Snapped Shot

I'm so glad PDN posted that.

Most of the photojournalists I know take great care in the power that a single shot has in defining a moment and know that improper timing, framing, or subject matter can change the perception of reality. That's where a critical viewpoint is needed and when it isn't, another viewpoint needs to be there to discuss it. Current law makes it hard to do that.

This would have been a great test in the courts. You know that our talks were balanced over several viewpoints: what the courts have allowed, what it takes to argue your case, and what AP had on it's side.

It's too bad the support you got from the other bloggers was vocal and in many cases hurt you if you decided to take the path of settlement with AP. I don't know, perhaps it was ignorance (we've all had that until faced with the reality of how hard Copyright is to understand when it comes to Fair Use) to the fact these things aren't cut and dry when it comes to pulling an image to criticize it or use it for education purposes.

This case would have had a tremendous impact on changing how a single photo is not the same as a whole article of text , as is the current standard for Fair Use.

It would have had a favorable impact on every blogger and site owner.

My take on this whole learning situation is a sad one. You were alone in your decision to make a change to the laws in court.

That's where the decision had to be made: in the courts and not the blogs.

I regret my only support was vocal to you. But I didn't have the stake that other sites had in this. <Rant over>

This is all about selling subscriptions to services . And photography is one of the services. Even if AP started selling single images (what an incremental business for them, hint , hint ), it wouldn't allow us to grab the full shot for Fair Use under current law.

Hopefully people learned from your ordeal. Access to an image via a hotlink is viewed the same as downloading the image. The copyright holder owns the material and we are left with how it will get interpreted only if we go to court over it. And spend the bucks. And the big lesson that Fair Use doesn't allow us to pull the entire item. <stopping here for fear of repeating a rant>

What's interesting is the battle the EFF is waging to keep access free. Comcast has started to filter access of large files and suppliers want the providers to watch for abusers of all types of violations based on their interpretation of the law.

So the availability of material to view could get worse in the future and the WWW could become a members only place. With membership having the rewards.

And as you point out, if material isn't available to non-members, how can sites like yours function?

Or as this AP situation showed, when a photograph is being criticized, why doesn't Fair Use allow a full image to be used? <oh, oh, I almost started again>
Reply