Tallahassee Mayor Accused Of Being On AT&T's Payroll While Allegedly Diverting Federal Funds To AT&T Lobbying Group

Facebook Hosts 4% Of All Photos Ever Taken In History

from the the-tools-of-creation dept

Fri, Sep 23rd 2011 5:31pm — Mike Masnick

For all the talk of how content creation is going down the drain due to lax copyright enforcement, it seems that everywhere we look, we just keep seeing more and more and more content creation. The latest is a report that Facebook currently hosts 4% of all photos ever taken. Specifically, it hosts 140 billion photos out of 3.5 trillion photos taken in history. Now, obviously, technology change is at work here. Photography really only showed up for real about a century and a half ago, and didn't really hit the mainstream until less than a century ago. And, of course, for most of that time it involved (sometimes expensive) film and the expensive step of processing it. Photography has exploded over the last decade or so with the rise of digital cameras, and, of course, high quality digital cameras built into mobile phones.

But, really, that raises a bigger point: the tools of creation for all sorts of things have been changing rapidly and making it easier and cheaper to create content, whether it's a photograph, a song, a movie, a book or.. well... just about anything. We're being inundated with new creative works... at the same time we're being told that content creation is dying. Now, to be fair, much of the content production we're talking about is amateur production, but some of that is of fantastic quality, and is leading people into professional content creation roles. But, I guess this raises a separate question. What is the real purpose of copyright? Is it only to incentivize professional content creation, or to incentivize content creation overall? Given the stated purpose is to "promote the progress," and to provide the public with more content, I would argue the goal is to promote more overall content, and it seems that technology is doing a much better job of that than copyright.

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: creation, photos
Companies: facebook

93 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 23 Sep 2011 @ 5:32pm

FFB
Fuck Facebook
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 23 Sep 2011 @ 5:44pm
  
  Re: FFB
  facefuck!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 23 Sep 2011 @ 11:52pm
  
  Re: FFB
  I'd hit it
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Sep 2011 @ 5:34pm

All I can say Mike is that you go a very long way to make a very, very low end point, and one that is tenuous at best.

You do try so very hard to pile on the FUD, though :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 23 Sep 2011 @ 5:45pm
  
  Re:
  You do try so very hard to pile on the FUD, though :)
  
  no u
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 23 Sep 2011 @ 5:45pm
  
  Re:
  How is this FUD. His post is optimistic.
  
  Oh ... I get it ... it's FUD for IP maximists. Their extortion racket is crumbling right before their eyes and they're all riddles with fear, uncertainty, and doubt.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 23 Sep 2011 @ 5:51pm
    
    Re: Re:
    riddled *
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- abc gum, 23 Sep 2011 @ 6:31pm
  
  Re:
  Please be more specific as to how exactly this post was FUD.
  Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt ... which one or what combination of the three ... you get the idea.
  
  I'm not holding my breath.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 23 Sep 2011 @ 8:42pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Well, it sort of hovers on the "uncertainty" area.
    
    See, people have always taken their own pictures, and they have shared them with their friends. In the past, they would get "reprints" to give to people, or would host (often painful) slide shows at home. None of these people needed or required copyright to create content, because, well, they were not creating content. They were just taking pictures for fun.
    
    In modern times, people have cameras in their phones, and they take a million digital snaps of themselves. They don't need copyright to create content, because they still aren't creating content really - they are just taking pictures and sharing them with friends.
    
    What Mike tries to do is to mix the amateur snappers of the world in with professionals, and create confusions and doubt about the needs for copyright by saying "most of the images are shot by people who don't need copyright, so we don't need copyright". It's a bullshit attempt to prove something by including a larger, uninvolved group into the mix.
    
    Typical Mike Masnick bullshit.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The eejit (profile), 24 Sep 2011 @ 1:43am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      You mean like the $58trn dollars lost to infringement in a year caused by Limewire isn't FUD?
      
      Pull the other one, it's got parrots on it.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Richard (profile), 24 Sep 2011 @ 3:40am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      None of these people needed or required copyright to create content, because, well, they were not creating content.
      
      The patronising is strong in this one!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Richard (profile), 24 Sep 2011 @ 3:50am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      What Mike tries to do is to mix the amateur snappers of the world in with professionals, and create confusions and doubt about the needs for copyright by saying "most of the images are shot by people who don't need copyright, so we don't need copyright".
      
      Oh really. I just can't believe how insulting you are to ordinary people. YOu seem to have this idea that there is ome kind of magic quality divide between amateurs and professionals - well there isn't - there is a continuum. There used to be a quality divide between professional and amateur equipement but advancing technology has largely buried that one. The reality is that all professionals started life as amateurs and created their first (and often their breakthrough sometimes even their best) work as amateurs.
      
      You are just trying to perpetuate a patronising, outdated "us and them" situation. Well I've got news for you. That concept is as outdated as the old British class system.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 24 Sep 2011 @ 5:45am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Richard, it isn't insulting to ordinary people. It's the reality that "professionals" shoot stuff for magazines, and jane public seems mostly intent on taking duck-face pics for their Facebook profile.
        
        In technical terms, they are both "content", but the difference is clear.
        
