Australian Artists Upset That Australian Tourism Campaign Crowdsourced Images
from the overreact-much? dept
Reader mick writes in to alert us to a group of photographers in Australia who seem absolutely livid that the government's latest toursim campaign sought to crowdsource photographs that could be used as part of the campaign. To me, that seems like a perfectly reasonable idea -- in fact, a good idea in engaging people and getting them to take part in the campaign. But the problem comes from the fact that Tourism Australia asked people to let it use the photographs for free. That's when a bunch of groups went ballistic:The National Association for the Visual Arts, the Australian Copyright Council and the Arts Law Centre of Australia are protesting the conditions.Let me get this straight. Even though the whole thing is completely optional, and photographers, who don't like the terms, have every right to just not participate, they're pissed off that others can participate -- of their own free will -- by letting the Tourism campaign use their photographs freely. If the photographers don't mind the terms, why should others? The reality is that these groups are trying to stomp out amateur competition. This whole hissy fit is about limiting the market to professionals, and keeping the amateurs out.
They are demanding the agency relicense any photographs used in the campaign to pay royalties to the artists.
Arts Law Centre of Australia chief executive Robyn Ayres says the copyright rules set a "worrying precedent".Of course the creative industries play a huge role in the economy and culture. But what does that have to do with willing participants letting the Tourism campaign use their images for free of their own free will?
"The creative industries play a huge role in our economy and our culture," she said in a statement.
"Refusing to license these photographic works in an appropriate way sends a message that it (government) does not value creative work in the same way as it values other economic assets."No, it shows that the Tourism group realizes that some people are more than willing to contribute their works for free for reasons other than direct payment.
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, australia, crowdsourcing, free, royalties, tourism
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think
https://www.visualarts.net.au/shop/memberships
And
http://www.artslaw.com.au/Subscriptions/
Australian Copyright Council looks like your typical over funded government promotional agency.
So yes they are whining about the loss of their cut.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Its just that time
Result also being that if no one needed a master writer, and could do it themselves to save a penny, it would be lower quality work, but it would still work, and did, except for exceptional situations where you would need a master.
I think this goes for photographers too, its getting so easy to take or find cheap good photo's to use, hiring a photographer would just be a waste of money, but there will always be a place for the professional for those who could pay.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Refusing to understand that people create art and science for the sake of the creation of art and science sends the message that you are only in ohotography for a monetary gain. This shows that you do not value art for arts sake.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
a joke
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Print Unions
(The ones that were broken by one R. Murdoch.)
They used to insist that no-one outside the union could operate a keyboard that was in any way connected to the typesetting system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Your son was born with patented DNA code you must get rid of it or pay up LoL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Like anyone actually needs professional photographers anymore
Bloodsucking leeches, the lot of them. Boycott all photographers for a few months or years, and see who's left whining. Sorry, you prats, but you'll never win this one unless you have a whole lot of money to pay off a large number of politicos. Go take your infantile crying elsewhere, like maybe your local pub, where they will doubtless pummel you insensate, leaving you face down in your own water and vomit. Prats!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Like anyone actually needs professional photographers anymore
but what's a "prat"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"If bittorrent was used only for creative commons music, creative commons films, self published books, and linux distros, no one (including the entertainment industries) would give a shit. "
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100430/1218009261.shtml
Except this is false, their intent is exactly to stop ALL competition, including CC competition and any other competition that competes with them. They don't want competition, PERIOD, they want their unearned monopoly rents so they can make more money and competition takes away from their profits. and outside the Internet they have pretty much managed to ensure that almost everything is only available at monopoly prices (ie: is copyright under a non CC license and is distributed via monopolized distribution channels).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's all about monopoly
A.C. is exactly right.
The IP lobby shapes all conversations about creator's rights to obscure the fact that their real motive is monopoly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Really, if you were a truly a talented photographer then you should be confident that your photos can run rings around amateur photos and one look from a potential client is enough for them to realise why they would want to pay your fee.
If not, you've got some re-evaluating to do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Basically, the protest amounts to "Buh-buh-but we want to still be able to price-fix and collude! And we can't do that anymore if just anyone can take photos and give them away! At least business and government used to abide by the unwritten rules and source only from us 'professionals' at 'professional' prices, but now you've gone and broken that unwritten rule! We can't charge whatever we want to anymore! WAAAAAH! WAAAAAH! Mommy, I'm scared, I don't know how to make an honest living, please make the big bad competition go away! WAAAAAHAAHAHAHAHH!"
The appropriate answer to which is simple: "Tough."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: same with graphic design
A logo should cost $5000 minimum, anything that devalues that and gives opportunity to college students or people outside of the USA is immoral.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: same with graphic design
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.logodesignlove.com/spec-watch/comment-page-1#comment-13492
"For those of you who think these are designer exploitation sites, then don’t use them. No one is forcing you to. Those who use them use them as an act of their own free will, who are you to tell others what’s in their best interest for them or that they shouldn’t be allowed to design for these sites or that these sites shouldn’t exist. If you don’t like the competition, tough, that’s free market capitalism and competition shouldn’t be eliminated just because you can’t compete. As far as guaranteed revenue, in no business is revenue ever guaranteed and it’s certainly not the governments job to eliminate (or even to reduce) risk. All businesses have risk."
...
"Oh, and another thing (if any of my comments even make it through, I wonder) is that it’s amazing how you people argue that you won’t argue the morality of the issue but then you turn around and do just that. If you aren’t arguing the morality of the issue then what’s the problem? When you say something like, “This is hardly fair” isn’t the implication that unfairness is immoral and that things should be fair? Well, A: It’s not a fair world and B: I would say that the Internet and the way things are currently done on the Internet (including these crowdsourcing sites) is more fair than things were in a long time, because the playing field is more level than things were in a long time. The Internet levels the playing field, I know incumbents who have managed to unfairly monopolize everything outside the Internet absolutely hate that, but a level playing field is more fair than a government regulated unlevel playing field. Who are you to decide what’s fair? What, because anyone can now compete with you it’s not fair? Hardly."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]