I don’t require releases for the type of work I do. The photos I shoot, and most of the photos I shoot, are for editorial purposes. I do not sell them for stock commercially, however I can sell them as editorial stock.

Do you understand the difference? If you are confused, you might want to do some reading up on it before you comment.

The only people that have used my photos commercially are the ones taking it and using it without my permission. While the Richter Scales are claiming to be a non-profit, there is a huge distinction there…non profit and not making any money are two very different things.

The Richter Scales sell CD’s and concert performances. That is commercial usage, which I am against and Owen Thomas did not sign a release to allow. They violate Owen’s rights, not me.

-Lane

The Richter Scales did not attribute a photo. True enough. Until the law catches up with new technology, Fair Use will be decided on a case by case basis. The bloggers critical of Hartwell may be a bunch of annoying blowhards, but in the end they were correct. Fair Use is Fair Use. Hartwell would lose in court, big time.

I’m sure Hartwell’s a fine person to those she knows and loves. However, in this case she’s proven herself to be pedantic and lame, of full of unwarranted, self-righteous indignation. Unless Hartwell has releases for every person in the picture, she’s hypocritical being belief. If you’re going to create a stink, better dot your i’s, cross your t’s.

Oh, and all those supporting Hartwell better make sure you wipe your hard drive of any songs or video clips you didn’t pay for, because YOU ALL are guilty. You just don’t have Jeffrey Katzenberg and David Geffen harassing you with “invoices”.

“Photo Attorney” Carolyn Wright weighed in on the issue on her blog, and made this succinct, helpful observation:

“The comments on Techcrunch show the widely-varied opinions about whether others can use your photographs without permission. However, opinions don’t matter in infringements – the law does.”

I would also add that registering your images with the U.S. Copyright Office is the best way to use a proven legal means to fight copyright infringement.

Best,

Joe

The image of Owen Thomas is mine. My contract with Wired News/Conde Net gives them exclusive rights for a period of time and then they revert 100% back to me. I am the sole copyright holder.

If CondéNet owns the copyright of the image, how can Lane legally negotiate usage rights with The Richter Scales?

If Lane somehow kept ownership of the image she shot for Wired, how come she hasn’t asked Wired to correctly attribute the image as being her copyrighted by her, not CondéNet?

I wouldn’t mind seeing what Lane mentioned on her post – some way to automatically watermark images. You just can’t trust people to honor licenses and decency/respect.

Fair use has more to do with something that is newsworthy, than self-promotion or entertainment purposes. For that matter, I would have to say that Lane has every right to take action. This is her livelihood. I see some people/groups just being more lazy than malicious when it comes to not getting approval for using an image. How hard is it to send an email asking permission?

On the other hand, if you posted the snapshot to ridicule it (not sure how one would do that) or to illustrate a point about how to adjust white balance or fix chromatic aberation, that would be a different story. You’d have at least an good argument that your use was fair. Which side would win? That would depend on a host of details.

The singing group and the shutterbug might be having a symbiotic relationship going, whether they realize it or not.