        It isn't "us and them", but I give you credit for a nice deflection that ignores my main points. In the end, photos now are just like the music business: The tools got cheaper, more people can do it, but there is no indication that we got any more "good stuff", just more "stuff".
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Richard (profile), 24 Sep 2011 @ 6:29am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Richard, it isn't insulting to ordinary people.
        Oh no - well why follow with yet another insult to ordinary people!
        
        It's the reality that "professionals" shoot stuff for magazines, and jane public seems mostly intent on taking duck-face pics for their Facebook profile.
        
        and the magazines are read by exactly the same jane public.
        
        The tools got cheaper, more people can do it, but there is no indication that we got any more "good stuff", just more "stuff".
        
        Statistically it is likely that there is also more good stuff - not as a proportion but overall.
        (Plus once again you can't stop yourself making statements that insult ordinary people)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 24 Sep 2011 @ 6:45am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Touche Richard, you have managed to make the discussion about the least relevant part of my points. Score one for obstructionism and avoiding the facts.
        
        "Statistically it is likely that there is also more good stuff - not as a proportion but overall."
        
        Prove it. For my take, if there is any extra "good stuff", it is right up there with the monkey pictures shown on Techdirt a while back. Accidental, incidental stuff. Are you suggesting ordinary people are like an infinite number of monkeys? All that and you are up my ass about insulting ordinary people?
        
        Wow.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 24 Sep 2011 @ 7:51am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        " Score one for obstructionism and avoiding the facts."
        
        Wow, did you start posting facts? That's new...
        
        Oh wait, it's just your usual unfounded assumptions and pretending your own opinions are somehow unvarnished truth. All while pretending that the content people enjoy is somehow inferior to your glorious corporate masters if someone wasn't paid to create it.
        
        Water is wet, etc.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 24 Sep 2011 @ 6:46am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Touche Richard, you have managed to make the discussion about the least relevant part of my points. Score one for obstructionism and avoiding the facts.
        
        "Statistically it is likely that there is also more good stuff - not as a proportion but overall."
        
        Prove it. For my take, if there is any extra "good stuff", it is right up there with the monkey pictures shown on Techdirt a while back. Accidental, incidental stuff. Are you suggesting ordinary people are like an infinite number of monkeys? All that and you are up my ass about insulting ordinary people?
        
        Wow.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 24 Sep 2011 @ 6:47am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Touche Richard, you have managed to make the discussion about the least relevant part of my points. Score one for obstructionism and avoiding the facts.
        
        "Statistically it is likely that there is also more good stuff - not as a proportion but overall."
        
        Prove it. For my take, if there is any extra "good stuff", it is right up there with the monkey pictures shown on Techdirt a while back. Accidental, incidental stuff. Are you suggesting ordinary people are like an infinite number of monkeys? All that and you are up my ass about insulting ordinary people?
        
        Wow.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Richard (profile), 24 Sep 2011 @ 7:32am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Statistically it is likely that there is also more good stuff - not as a proportion but overall."
        
        Prove it.
        
        The standard assumption that I would make as a scientist is that if a set X contains a subset Y and I know that X has increased in size then Y is likely also to have increased in size. It's not a rigorous proof - but then I only said "likely".
        
        . For my take, if there is any extra "good stuff", it is right up there with the monkey pictures shown on Techdirt a while back. Accidental, incidental stuff.
        
        You on the other hand make a whole load of assumptions with no justification whatsoever - other than whatever fits your view of the world.
        
        you have managed to make the discussion about the least relevant part of my points.
        
        OK tell me what your "relevant" point was and I'll address it.
        
        btw your patronising attitude is confirmed by the way you address me - you sound like an HR manager.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 24 Sep 2011 @ 8:18am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "likely". Wow.
        
        You are right up there with Mike now in making assumptions and treating them as "near facts". Your supposition would only work if the proportions of photographers remained the same between personal snappers and professional image takers. Since we can't find any surge in professional photographers (actually, it is a dying field, it seems), there is little to support your Y. Plenty of X, no Y.
        
        Which one of my "assumptions" do you have a problem with? The assumption that most of the "new" images are duck face girl shots (or the equivilants)? Or that many of them are blurry cellphone camera shots taken in night clubs, parties, and in other locations? Prove me wrong, and try not use "likely" as your guide.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 24 Sep 2011 @ 8:44am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "The assumption that most of the "new" images are duck face girl shots (or the equivilants)?"
        
        A great many are not.
        
        "Or that many of them are blurry cellphone camera shots taken in night clubs, parties, and in other locations?"
        
        Many aren't and all of them have more personal resonance than any image made by a "pro" could ever have, except perhaps for wedding photos.
        
        One of your many failings is that you immediately assume that content created by people paid to do so are more important than content created by the unpaid. It's not.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 24 Sep 2011 @ 8:38pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Paul, quite simply: "prove it".
        
        Show me your numbers.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 26 Sep 2011 @ 4:11am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Prove what, exactly?
        
        That most pictures on Facebook aren't of "duck faced girls" (I've never seen one, so I'm not sure what you're blathering on about, and I've seen hundreds of pictures on there)? Or that pictures taken by people of events personal to them are more personally relevant than pictures that apparently wouldn't even be taken had an artificial monopoly not been created to profit from them (of course they are, dumbass)?
        
