Photographer Thrilled That Apple Using His Photo As Default iPad Background, Despite No Official Agreement
from the see,-it's-not-so-bad... dept
In my experience, there is a group of photographers who are even more extreme in their copyright views than groups like the RIAA and MPAA. It's certainly not all (or, perhaps, even most) professional photographers who are like this, but there is a group of very, very adamant photographers who absolutely freak out about any use of their works without compensation. They even get upset if they feel that another photographer isn't getting enough compensation for every single use of a photograph. Since they tend to be independent, they don't have the clout of a large organization like the RIAA, but they make up for it in aggressiveness. We've see it in the discussions that have compared microstock photo websites to drug dealers and even in response to our recent post about a misguided takedown of a guy who was promoting stock photo images on his blog -- where some photographers were quick to call us idiots. Yes, how dare we suggest that such a use of stock photography is fair use, despite legal precedent suggesting a decent chance that such a blog was legal. Since their response doesn't go beyond calling us all "idiots," it's difficult to judge the reason, other than they just don't like it.Given all that, I found this story about the photographer, Richard Misrach, whose photograph was chosen by Apple to be the default wallpaper for the iPad, quite interesting. That's because, while he's been talking to Apple for a while, the company only came to him days before the launch to ask to use the image, and no agreement had been worked out by the time the product launched with the photo there. But unlike some, Misrach didn't freak out. He still thinks it's cool, and knows that it'll work out:
"The funny thing is that I don't even have a contract with them yet, so they must have decided on it at the eleventh hour," Misrach says. "I'm sure they'll send me one quickly now. But I'm very happy, I'm sure it's fine, and the terms are good."Now, yes, this is a bit different, since there is a contract on the way, but he doesn't know what the terms are, and he doesn't seem to care that much, recognizing that this is good no matter what. And the same thing is true of blogs, like the one we discussed above, whose sole purpose was to promote stock images and direct people back to the site to purchase the rights to those images.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: agreements, copyright, ipad, photographs, richard misrach
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Often, these events have a physical address that ends up leading people to a non-existent event that occurs in the middle of a lake, large pond, or a boat ramp. But that doesn't discount the value of the effort, right?
I mean if you're at the boat ramp and have no way to get to the island, I suppose it's my fault that you didn't walk the 150 meters to the Marina to ask if they had a boat paid for and reserved for them. Geez. Get it the freaking boat, if you crash it, I was smart enough to buy the freaking insurance. Just drive the damned boat...
I'm sorry. Got a little mad there.
Point is, it's not Apple's fault. If you want to bitch about something as small as a picture, Steve will be sure not to use you next time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Its still his (and if not his, then many others) livelihood so I think calling it 'just a picture' is a bit patronising.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chosen as default
This is more likely to reflect poor handling of submitted imagery within Apple. They have a process for acquiring images (and recording who the image belongs to) but it clearly takes longer to actually sort out the details.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
-noun
1. a pretend artist
2. a delusional twit who thinks he/she actually created something original
3. that guy over there with a camera
4. Homer Simpson
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
McLuhan was correct
People can now see the results of their efforts instantly and learn to be better. There are squillions of good tutorials online for free. People can also learn from their peers on photosharing sites. The standard of amateur photography has increased massively in the last decade.
Sorry, pro photographers, but you've been found out and the gig is up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: McLuhan was correct
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: McLuhan was correct
To be honest, I'd rather take my own photos of wildlife here in my backyard. Here I can see genuinely wild animals and photograph them.
I can see things that look like dinosaurs:
http://freebornjohn.wordpress.com/2009/11/20/pic-443/
http://freebornjohn.wordpress.com /2008/10/31/pic-065/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: McLuhan was correct
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: McLuhan was correct
I can see feral animals:
http://freebornjohn.wordpress.com/2009/10/20/pic-411/
I can see animals that make me smile:
http://freebornjohn.wordpress.com/2008/08/11/pic-006/
http://freebornjohn.wordpress.com/200 8/11/27/pic-092/
I can see beautiful birds:
http://freebornjohn.wordpress.com/2009/08/20/pic-350/
http://freebornjohn.wordpress.com/200 8/10/28/pic-062/
I can see weird animals:
http://freebornjohn.wordpress.com/2009/03/24/pic-203/
And I can see some of the most deadly animals:
http://freebornjohn.wordpress.com/2008/09/11/pic-023/
And many of these photos were taken with a fixed-focus, no zoom, fully auto camera that came free with a batch of toner cartridges.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In the eye of the beholder
Your photos are not very good. It is quite common for a photographer to challenge themselves with constraints such as using an instant camera. They still take good photographs because they understand the equipment and have good composition.
