I’m always intrigued with a discussion of copyright issues, especially as the topic relates to photography within the digital realm (blogs, websites, flickr, MySpace, etc). Along with my work for clients (wedding and lifestyle photography), I also sell stock and fine art images (and have been compensated fairly). However, I’ve also had these images “stolen” (via digital channels) and used without compensation.
Some in the industry say this is a risk of having an online portfolio (i.e., just part of doing business in this day and age)…and others have even claimed that I should be proud that my images were chosen to be “borrowed” (citing the creative commons model, etc.). The conversation is interesting, and I’ve heard compelling arguments on both sides (for the record I hold the opinion that photography should only be used with full permission of the copyright owner/photographer and/or legally licensed).
I especially dig Robert Haggart’s eloquence on the subject…”I think it’s cool that people want to create material and give it away because that’s exactly the value of the material they’re creating.”…”High quality photography is still very expensive.”
His recent blog post is worth checking out.