        You can't even make your own assertions clear, it seems.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Richard (profile), 24 Sep 2011 @ 9:36am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Your supposition would only work if the proportions of photographers remained the same between personal snappers and professional image takers.
        
        And your assumption only works if you equate "good" with "professional".
        
        It also only works if you equate the number of professionally taken images with the number of professional photographers - which is clearly untrue because new technology also enables professionals to take more images and also because many "professional images" are actually taken by people whose main profession is not photography.
        
        I have in front of me a pile of magazines stuffed full of photographs. Every one of those images is a professional image (since the photographers are paid) but none of the photographers are professionals.
        
        Which one of my "assumptions" do you have a problem with? The assumption that most of the "new" images are duck face girl shots (or the equivilants)?
        
        Yes - because your evidence for that is at best anecdotal - and is contradicted by my anecdotal evidence - which is that most of the new images are nature photography.
        
        In the absence of any hard evidence either way my statistical argument stands.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 24 Sep 2011 @ 8:53pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "And your assumption only works if you equate "good" with "professional". "
        
        Nope. It's a nice try to take my argument and turn it inside out on itself, but it's a failure. There is no question of good or bad, only a question of who is affected by copyright, and who chooses what they shoot as a result.
        
        My point is addressing this:
        
        "What is the real purpose of copyright? Is it only to incentivize professional content creation, or to incentivize content creation overall? Given the stated purpose is to "promote the progress," and to provide the public with more content, I would argue the goal is to promote more overall content, and it seems that technology is doing a much better job of that than copyright."
        
        Here is the rub. Mike Masnick is putting his thumb on the scale by including a significant number of people for who copyright is not an issue one way or the other.
        
        Yes, digital cameras changed things, because they allow the average person to shoot plenty of pictures without additional costs (unless they choose to print them). Their increase in shooting pictures has nothing to do with copyright one way or the other, the increase is only as a result of technoloty, and nothing else.
        
        Put another way, it wasn't copyright that was stopping them before, and it won't be stopping them in the future.
        
        So what Mike is doing is playing a game. Copyright (or the lack of) isn't even part of the decision by "joe q public" to shoot images of their personal lives, or whatever they happen to see. They shoot as many images as they can afford, and with the "infinite shooting" of a digital camera, they can shoot plenty without costs. But they aren't concerned about copyright at all.
        
        Mike likes to think of the proverbial "duck face girl" shot from Facebook as if we are being "inundated with new creative works". It's bullshit to the n-th degree to play that sort of game.
        
        There is no connection between copyright and the additional shooting, because copyright isn't an issue for the amateur, shoot for yourself shooter. So saying that a bunch more of this sort of product is proof that copyright is somehow unwanted or unneeded is just crap.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Richard (profile), 25 Sep 2011 @ 8:03am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        There is no question of good or bad, only a question of who is affected by copyright, and who chooses what they shoot as a result.
        
        Do we really need or want content tha was only produced for mercenary reasons because copyrgiht existed. Personally my answer to that is no.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Sep 2011 @ 9:26am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Again, failure on understanding.
        
        The point is Mike is attempting to take a huge amount of images shot by people for whom copyright isn't an issue (one way or the other), and tries to use it as a justification for getting rid of copyright.
        
        Content isn't only produced for mercenary reasons. Copyright is a system by which rights can be sold, allowing for the creation of images (in this case) to have a way to be sold, marketed, and used (for free if the artist so desires) in ways that are satisfactory to the artist.
        
        Copyright isn't a license to print money. It's a structure under which rights can be transferred, applied, sold, lent, or given away, with an understanding of what those rights mean.
        
        Mike logic is like saying "they opened a new beach, and there are now tons of kids making sand castles. So we no longer need construction workers or engineers to make houses, because we have plenty of new sand castles being built".
        
        It's stupid logic at it's finest. I am for the life of me trying to figure out why you are defending it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Sep 2011 @ 11:08am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Your straw man is made of sand it seems.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Richard (profile), 25 Sep 2011 @ 11:10am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Copyright is a system by which rights can be sold, allowing for the creation of images (in this case) to have a way to be sold, marketed,
        
        If that isn't mercenary reasons I don't know what is.
        
        The point is Mike is attempting to take a huge amount of images shot by people for whom copyright isn't an issue (one way or the other), and tries to use it as a justification for getting rid of copyright.
        
        Nice parody of the point - however the real underlying point is this. Art of any quality is never produced purely because of the incentives of copyright.
        
        However much art is enabled by technological advances and is produced as a result of those advances. Hence the explosion in writing when the printing press was invented, in music when equal tempered keyboards were devised, again when the technology of orchestral instruments improved and the piano were invented, again with the electric guitar, and again with the synthesizer and so on.
        
        Look for great bursts of creativity being unleashed when copyright was introduced or extemded and you will look in vain.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        abc gum, 25 Sep 2011 @ 11:23am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Mike is attempting to take a huge amount of images shot by people for whom copyright isn't an issue (one way or the other), and tries to use it as a justification for getting rid of copyright."
        