I'm not just having a go. I have a reasonably good camera and have taken a few photos that I like (in addition to a large number of mediocre and poor ones). I recognise talent in other people's ability to take photographs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: McLuhan was correct
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Countryfile calendar
http://www.bbccountryfilemagazine.com/photographic-competition
All demonstrate patience, planning and foresight. Not one of this involved "snapping".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The death rattle of the buggy whip maker.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: McLuhan was correct
Also, the tutorials teach you the basics, just like a recipe teaches you how to bake cookies. But if you want to stand out, you have to stray from the recipe. This is where creativity comes in. You are either creative or you aren't as it is not a learned skill. Yes, you can learn some, but mostly you are born with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: McLuhan was correct
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: McLuhan was correct
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: McLuhan was correct
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: McLuhan was correct
what's your point you idiot? grow the f*** up! get a life and prove your point instead of putting others' talents down. so demeaning and ignorant to be taking this wanton careless attitude. your life must be miserable. sorry about that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: McLuhan was correct
I am not a professional photographer (not even close), but I know there's a difference between amateurs and professionals. Not all professional photography is art, but not all painting, sculpting, or pottery is art either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: McLuhan was correct
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just a Thought
The field of photography encompasses more than point and shoot digital cameras.
One of the more glaring and incorrect assumptions is that everyone is now a good photographer simply because they can afford a point and shoot digital camera. This is not the case at all.
Comparing similar formats, prints from a point and shoot are easily discernible from an 8x10 film camera. In addition, with a tilt and shift lense, the view camera is capable of producing pictures way beyond that of a point and shoot digital camera.
That aside, I think the comments should address the topic at hand rather than the capabilities or merit of cameras in general. I understand the resentment towards those who beat their chests and make threats, but they are the minority. It does not reflect well upon yourself when you make disparaging remarks towards stereotypical targets, although I'm sure you feel much better afterwards.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just a Thought
Exactly. Its like telling a chef his meals are good because he has good pots. The camera is only a tool, it is how you use it that makes the difference.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just a Thought
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Photography
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I also get emailed by private individuals who want to use one of my works on their personal website. Unless it's in a context with which I totally disagree I tend to allow it for free.
Another category is people who don't ask permission, that tends to annoy me especially if they don't link back.
Only on one occasion I've issued a takedown notice. Someone had copied one of my pics onto their flickr account and was presenting it as their own work. Tried to solve it via mail but no response whatsoever.
In this case, apple using it on many millions of devices, I think a decent fee would be in order. Apple can afford it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Isn't the point that the photograph is his property and it is his decision about rather to donate it or not.
Now maybe he sees this as his break and hopes to sell other photographs. But what happens if all his work is taken without compensation?
It is interesting that Apple's engineering talent is used to milk customers at every turn and that they expect to be paid very well while they disrespect others intellectual property.
Ronald J. Riley,
I am speaking only on my own behalf.
Affiliations:
President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow - www.PatentPolicy.org
President - Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 / (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 8 pm EST.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As A Matter Of Law, IP is Intellectual Property
Ronald J. Riley,
I am speaking only on my own behalf.
Affiliations:
President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow - www.PatentPolicy.org
President - Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 / (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 8 pm EST.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: As A Matter Of Law, IP is Intellectual Property
Then I suggest you start paying property tax based upon its gross (not net) worth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: As A Matter Of Law, IP is Intellectual Property
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's free publicity. And if you read the article, he was in talks with Apple about them using his photograph. It hadn't been signed yet, but clearly he hadn't shown disinterest in Apple using his creative work on their Ipads. Otherwise there wouldn't have been talks in the first place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As someone above pointed out the Digital camera has revolutionised photography. It has become so much easier to produce reasonable photos which undoubtebly has a massive effect upon the photography market.
It still takes a lot of time, skill and effort to produce brilliant photos (the kind that win competitions) but the general, run of the mill photography most used is no longer scarce at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The emergence of low-end, cheap, mass-scale digital stock photography has destroyed that market. Sure, some - perhaps much - of the stuff available isn't up to the old "professional standards." But some is - and even more important, much that isn't is "good enough." It's just about impossible to live off of stock photos any more. This is sad for the photographers - really, it is, some of them are real artists - but economics and reality don't change because something is sad. And it's certainly better for the larger economy: Anything that makes a product that's in demand cheaper frees up resources to do something else that's in demand. As with many such economic shifts, there's a broadly spread benefit that hardly anyone notices, and a sharp loss that really hits a small population hard. The hard-hit population will understandably be upset - but that's, sad to say, life. Even if you believe that society owes you "a living wage," it doesn't owe you an income for doing the particular thing you want to do.
As to Richard Misrach and his lack of angst over his non-agreement with Apple: A fundamental economic good is trust. Trust that the party you deal with won't try to rip you off. Trust that "we're in this together, we'll both profit if we work together." Our over-lawyered/over-legalized society loses sight of that sometimes, and it costs us dearly. The fact is, even today, most business is transacted informally, without anything written down - and certainly with no lawyers involved. Mainly, it all works well - and a damn good thing, since our economy would grind to a halt otherwise.
So ... kudos to Mr. Misrach for his willingness to trust. And here's hoping that Apple does the right thing to reward him. I believe they will - but if they don't, they should see their reputation badly stained.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As a side note, cheap and widely available digital cameras don't make good photographers. They make it more likely that people who will become good photographers have the means and opportunity to discover their talents and hone their skills, removing barriers to entry. Same thing happens with writers and the internet; not every blogger is worth reading by any stretch, but people who are good writers now have an easier time finding an audience and honing their skills (and eventually making money).
Remember when photography required costly rolls of film and you had to go to Costco or the drugstore and pay $10-$30 to get your pictures developed?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
In other words, before I bothered taking photos? Yeah, I remember that. :-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I personally wouldn't trust Apple very far, they are relentless and very tough negotiators. I can't help but think this guy won't like the end deal (unless he expects little, then he will be happy anyway).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As for Misrach, he'll likely be taken to the cleaners. We're talking about an incredibly wealthy company that expects the pic to help drive sales of its new product. That's worth significant money and he should be paid accordingly.
Claiming that "that this is good no matter what" and then to say "And the same thing is true of blogs, like the one we discussed above, whose sole purpose was to promote stock images and direct people back to the site to purchase the rights to those images," is contradictory and flies in the face of the experience of most who have tried working for exposure (pardon the pun). I've been a working writer for years. I've done some high profile work, and I can count on my fingers the number of times that someone has said, "I've seen what you can do and would like to talk to you about an assignment." For many reasons (how few members of an audience buy work and the tiny chance that the few people who might need work or rights coming across your stuff when they actually need something), exposure isn't a good form of marketing for solo photographers and writers. Will you find some annecdotal evidence to suggest that it does? Sure. But you wont' find anyone who can really make a living depending on that evidence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The worst thing you, as an artist, can have, is obscurity.
If you don't want anyone to showcase your work, even if they do it for free, then what do you expect the end result is?
What is better little to no sales, or a few extra sales through added exposure?
I know what I'd choose.
I would be thrilled if they'd take my Flickr pictures and mocked them in similar fashion. I could learn from it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
However, Apple has a tendency to take and use first, then worry about payoff's and permission later. (Apple records, Linksys Iphone, Mackintosh (the incredible audio hardware company, etc.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Remember...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike's article is pretty spot on though. I know a lot of photographers that covert their work and will charge people if anyone so much as looks at it. Personally, I give a lot of my stuff away for free and don't care. My mentality has always been "if you put it on the Internet, expect people to copy it". Which is why none of my commercial paid work goes on the net because someone has specifically paid for it.
If I was this dude in the article, I'd simply tell Apple, put a small watermark with of my name on the photo in the top right corner and have a nice day. Sometimes getting your name out there is a lot more valuable than the 100 bucks you'd get for a photo licence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
...but 25x25 pixels is OK...
While calling you guys idiots, sjlocke uses the Superman "S" as his signature picture. I guess less than 25x25 pixels is public domain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
-noun
1. a pretend artist
2. a delusional twit who thinks he/she actually created something original..."
A little bitter are you? We photographers don't come to your job and knock the dick out of your mouth soooo....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The masses aren't willing to spend $10,000 on a single lens. The amatuers can bottom feed all they like with thier medioce "pro-sumer" gear, but equipment costs alone ensure that the actual talent pool isn't contaminated with wannabes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Talent pool contamination - that's rich.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stock photos
Just send an email of what you want and I will send low res samples
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Arrogance
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Good for him!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]