 |
|
|
|
Visit our sponsorsFill up our coffee fundBlogAdsMost EmailedVisit our sponsorsUpcoming events
 Who's newWho's onlineThere are currently 1 user and 1202 guests online.
Online users |
Get our Digestifs du jourNibble daily on our brainy goodness with our daily syndication digest. You'll receive an email with a list and links to the previous day's posts.
culturekitchensThe Publisher Daily servings of political dissent Grassroots News and Feminist Bloggers A new kind of vouyerism Art + Code + Philosophy Got any dirt, tips, leads or money for us? Then drop us a line or two at editors [at] culturekitchen [dot] com or use our general contact form to reach everybody in the editorial team ASAP. Hot Topics
Member's articles and stories
Recent reviews
|
Words to live by
Let's begin with capitalism, a word that has gone largely out of fashion. The approved reference now is to the market system. This shift minimizes --indeed, deletes-- the role of wealth in the economic and social system. And it sheds the adverse connotation going back to Marx. Instead of the owners of capital or their attendants in control, we have the admirably impersonal role of market forces. It would be hard to think of a change in terminology more in the interest of those to whom money accords power. They have now a functional anonymity. But most of the people who use the new designation --economists, in particular-- are innocent as to the effect. They see nothing wrong with their bland, descriptive terminology. They pay no attention to the important question: Whether money "wealth" accords a special power. (It does.) Thus the term innocent fraud. Subscribe Buttons                    | |
It was interesting hearing you at Reuters
Next to Hilary Rosen.
She basically helped redraft copyright law in this country and around the world while at the helm of the RIAA. Ms. Rosen, also interestingly enough, admitted in a now infamous WIRED Magazine profile --Hating Hilary--to having lobbied for BAD LEGISLATION in a last ditch attempt to save the music and film industries outdated business models.
I have not said at any moment that your company or your clients ought not be paid. What I am saying is that you have either not the knowledge or the wherewithal to be a new media company.
Honestly, none of the photographic companies have done anything other than to use lawsuits to claim to protect their copyrights; when in fact, iFilm, YouTube and Revver have demonstrated, there is no excuse not to avail your business of the use simple technologies like EMBED widgets to effectively monetize your content.
I don't know the details of your claims to Lavandeira --that's what are lawsuits, no? To put the onus of evidence on the alleged offender.
What I do know is that your dealing with one blogger at a time shows also your inability to think beyond your print media model. Going to PopSugar, a company that got $8 million in venture capital is your answer to addressing the blog market? Are you kidding me?
So you want to go with high end, VCed "blogs". Fine. The way you choose to disseminate your content still shows your company has not addressed blogs as a new publishing platform.
I am not a lawyer but I have been writing for years now about how companies like yours use lawsuits not to protect their copyright but to destroy new businesses and markets. Poke around the archives.
Yet, 10 years ago, photo companies only had watermarks as acceptable ways to protect their product. Some went with funky layering with Java and Javascript but those proved cumbersome.
Nowadays, with the popularity of the EMBED widget, companies like yours have no excuse for claiming to sufficiently protect their copyrights by use of a watermark. You ought to be using the similar concepts as Revver and YouTube if "views" and "attribution" are that much of deal in the pricing of your photographs.
But that is topic for another post.