        Even after re-reading the post, I fail to see where this was said or even implied. I suppose everyone views reality through their own filters, but making up stuff that is clearly not there is dishonest at best.
        
        "Mike logic is like saying "they opened a new beach, and there are now tons of kids making sand castles. So we no longer need construction workers or engineers to make houses, because we have plenty of new sand castles being built""
        
        Horrible analogy is horrible. Where do you get this crap?
        
        "It's stupid logic at it's finest."
        
        Yes - your logic is stupid.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Karl (profile), 25 Sep 2011 @ 4:41pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The point is Mike is attempting to take a huge amount of images shot by people for whom copyright isn't an issue (one way or the other), and tries to use it as a justification for getting rid of copyright.
        
        There are at least two things wrong with this statement.
        
        1. Mike is not using it as justification for getting rid of copyright. He's saying that technology is more successful at promoting content creation than copyright is. That's not the same thing.
        
        2. You have absolutely no idea if "copyright isn't an issue" with Facebook photos. My guess is that most people on Facebook would not like it one bit if their "duck faced girl" photos were used in a Scion ad, for example.
        
        Content isn't only produced for mercenary reasons.
        
        ...and then every single thing you list afterwards is a mercenary reason. (Though I would have chosen the word "mercantile" myself.)
        
        Mike logic is like saying "they opened a new beach, and there are now tons of kids making sand castles. So we no longer need construction workers or engineers to make houses, because we have plenty of new sand castles being built".
        
        Except that under your analogy, copyright's sole purpose would be to incentivize the building of sand castles.
        
        Look, you may think the "duck faced girl" photos are terrible. But they have at least as much social utility as the Photoshopped pictures of supermodels that are used to hawk Maybelline to those same duck-faced girls.
        
        And more to the point, they are both equal under copyright law. Because copyright's sole purpose is to provide the public with works that have social utility, they are both the types of works that copyright is intended to incentivize. Otherwise Facebook photos shouldn't be covered under copyright law at all.
        
        So Mike's logic is entirely correct. I am for the life of me trying to figure out why you are attacking it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Richard (profile), 24 Sep 2011 @ 9:41am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The assumption that most of the "new" images are duck face girl shots (or the equivilants)?
        
        I do have some evidence for professional duckface girl shots however.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Anonymous Coward, 24 Sep 2011 @ 7:50am
        
        The Real Question?
        A certain amount of photography is always an accident. When I was young, I knew a bunch of Life Magazine photographers. For example, when they sent a photographer to a boxing match, they also sent two assistants and a bunch of cameras and lenses, and films. The photographer snapped and snapped and traded cameras for a different lens, for different film, because the current one was empty. The assistants reloaded as fast as they could. They would shoot as many rolls of film as they could, and then develop them all. Typically, from hundreds shot, only a few were used. I saw many, many contact sheets with red grease pencil markings on shots of interest.
        
        Don't get me wrong, that professional photographer had a lot of skills. That did not mean that a portion of their success wasn't due to timing, striven for, but possibly achieved by accident.
        
        Studio work is a different skill set. But when you work with live subjects, catching that expression, is again striven for, but possibly achieved by accident.
        
        So, the amateur gets lucky too, and produces something they are proud of, and posts it. Is their luck any different than the professionals?
        
        The real question here is, 'Is there a difference in copyright between professional work and amateur work"? There may be, with regard to money, but the constitution does not say anything about money. It does say something about 'promoting'. It doesn't say anything about professional vs amateur. It does say something about useful. Is the cover of a magazine more useful than the photo of my significant other making a fool of themselves (it could be compelling)? Only for the magazine owner. Not the photographer, because if their shot didn't make the cover, that might close the market for the picture (it also might not). But there is the crux. The utility of a picture, it's usefulness, is in the eye of the beholder. That beholder may or may not find economic value in the picture, but that doesn't change the rights granted by the creation of the photo.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Karl (profile), 25 Sep 2011 @ 5:07pm
        
        Re: The Real Question?
        The real question here is, 'Is there a difference in copyright between professional work and amateur work"? There may be, with regard to money, but the constitution does not say anything about money. It does say something about 'promoting'. It doesn't say anything about professional vs amateur. It does say something about useful. Is the cover of a magazine more useful than the photo of my significant other making a fool of themselves (it could be compelling)? Only for the magazine owner. [...] But there is the crux. The utility of a picture, it's usefulness, is in the eye of the beholder.
        
        This is exactly right, with one clarification: the "eye of the beholder" is the eye of the general public. Not those of photographers, magazine editors, etc.
        
        What the other A.C. is doing, is essentially the flip side of the argument that "record companies sell fewer records because they aren't as good." That's an invalid argument, because if they weren't as good, they wouldn't be downloaded as much either.
        
        Same in this case. If those "duck faced girl" photos didn't have social value, nobody would look at them, and nobody would take them. Their very popularity is what proves the other A.C. is wrong.
        
        Separately, he's saying all photos on Facebook are little better than "duck faced girl" photos. It's a hasty generalization, probably based on the "spotlight fallacy." And, of course, it's utterly elitist - which is ironic, since the hoi polloi are the ones that copyright is supposed to serve.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 24 Sep 2011 @ 2:54pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Please present an objective, measurable definition of "good" and then we can go from there.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        abc gum, 24 Sep 2011 @ 6:50am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "it isn't insulting to ordinary people"
        
        You seem a bit arrogant.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Dementia (profile), 24 Sep 2011 @ 4:14am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      You sir, are an idiot. Content is content regardless of who created it and what their status may be.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The Devil's Coachman (profile), 24 Sep 2011 @ 5:09am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Cranky again? Looks that way. Hey, there's kids on your lawn! Go!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - abc gum, 24 Sep 2011 @ 6:41am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "Well, it sort of hovers on the "uncertainty" area. "
      
      I am certain that it does not.
      
      "they were not creating content. They were just taking pictures for fun"
      
      I fail to make the distinction. Content is content, value is in the eye of the beholder - etc.
      
      "They don't need copyright"
      
      It is not a matter of need, they have a copyright upon the content they created. Do you have a problem with that?
      
      "What Mike tries to do is to mix the amateur snappers of the world in with professionals, and create confusions and doubt about the needs for copyright"
      
      Now you are simply being delusional.
      
      "most of the images are shot by people who don't need copyright, so we don't need copyright"
      
      You present this as if it were a quote of what Mike typed, I was unable to find it anywhere other than your post. I find that to be very lame.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Karl (profile), 24 Sep 2011 @ 5:22pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      None of these people needed or required copyright to create content, because, well, they were not creating content. [...] What Mike tries to do is to mix the amateur snappers of the world in with professionals, and create confusions and doubt about the needs for copyright
      
      So... let me get this straight:
      
      You believe that photos by "amateur snappers" are not "content," and should not be covered by copyright?
      
      That is the only possible way your argument could make any sense whatsoever.
      
      It would make sense if you were arguing that copyright should be "opt in" rather than "opt out," which I actually have no problem with. But if anyone else suggested that, I'm pretty sure you'd say it's "typical bullshit" from a slimy freetard who just wants to pirate stuff.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Karl (profile), 24 Sep 2011 @ 5:24pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "opt in" rather than "opt out,"
        
        Actually, I misspoke. I should have said "opt in" rather than "automatic." It is impossible to "opt out" of copyright (you can only grant a permissive copyright license).
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 26 Sep 2011 @ 8:24am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Granting your premise, the question becomes why are we expanding copyright to cover everything and anything ever created? If only professionals need it, why is everything being locked down? Why is there a larger push for harsher penalties on something that is becoming ubiquitous and impossible to avoid on a daily basis?
      
      Wouldn't it be so much easier if you had to apply for your copyright rather than applying a blanket copyright over everything? I mean only the professionals need it so it would easy enough for them to set up an automated process to do it.
      
      Then rather than worrying about whether or not every little thing is copyrighted and seeking permissions to use each single piece. We would all know and know to avoid using the copyrighted work and enhancing its cultural value and instead share things that are free and open allowing culture and shared experiences to flourish.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PaulT (profile), 24 Sep 2011 @ 4:25am
  
  Re:
  "All I can say Mike is that you go a very long way to make a very, very low end point, and one that is tenuous at best."
  
  Have you been giving him lessons?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
fb39ca4 (profile), 23 Sep 2011 @ 5:38pm

What I want to know is...
How did the journalist come up with the 3.5 trillion photos ever taken? It isn't that easy to measure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Aaron Von Gauss (profile), 23 Sep 2011 @ 5:45pm
  
  Re: What I want to know is...
  I agree, whenever I read a statement claiming some unsubstantiated number such as 3.5 trillion photos taken by human beings I stop reading the article because there is absolutely no way they can know that.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Gracey (profile), 24 Sep 2011 @ 4:15am
  
  Re: What I want to know is...
  I also agree with that. It's a figure that's actually not going to be accurate. Take into account the thousands of photographers who processed their own film in their own darkrooms (pre-digital days) and never published them for all the world to see.
  
  Or in the early digital days even, where not everyone in the world bothered to print or publish on the net.
  
  A photo is a photo, whether snapped by a monkey, a kid, an amateur/hobbyist or a professional photographer.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Sep 2011 @ 5:42pm

The rest of the photos are still under copyright and we'll likely never get to see them again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Sep 2011 @ 5:49pm

it seems that technology is doing a much better job of that than copyright.

duh, that's because promoting/incentivization was never the goal of copyright no matter what the shills butter it up with, they just use the whole "protecting artists/morals" bullshit to get people to get all sentimental and sign up

it was pretty much just a tool for cenorship, monopolization & control and it still is to this day, that's never going to change

what can change is the world by giving itself some ex-lax and disposing of the nasty black tsunami that is copyright
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 23 Sep 2011 @ 5:51pm
  
  Re:
  to get people to get all sentimental and sign up
  
  & to convince people that they can't live without it, that the world would end the moment it was removed
  
  sad that so many have fallen for the old "salesman tactic"
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
ike, 23 Sep 2011 @ 5:57pm

Funny numbers.
So 1 in 350,000 pictures ever taken was taken by me? That does not seem likely, considering I only took photos at ten events. And that was over 6 years ago, before everyone had a camera phone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- ike, 23 Sep 2011 @ 6:01pm
  
  Re: Funny numbers.
  And I can't type. That should be 1 in 350,000,000. Still an awfully large chunk, considering I know some who take in one weekend as many pictures as I have ever taken.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - freak (profile), 23 Sep 2011 @ 8:46pm
    
    Re: Re: Funny numbers.
    You took, literally, a million photos?
    
    (And using the word literally correctly, for once :P)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
out_of_the_blue, 23 Sep 2011 @ 6:23pm

Pressing a button on a digital camera is easy...
And because it's easy, the resulting image will be nearly worthless, no effort taken to compose or select. You're impressed by sheer numbers, Mike. -- Yeah, yeah, many good images result, but if so many people had carried film cameras, they'd have gotten good shots too. Again, that's sheerly numbers: I don't agree that the new "content" Mike mentions is worthwhile.

I say quality of anything goes down with quantity. Just look here where clowns nip in with ad hom one-liners to merely contradict. Takes no effort to post a cliche, nor is it "real" or effective, it's just noise.

Seems to me that all of society is coming to resemble a movie set, just facades, enough to fool the eye from one angle, empty behind.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- abc gum, 23 Sep 2011 @ 6:39pm
  
  Re: Pressing a button on a digital camera is easy...
  Kinda missed the point there huh.
  
  "the resulting image will be nearly worthless,"
  
  Does it matter whether the pix are worthless? Self portraits taken via a cell phone and mirror .... so what.
  
  "if so many people had carried film cameras, they'd have gotten good shots too"
  
  Film vs digital photos ... you obviously do not know what you are talking about.
  
  "I say quality of anything goes down with quantity."
  
  Any real data to back this up?
  
  "Just look here where clowns nip in with ad hom one-liners to merely contradict. Takes no effort to post a cliche, nor is it "real" or effective, it's just noise. "
  
  That is proof right there, by golly. I'm convinced - not.
  
  "Seems to me that all of society is coming to resemble a movie set, just facades, enough to fool the eye from one angle, empty behind."
  
  Nothing new there - it's been that way for some time. Welcome stranger.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Atkray (profile), 23 Sep 2011 @ 9:47pm
  
  Re: Pressing a button on a digital camera is easy...
  Welcome back blue,
  
  FYI Someone has been using your account and actually reading before posting.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Richard (profile), 24 Sep 2011 @ 3:56am
  
  Re: Pressing a button on a digital camera is easy...
  I say quality of anything goes down with quantity.
  
  And I say you are eliding toegether several different concepts in an incorrect way in order to make an erroneous point.
  
  The truth is that when overall quantity goes up the quantity of good stuff also goes up - but rather slower - so the average quality goes down a bit.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PaulT (profile), 24 Sep 2011 @ 4:32am
  
  Re: Pressing a button on a digital camera is easy...
  Yeah, we should ban personal cameras because professionals have to make a living! Or something...
  
  I'll take my photo of me with John Landis or my photo of my niece and nephew over anything a so-called "pro" can take, thanks very much.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 24 Sep 2011 @ 8:59pm
  
  Re: Pressing a button on a digital camera is easy...
  Congrats, you got it right.
  
  Mike seems often to confuse quantity and quality, confusing huge increases in amateur production of images, music, movies, whatever with actual increases in content anyone really wants.
  
  We could have 10,000 Sita Sings The Blues for the price of a single Avatar, but I know which ones people would want to see.
  
  A diamond is a diamond, a ton of dirt is a ton of sirt. Doubling the amount of dirt still doesn't get you any more diamonds, just more dirt. If you are measuring "total tonnage", perhaps we have had progress. But in meaningful terms, we still have only one diamond.
  
  An near infinite number of monkeys mostly produce a lot of monkey shit. It's the nature of the game. Mike apparently likes monkey shit.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - abc gum, 25 Sep 2011 @ 7:57am
    
    Re: Re: Pressing a button on a digital camera is easy...
    And your point was?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ben, 25 Sep 2011 @ 10:42am
  
  Re: Pressing a button on a digital camera is easy...
  To out_of_the_blue: I must say I actually agree with you here. Increasing quantity generally does lower overall average quality. The Russians under Stalin can attest to that. But that being said it doesn't necessarily make it bad to have that quantity. Here we have it because access to cameras is so easy, many people can have visual records of many events, even if poorly done. They can also practice their form cheaply which is nice. There will be those who do not care to improve but we can safely ignore them.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Andrew (profile), 23 Sep 2011 @ 7:36pm

This is a really interesting point, and one that I hadn't considered until now. There's certainly a huge deluge of new content being produced, the vast majority of it by amateurs. But nearly all of this content (the Facebook photos, Twitter updates, YouTube videos) operates in the attention economy, not the cash economy, and I can't see how copyright could increase the value in that space:* in the attention economy, infinite goods become more valuable the further they spread, because this distribution is of itself payment.

So, while the purpose of copyright should be to "promote the progress" by providing more content overall, I'd argue it can't extend beyond the (semi-)professional sphere because the idea of restricting distribution of infinite goods is antithetical to content in the attention economy.

I think.

* Though there are plenty of reasons why it could decrease it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Richard (profile), 24 Sep 2011 @ 6:33am
  
  Re:
  But nearly all of this content (the Facebook photos, Twitter updates, YouTube videos) operates in the attention economy,
  Like commercial television, commercial radio the bulk of professional sport (via sponsorship) etc etc
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Andrew (profile), 24 Sep 2011 @ 8:44am
    
    Re: Re:
    Yeah, this goes back to the overlap between the attention and cash economies, as Mike discussed here a few years ago. I think the distinction is that those outlets are trading viewers' eyes for money and therefore would probably be harmed by, for example, someone replacing all of a sponsor's adverts with their own in a broadcast. Of course there are YouTube videos (etc.) that are manifestly in the cash economy too, and the same monopoly rights given by copyright can benefit them as well, but for most people I don't believe copyright helps. Be interested to know what you think.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Andrew (profile), 24 Sep 2011 @ 8:47am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Sorry, there was supposed to be a link in there to Mike's previous post.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- abc gum, 24 Sep 2011 @ 7:02am
  
  Re:
  "I'd argue it can't extend beyond the (semi-)professional sphere"
  
  Are you suggesting that only "professionals" should be afforded copyright upon the content they create? That is messed up and certainly would not stand in a court of law.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Andrew (profile), 24 Sep 2011 @ 8:18am
    
    Re: Re:
    No, I'm not arguing that 'professionals' should be the only ones accorded copyright. If we did that, we'd end up trying to create dubious (and rather arbitrary) distinctions between professionals and amateurs, much as we've seen in some of the stories here where someone tries to give professional journalists special privileges.
    
    What I'm suggesting is that, for most people, copyright is not necessary - and can be deleterious - in providing an incentive for producing new content. They take the time to post pictures on Facebook in exchange for attention, not with any expectation of remuneration.
    
    One possible solution would be to move back to a model where copyrights have to be registered. Then people could self select: those who believe their work has commercial value will do it, those who don't, won't. Though I can see problems with that too (giant databases, integrating with sites and services, etc.).
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - abc gum, 24 Sep 2011 @ 10:49am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "One possible solution would be to move back to a model where copyrights have to be registered."
      
      And if a work is not registered then anyone else is free to use it as they please. This potentially, could be a bonanza for publishers and disastrous for professional photographers. Sounds like a land grab to me. I recall an attempt to claim copyright upon all user contributions to a particular social network, don't remember which one - what ever happened to that?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Andrew (profile), 26 Sep 2011 @ 2:48pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        My reply seems to have been eaten by the comment system. Trying again without the link...
        
        There would certainly be potential for publishers to exploit ('exploit'?) others' content, but I'm not convinced it would happen very often. If I want to get a picture for a book cover or a website I'm much more likely to head to iStock (or pay a photographer if the project requires it) than to go trawling through Flickr, sxc.hu et al. on the off chance they have a suitable photo I can use for free - because my time's worth something here too and I'm prepared to pay for the convenience of getting what I want quickly. I'm sure there would be occasions where it would happen, much as people's snapshots sometimes make it onto the front page of newspapers, but most of the time it doesn't.
        
        Professional photographers wouldn't be affected by this as they would presumably register copyright on their photos.
        
        A halfway house may be to stick everything under a CC BY-NC licence (or something) by default, though then you'd run into the problems discussed by Nina Paley on her blog (title: Paley & Doctorow argue over Non-Commercial licenses).
        
        Another question is whether this exploitation / 'exploitation' would really matter. Copyright is supposed to be about promoting the progress, not censorship. It may be weird to have your photo unexpectedly gracing the front of a book, but has it really cost you anything?* Has it cost society anything? I'd argue that for nearly every photo taken the chances of them being picked up and used is pretty much zero, so you wouldn't have lost out by being on that book cover.** Society has gained a new book with a cool cover and, who knows, maybe you can sell some t-shirts off the back of it. :)
        
        Thanks for the conversation about this - it's forcing me to think through the ideas more and see if it still holds up...
        
        * Yeah, sure there are privacy / publicity rights issues here too, but that's separate from copyright.
        
        ** I know you've lost out on being paid for use of the photo, but the prospect of such a payment didn't incentivise the creation of the photo and nor is it likely to encourage you, as an amateur / occasional photographer, to take more pictures in the future. Furthermore, had it not been picked up by the publisher, it would have languished on Flickr with hundreds of others in your account.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Sep 2011 @ 8:12pm

'content' creation
In light of digital cameras in the hands of pretty much everyone these days, Sturgeon's law needs amended to apply to those 3.5 trillion photos. It's now 99.999%.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Sep 2011 @ 8:20pm

Well it seems we have successfully debunked the claim that copyright hampers creativity. After all, look at all this new creativity developed in one of the harshest copyright climates ever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- abc gum, 24 Sep 2011 @ 7:04am
  
  Re:
  "Well it seems we have successfully debunked the claim that copyright hampers creativity. After all, look at all this new creativity developed in one of the harshest copyright climates ever."
  
