
So Your Company Has Been Found Using Alex’s Photographs Without Permission - dsr_
http://www.myrmecos.net/2015/03/28/faq-so-your-company-has-been-found-using-alexs-photographs-without-permission-what-next/
======
jakejake
I can feel in this post the years of dealing with people nicely, only to have
them treat you as if you are the bad guy.

I've had people send nasty emails after I moved or got rid of an image that
they were hotlinking. People have called me all sorts of ugly names because a
free app that I wrote didn't have a feature they need. People have posted
nasty stuff because I didn't provide them phone support at 3am for a GPL open
source utility that I released. All this because I can't always manage to
reply to people needing support for my free-time projects. I'm sure a lot of
you here have known the same type of treatment.

~~~
toomuchtodo
> People have posted nasty stuff because I didn't provide them phone support
> at 3am for a GPL open source utility that I released.

WHAT!?

~~~
patmcguire
See
[https://github.com/mackyle/sqlite/blob/3cf493d4018042c70a4db...](https://github.com/mackyle/sqlite/blob/3cf493d4018042c70a4db733dd38f96896cd825f/src/os.h#L52)

~~~
mikeryan
Just spent 5 minutes wandering through the sqlite source remembering how
pretty it is.

------
wlesieutre
Alex Wild's copyright infringement story on Ars Technica a few months ago
provides some helpful context to the linked page.

[http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/09/one-mans-
endless-...](http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/09/one-mans-endless-
hopeless-struggle-to-protect-his-copyrighted-images/)

~~~
mherdeg
While his article talks about "commercial infringement", his FAQ doesn't say
that he's restricting his suits to people who are using his work commercially,
which is really interesting. In principle he could be suing a lot of people,
which is great for him and a great way to subsidize an unusual and interesting
creative endeavor.

I assume that Wild has registered copyright on all his works so that his firm
can sue for statutory damages (easy) rather than actual damages (harder to
prove).

Suppose Wild is reading Quora answers about insects and notices that someone
has left a comment where they pasted in a photo from his Web site. Super easy
to do. Also super easy for him to send an e-mail to his copyright contractor,
and a free $750 (minimum) in statutory damages.

I have registered copyright on works before, very straightforward, opens some
unusual opportunities. There's actually a great startup idea here:

(1) Create a large quantity of high-quality unwatermarked stock images. (2)
Register copyright on each work. (3) Sell them on a web site and use search-
engine marketing tactics to make it a really high ranking Web site. (4) Wait
2.9 years, then sue every Web site and user who picked up the images.

~~~
comex
The FAQ, in fact, says something very similar to what you claim it doesn't
say:

> If the infringement appears on a personal blog, forum, or web page, I
> usually ignore it. If I have time, which I generally don’t, I may issue a
> takedown notice to remove infringing copies from personal sites most likely
> to feed downstream infringements. If the infringement occurs on a corporate
> or organizational webpage, product, broadcast, or similar, even if it is
> just a small internal image, I generally submit it to ImageRights.

~~~
jbraithwaite
Also, in the licensing section of his website

> Social Media - Personal People acting in a personal capacity are welcome to
> share my photographs on blogs, web pages, and social media accounts without
> prior permission, provided that all images are accompanied by a link back to
> www.alexanderwild.com. Failure to attribute an image properly may result in
> a takedown notice to the web host.

~~~
mxfh
Attribution! A thousand times this. I wish twitter would enforce this policy
or add a source field like tumblr on those various 1M+ reddit-scraping picture
recycling accounts. @picpedant can't save the stories behind these images all
by himself.

[http://www.slate.com/articles/life/history/2014/02/_historyi...](http://www.slate.com/articles/life/history/2014/02/_historyinpics_historicalpics_history_pics_why_the_wildly_popular_twitter.html)

------
underwater
The idea of lawsuit-as-a-service is terrible.

Last year I was accused of copyright infringement. I knew was completely in
the clear - I hadn't ever heard of this person or seen their creation before.
After dismissing some typo-riddled communication I though was bluffing I found
myself named in a lawsuit. Turns out that knowing I was right was a whole
world away from proving it in court. I was told it would cost me tens of
thousands to defend myself. And the best possible outcome was for me to win my
fees back. In the end I paid the other person to go away. The entire process
was expensive, time consuming and incredibly stressful. I lost days of sleep
worrying about what could happen.

My case could have been resolved so much more easily without lawyers. I was
actually interesting in monetizing and this person needed eyeballs on their
product. I would have gladly sent them traffic if they agreed to an affiliate
set up. The problem was that once lawyers start getting involved then the
bills start adding up quickly. From then on it was classic sunk cost fallacy.
Backing off means paying thousands of dollars for the privilege of being sued.
No one wins but the lawyers.

Sure, this company is going to be stopping some people from stealing images.
But their business model is built on profiting from uncertainty and fear from
the people they accuse of theft. This guy is an artist, yet he's so flippant
about supporting an industry that profits by making the world a slightly worse
place. He'd rather line the pockets of some lawyers than have to go through
sending "dozens" of emails a month.

