:: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 ::
Photography, Rights, Media
Bldg Blog on Photography, Rights, Media
"...it has always struck me as somewhat economically lopsided that in order for Dwell to run a photograph in the magazine, we have to pay the photographer a not inconsiderable use fee; but that I, as BLDGBLOG, can simply post that photograph – or Dezeen can post it, or materialicious, or Apartment Therapy – and, at least for now, no one has to pay a cent.
"While I was Senior Editor at Dwell, this hit some particularly surreal notes, such as when an architecture blogger – whose entire visual content has been bought and paid for by other people – emailed me to accuse Dwell of stealing from architecture blogs because we had run images (at no small expense to us) of houses that once appeared on that person's website.
"It's interesting, for instance, in this context, that even mundane technical questions – such as whether to host your work online via a Flash website (which prevents bloggers from downloading your work) – are actually legally motivated decisions made to protect the financial integrity of your portfolio, not aesthetic or stylistic choices at all."
This post asks some interesting questions and it's nice to know it's going to be debated by a panel at the upcoming Postopolis! LA event. I hope some of that discussion makes it onto the net afterwards.
Of course, this applies just as much to any other type of photography, not just architectural, and other forms of art too. For instance, from Clayton Cubitt's tumblr it's clear he has some interesting views on this. He’s even posted to dismiss flash websites as an annoyance yet his own official site is one. [NSFW]
On a tangent, he commented on twitter recently:
"When porn does art it’s hilarious. When art does porn it’s tedious."
This makes me wonder where he sees his own work falling, as it's clearly between the two, as is most erotic photography.
Labels: Art, Copyright, Erotic, IP, Media, Photography
:: Dan 25.3.09 [Arc]
[links to this post]
Links to this post: