This is not the photograph of doom. But it
is a photograph. And it is 'of doom'.
Earlier this year I got an email, out of the blue, from a man who we are going to call Dick. Dick was a professional photographer, and he was unhappy. Apparently I had, in this very blog, included a link to an online image that, technically, belonged to him. I had used the photo to illustrate some hilarious point I was making about badgers, and had not credited him, nor sought his permission. I hadn't known it was his - there was no credit on the photo whatsoever, so I couldn't have contacted him if I wanted to - but the fact remains that this was his work. Fair enough, really - this man made his living by selling photos, and there was me using one without his say so. He made me aware of the damage that could be done to his reputation, not to mention his livelihood, if his rights as an artist were not respected.
I fired off a reply, apologising for my unwitting use of the image, and I immediately removed the offending link. I sought out the going rate for using the image and, even though I make no money from this blog whatsoever, offered to pay him for having used the photo, rounding the amount up a little by way of an apology. I also offered to put a link to his website up here on Pancakes for Davros, so that he might benefit from the enormous customer base that comes to look at my entertaining thoughts on Doctor Who and kittens.
A photo I took. Do not copy it. Unless you want to.
In which case, do.
In response, Dick acted like a total... well, dick. He refused to accept my attempts at reparation and demanded I pay him over 8 times the asking price for the photo. This, I thought, was a little unreasonable. I'd taken the image down, offered to pay, said I was sorry. I explained to Dick that I respected the rights of the artist, but had been unaware that I was doing anything wrong. Now, part of this was my own ignorance. I had believed, as most people seem to, that images on the internet are fine to re-use in a non profit making capacity. A quick scoot around some copyright law sites made me aware that I was completely wrong about this. Oops. Lesson learned. Move on?
No. Ignorance was no defence, not to this guy. His protestations of artistic integrity melted away pretty quickly, leaving a clear and unambiguous desire for money. I tried to reason with him - asking why the amount was so high, pointing out that I couldn't have credited him if I'd wanted to, assuring him that I now had a better idea of copyright and would certainly not make the same mistake again. In response came a long, nasty, legal sounding letter, threatening all manner of retribution, giving me seven days to pay up.
Did I take this photo? Or willingly steal it, to
annoy someone? Only Jesus knows.
In retrospect, his demands were ludicrous. At the time, however, it all seemed very unpleasant and upsetting. I went into the weekend in a foul mood, annoyed with myself for my poor understanding of copyright, angry with this photographer for being so unreasonable, upset at the prospect of losing a good deal of money.
Two things helped.
As always, one of them was Caroline's idea. She was well aware that I wasted much of my time arguing online with other Doctor Who fans on the internet forum 'Gallifrey Base'. Often she would call upstairs to ask why I was shouting 'Cock brain!' at the office computer, or have to sit through a thrilling account of how I had angered someone I had never met with my theories on how the TARDIS worked. She wondered if I might avail myself of the massive diversity among the online Doctor Who community to shed some light on my problem. Surely some of these obsessive science fiction fans were also photographers, who may have a strong opinion on the morality of the case, or solicitors, who may help me understand copyright law?
Online I went, grumbling that it definitely wouldn't work and what did she know about Doctor Who or the internet or anything. I posted a quick description of my situation, asking if anyone had any advice. In particular, I wondered if any photographers sympathised with Dick, and thought I should just pay up. I resolved that, if the general tenor of the response was one of disapproval for my accidental infringement, I would swallow my pride, pay Dick his stupid fee and chalk it up to experience.
Copyright Rob 2012. Oh yes.
There are around 64,000 members of Gallifrey Base, from all over the world. A lot of our time is spent getting into petty arguments about Doctor Who trivia. We certainly disagree about what we like, and will put a lot of energy into fighting for what we consider to be 'proper' Doctor Who. Our ability to disagree goes beyond mere television however; we are just as likely to attack each other over politics, sexuality or grammar as we are over the correct dating of 'Terror of the Autons'. The community is one I find both immensely frustrating and wonderfully interesting, often at the same time. What would they make of my conundrum?
Many, many people responded to my story. Solicitors, artists, photographers, lecturers in law and people who just had an opinion. People I'd never met and didn't really know, in the conventional sense. A discussion blossomed, drawing on a wealth of case histories, personal experience and some strongly felt moral arguments. The conversation, of which I was only one small part, was courteous, intelligent and fascinating. Most of all, it was good hearted. Even those who questioned the rightness of my actions did it with compassion, understanding and a desire to find a fair way through.
Some people went as far as putting me in touch with advice groups, or used their legal expertise to draft replies to Dick's demands. Some found useful examples of precedent and summarised them for my benefit. It changed my weekend from being one of despondency and gloom to one of feeling included, cared about and supported.
The conclusion we came to was simple. Dick was probably right to criticise me for using his image, and had every right to ask me to take it down. But by asking for a ton of extra money he had stepped out onto shaky ground, both morally and legally. I sent him a reply, refuting some of his wilder claims (claims which, when I'd calmed down, I realised were bonkers scaremongering and had no basis in anything sensible or legal) and restating my willingness to pay him the standard rate. Dick never got back to me.
The moon surface, yesterday. Photographed by me.
I don't know if Dick realised the massive collective effort that went into my reply or not. Perhaps he's reading this now, searching hopefully for further naughty uses of his work, so as to make a little more money. If so, hello there Dick. Hope the business is going well. You'll notice I've taken down any photos from my blog that aren't allowed by copyright law, so well done - you made a difference for artists everywhere. I'm not being sarcastic - I really have learned something.
Maybe you could learn something too. If you hadn't been such a prick in our initial exchanges, you could have had a bit of money for your work, without any stress or argument. You could have retained my respect for your work, and for you as a person. I understand it must be frustrating, living in an age where your work is so easily copied, but maybe next time, try to be a little friendlier. Copyright law is complicated, and lots of people don't really understand it. Maybe, rather than seeing that as a chance to make money from non-profit making bloggers, you could see it as an opportunity to educate people. Most of the time, we're not trying to rip anyone off, we're just trying to be creative, like you.
And if you are one of the people from Gallifrey Base who took the time and effort to lend support, expertise and ideas when I was feeling low and confused - thank you. It's good to be part of a community that can disagree, debate and fight over the smallest things, but pulls together when it matters. You made a huge difference.
Anyway. That was one of the best and worst weekends of 2012. And hopefully we've all learned something about art, community, copyright and how not to be a prick. See you next time, for... I don't know. Probably a review of a biscuit I ate or something.
(Oh yeah. I said there were two things that helped, didn't I? Well... I'll get round to that later. It's not that exciting.)
(or is it..?)
By using the word copyright which I came up with and have copyright on you have knowir or not breached my. .... Well you know! Subsequently you owe me your soul
ReplyDeletePlease provide evidence of your invention of the above word meaning ownership of copy.
ReplyDelete