~~~
iamhamm
This is a very tricky situation it seems. I've never been party to
infringement (on either side), but he explained pretty clearly why he
outsourced this role. He has people legitimately using his work without
license, so what's the problem with outsourcing enforcement? That said, I hear
a story like yours and it freaks me out; I could be you some day. Maybe a
"non-lawyer" system could exist, but without the threat of lawsuits, I suspect
legitimate infringement situations would go ignored.

~~~
underwater
There's nothing preventing him from going to the lawyer after they refuse a
request to remove the image. He's using his nuclear option as a first resort
and claiming moral high ground.

~~~
s73v3r
Well, no one forced you to use his image without license.

------
borgia
Very reasonable all in all, and it's pretty clear that he's damn tired of
people's antics with regards to using his work without license and then going
on the defensive about it when caught.

Some people's sense of entitlement to creative, but easily replicated, works
never ceases to amaze me. Whether you like Tidal and those involved or not,
this week we saw its launch being met with backlash online that included
comments that amounted to "Why would I pay $20 a month for this when I can
torrent it free?". People acted indignant over being asked to maybe pay for
some of the works they consume. As though they had a right to have a copy of
the works simply because they were technologically capable of getting their
hands on one without paying for it.

And then creators and artists are vilified for going after those who
steal/distribute copies of their works.

I can't imagine how stressful it is for those who have to deal with these
constants acts against them.

~~~
williamcotton
I think a lot of the backlash against Tidal was the way it was presented.

Having all of these rich and famous musicians complaining about how they're
not making enough money isn't going to go very well with the general
population.

What does Tidal do to help unknown and struggling musicians? The whole thing
seems to only really be about protecting the revenue streams of the musical
elite.

~~~
borgia
I'm not defending Tidal, I personally think it's a cringe-worthy joke at best
and I hope the worst for it.

It's the attitude that was on display regarding it though and it's the same
attitude seen previously when Spotify was launched i.e. I want this for free,
I believe I'm entitled to this for free and I will get it for free regardless
of how you, the artist and distributor, feel about it.

Musicians, etc. produce products, as any other non-service based industry
does, and nobody is entitled to those products for free...yet because these
are digital products a large amount of people seem to think otherwise.

~~~
williamcotton
I hear you and I'm fully in support of intellectual property and just
compensation!

Do you think the people who think that creative works should be free are in
the majority or are they just the loudest? I seem to get the impression that
most people want artists to get paid. If anything they don't want a bunch of
middle-men making all the profits.

Of course some middle-men are important to the ecosystem. A publisher willing
to speculate and give an advance in exchange for a future percentage of sales
seems like the right kind of incentive structure to have for the industry.

~~~
borgia
>Do you think the people who think that creative works should be free are in
the majority or are they just the loudest?

I think they're in the majority. They may not shout about it, but I think in
terms of music consumption in this case they're a silent majority.

Only 25% of Spotify's 60m users pay for the service. People use YouTube for
their music without having to pay. Others torrent. I would say that those
paying for music in this day and age, whether it's streaming, vinyl
enthusiasts or whatever are the minority.

~~~
apk17
Well, youtube slaps a lot of ads on me. And esp. the american public is
trained to get music for 'free', on the radio.

------
bobhankson
I think we can all agree though, holy shit this guy has some amazing photos.
If ever photos deserved a license, this is it!

~~~
nfoz
Another point of view: the more amazing they are, the more important it is
that they are in the public domain, as it would be a valuable asset for the
commons.

~~~
zeidrich
This is a fine point of view if the commons are willing to give him
comfortable living accommodations, good food, relaxing holidays, camera
equipment and trips around the world to take these photographs.

They could definitely do that. The government could choose to hire him as a
nature photographer, give him a very nice salary and release the photographs
into the public domain. Or we could pay him per work to do it.

But we don't do that. We don't want to pay taxes to let him fly around the
world and photograph things for the good of the commons. If society is not
willing to accommodate him, why would he be willing to sacrifice himself to
accommodate society?

