look, it looks like a good idea, but those companies will be looking (I assume) to target large scale content outlets (like newspapers and broacasters) first before they become viable for smaller scale creatives like photographers.

The related issue of course, is 'who's content are they protecting'...if the content has already been grabbed by the newspaper, or the broadcaster (from its employees, freelancers or user generated content), then the individual creator still gets screwed.