  Logic fail
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Michael, 23 Sep 2011 @ 9:30pm

Also...
Facebook hosts 80% of all duckface pictures...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Devil's Coachman (profile), 24 Sep 2011 @ 5:15am

It's Saturday morning
At least here in the Eastern Time Zone. And none of us have anything better to do than sit here and "debate" copyright, etc? Pretty lame, people! Pretty lame!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PaulT (profile), 24 Sep 2011 @ 5:49am
  
  Re: It's Saturday morning
  Lucky not all of us are in that time zone, huh? Here, it's nearly 3pm and I'm sitting on the beach sipping a beer, but hell it's Saturday :)
  
  I'll hope you don't start making comments about how I apparently have nothing better to do on the beach than browse the internet though, it's embarrassing :S
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Sep 2011 @ 5:47am

People throw around some numbers but they do not have a clear understanding of what values one would expect from some simple calculations:
- one picture a second for a year => some 32 millions a year
- for 80 years of life you live some 30 thousand days or a bit more than 2400 months
- 200 pictures a day to documents your life => less than 6 millions pics
- I have some 40 thousands pictures, if I were to watch my set for 6 seconds a piece it will take me almost 3 days of non stop viewing
Mind you, probably less than 1% are truly worth watching...

What are you numbers?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 24 Sep 2011 @ 3:24pm
  
  Re:
  Well, 80 years is 29220 days, or 960 months. 2400 months puts you at 200 years. Oops.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 24 Sep 2011 @ 4:17pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Just a test to see if you are paying attention :)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Sep 2011 @ 8:26am

All of history?
In all of history, you say? Surely not if you count the Middle Ages? Those serfs were mean photographers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
iBelieve, 24 Sep 2011 @ 9:49am

Off Topic_Whale Shark
I have no doubt that my government will back me up on this. I declare an ALL OUT GLOBAL WAR Against: Any naytion that allows its citizens to hunt , kill the Gentle Giant Whale Shark or destroy the habitat including willfully polluting or acidifying the plankton populations globally. Asian markets who sell trade in shark fins of the creatures will be utterly destroyed. Be Warned.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- abc gum, 24 Sep 2011 @ 10:52am
  
  Re: Off Topic_Whale Shark
  Put down the pipe and step away from the table.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Salah, 24 Sep 2011 @ 10:09am

people runing away from FB
Well I see a lot of people start hating Faceboob and they are
all going to google plus, but some of them are addicted to
facebook apps and games
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Sep 2011 @ 1:20pm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_entropy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Sep 2011 @ 7:20am

Nobody knows how much photos were taken in history.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 25 Sep 2011 @ 10:21pm
  
  Re:
  Exactly. I take 10+ pictures a day. They're mostly all private, would never upload any to facebook. Is there a census for pictures that I'm not aware of? It's nice to make up numbers, ask the MAFIAA.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Sep 2011 @ 8:34am

real photos or just trash?
I think the real question is.. do these photos really have a value?
I bet 90% of them are myspace camwhoring-attentionwhoring type photos.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PaulT (profile), 26 Sep 2011 @ 9:02am
  
  Re: real photos or just trash?
  Define "real". Define "value".
  
  For example, in a weeks I'll be visiting the US for my first ever trip to New York. While there, I'll almost certainly take numerous photos that will end up on Facebook.
  
  Are these photos going to compete with the new edition of Lonely Planet? Of course not. However, they will be far more valuable than those generic pictures both to myself and my friends on Facebook. Nobody's going to get rich from them, but they're going to be more valuable than any "professional" photos ever could be, at least among their intended audience.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Sep 2011 @ 9:02am

"3.5 trillion photos taken in history"

Really ? nice number!

who did the count? grandpa on Jack Daniels?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 26 Sep 2011 @ 9:12am
  
  Re:
  movie frames included?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Sep 2011 @ 10:32am

Better late than never
(In the US) Copyright is not a privilege of a select few elite but of all who create content. The intent, under the initial terms, was clearly to give a tool for any who create a new expression a small temporal monopoly in exchange for making knowledge of that expression public so that it could thus enrich the culture and fertilize future ideas.

However these equitable terms are not the ones we currently operate under; which is why they do not fulfill their job for either the elite who regularly wield this as their sword to rob the masses, nor those who are unable to lift the heavy blade to protect their modest expressions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gary, 26 Sep 2011 @ 2:03pm

Purpose of copyright
In the United States, the purpose of copyright is "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." It's in the Constitution.

It's not for guaranteeing an income stream to great grandchildren of authors nor anything else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Crosbie Fitch (profile), 27 Sep 2011 @ 9:47am
  
  Re: Purpose of copyright
  The Constitution neither mentions copyright, nor specifies that the privilege should be granted. It only says that Congress shall have power to secure to authors the exclusive right to their writings.
  
  That this clause empowers Congress to grant the privilege of copyright (viz the Statute of Anne) is simply indoctrination. It's mere mantra - falsehood as if fact.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Sep 2011 @ 8:34pm

Accurate, but you need scanning to get the rest
The 3.5 trillion figure is indeed accurate. Lots of scanning companies are thriving because there are so many old, good prints that need digitizing. http://gophoto.com is the best scanning company. Extremely easy process.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Strawbear (profile), 27 Sep 2011 @ 5:29am

Only the pictures of busty pretty ladies are looked at tho.

Same as it ever was.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]