http://patrickstack.com/2008/12/16/why-online-image-borrowing-is-good-policy/ Digital strategist, Northwestern and Michigan grad, Chicago resident, Pittsburgh native. Tue, 22 Nov 2011 07:23:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 http://patrickstack.com/2008/12/16/why-online-image-borrowing-is-good-policy/#comment-1480 Pat Wed, 17 Dec 2008 17:46:52 +0000 http://patrickstack.com/?p=261#comment-1480 That would be true under the old rules, but most publications these days write their photo contracts for unlimited usage and rights in perpetuity. While that's not as desirable for the photographer, they know what they're getting into when they sign the contract. It's a different model these days. That would be true under the old rules, but most publications these days write their photo contracts for unlimited usage and rights in perpetuity. While that’s not as desirable for the photographer, they know what they’re getting into when they sign the contract. It’s a different model these days.

]]> http://patrickstack.com/2008/12/16/why-online-image-borrowing-is-good-policy/#comment-1476 Rich Wed, 17 Dec 2008 05:49:25 +0000 http://patrickstack.com/?p=261#comment-1476 ok, the original publication gets traffic, and that's good assuming they actually paid for the image. however the photographer who created the intellectual property is getting screwed. he gets paid by his customer for specific usage, at least that's how it's done in print design. a publication the size of time might buy an image for unlimited usage or contract with a photographer to work for hire and thus own all rights to the image. if they don't then it's not up to the photoeditor to be morally satisfied with some surplus traffic generation. she doesn't own the right to give you the image anyway. your argument is the moral equivalent of running off a few hundred copies of a book, and throwing the publisher some props, then the publisher gets all happy about some extra advertising. But what if the author gets paid based on sales volume? ok, the original publication gets traffic, and that’s good assuming they actually paid for the image. however the photographer who created the intellectual property is getting screwed. he gets paid by his customer for specific usage, at least that’s how it’s done in print design. a publication the size of time might buy an image for unlimited usage or contract with a photographer to work for hire and thus own all rights to the image. if they don’t then it’s not up to the photoeditor to be morally satisfied with some surplus traffic generation. she doesn’t own the right to give you the image anyway. your argument is the moral equivalent of running off a few hundred copies of a book, and throwing the publisher some props, then the publisher gets all happy about some extra advertising. But what if the author gets paid based on sales volume?

]]>