[clug] Re: A most interesting read, most interesting

[Martijn van Oosterhout]

On Mon, Jan 01, 2007 at 06:56:10PM +1100, Paul Wayper wrote:
> that the world doesn't owe him a living.  But the point is that one the one
> hand the newspapers are making millions off these images, and either ignoring
> (using the images without any acknowledgement or payment) or abusing the
> copyright system (by paying a pittance for the ownership of the photo) that
> should mean those original photographers get at least something. 

I thought newspapers made money off the layout, the printing, the
articles, the delivery to the door and all the other things that make a
newspaper. How often do they make "millions" on a single image?

Or do you mean they *save* millions by not having to pay professional
photographers? In that case it's good for the end user because that's
indirectly translated to a cheaper newspaper. And if it goes into
profits, that goes to shareholders.

I guess the lesson is that if you want to be paid for your images,
become a shareholder in the company you're sending the images to...

> On the other
> hand the newspapers - and all the other media - whinge and whine when anyone
> else steals their content, and loudly decry the need for tougher restrictions
> and penalties for this illegal copying.  They can't have it both ways.

Very true, except no-one is breaking any laws, nor is it clear what
changes are necessary.  The people sending the images are not expecting
to be paid for them, so why are we getting ourselves into a twist over
the fact that they're getting what they want?

Have a nice day,
-- 
Martijn van Oosterhout   <kleptog at svana.org>   http://svana.org/kleptog/
> From each according to his ability. To each according to his ability to litigate.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://lists.samba.org/archive/linux/attachments/20070101/66db0124/attachment.bin