~~~
tptacek
It's almost as if the commons has fallen victim to some kind of... what's the
word? Grave misfortune?

~~~
logicallee
I don't think you understood zeidrich's point in this case :) There's no
tragedy of the commons for copyrights because the commons doesn't get reduced
by usage. Tragedy of the commons as I understand it applies to things like
air, which is free, but which people can deplete. (Externalizing pollution
costs.)

Things like research can end up belonging to the commons but there's no
tragedy of the commons argument about it. Instead your parent in this case I
think was just pointing out that this is stuff that wouldn't exist at all if
it weren't commmercially protected.

~~~
tptacek
The tragedy of the commons is (among other things) a parable about market
failure and inadequate property rights.

~~~
logicallee
Are you sure?
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons)
seems to disagree with you and talks in terms of depeleting a resource.

~~~
moultano
It can refer to both over consumption and under investment.

~~~
logicallee
_Not according to the article I linked, which even has a four-paragraph
section called "metaphoric meaning" that does not extend to that meaning; nor
do any of the examples in the long list of examples under the section "modern
commons" show such a meaning.

The term "tragedy of the commons" simply refers to a different concept. It's
just not what it means. It means common resources become less useful over
time.

This is not a statement about investment; it's just that the effect that is
described is quite specific. You don't have to use an incorrect term to
describe what you're talking about._

------
slyall
If you want more Public Domain images of insects out there I'd suggest
donating to the "Insects Unlocked" project. It is raising money on Utexas'
kickstarter clone "HornRaiser".

[https://hornraiser.utexas.edu/project/54e79bbc14bdf7205ddd5a...](https://hornraiser.utexas.edu/project/54e79bbc14bdf7205ddd5ab7)

~~~
ezequiel-garzon
It is worth noting that the author, Alex Wild, is also the mentor of the
project you mention. He discussed [1] a day before the impact of the project
on professional photographers.

[1] "Will The Insects Unlocked Project Damage The Commercial Insect Photo
Market?" \- [http://www.myrmecos.net/2015/03/27/will-the-insects-
unlocked...](http://www.myrmecos.net/2015/03/27/will-the-insects-unlocked-
project-damage-the-commercial-insect-photo-market/)

~~~
slyall
Good catch. I had completely missed the link.

------
jammycakes
This article presents a side to intellectual property rights that it's all too
easy to overlook when you are constantly hearing about patent trolls, the
MPAA/RIAA, and so on. Copyright is intended to benefit people just like you
and me for whom content creation such as this is how they feed their children
and keep a roof over their heads.

This does also highlight the need for due diligence if you're using images
that you've found on the Internet though. This is often easier than you might
expect -- you just have to upload your image to Google image search, and it
will do a pretty good job of helping you track the original creator.

------
moron4hire
It's interesting to see how much the FOSS developer community (or rather, the
people in this thread who are complaining about this article as if it's part-
and-parcel with supporting FOSS) has confused the idea that software should be
libre with the idea that it should also be gratis. That's unfortunately not
their last mistake, as it seems then also want to extend this to an idea that
other copyrightable works should be gratis, too.

The Software Freedoms [0] don't mean you get to scarper off with other
people's hard work. They mean that, once you have paid and received permission
to use the work, you shouldn't be restricted in your use of the work.

Software is a thing that we use to get work done, a thing that doesn't
necessarily work _correctly_ or _sufficiently_ or whatever other reason you
might want to change it. We have a need to protect the rights of users
because, without said rights, the user could potentially end up in a situation
where their livelihood is significantly impacted by the failing software.

A work of _art_ , on the other hand, is meant for consumption. You can't make
a photo so integral to your workflow that replacing it with another photo
could be detrimental to your self. Most programs are not reasonable
substitutes for each other. Most photos of bumblebees are--more or less--
perfectly acceptable substitutes, not because all photographers are equivalent
and interchangeable, but because your need to have that photo is not more
important than the photographer's need to eat.

The Software Freedoms are not about copyright. Copyright is just the mechanism
through which the GPL operates, in an ideology that believes that software
should not be copyrightable. It's the belief that these two things are so
fundamentally different, that copyright is not the appropriate means to
protect software developers, that led to the creation of the GPL. The GPL is
nothing more than a hack on top of the copyright system to make copyright--for
software--useless. It is not an overall indictment of copyright.

[0] [https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-
sw.html](https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html)

~~~
mikekchar
I have to admit that I once thought essentially the same thing that you have
written. However, I'm not so sure now. I think Software Freedom is distinct
from copyright and while copyright in its current form is a problem for
Software Freedom (insofar as it is too restrictive), doing away with copyright
does not seem to be on the agenda of those who are concerned with Software
Freedom (notably the FSF). If it were, we could all move to CC0 from GPL and
be happy.

I am not one of those who would espouse that all FOSS software should use
unrestrictive licenses. CC0, or attribution based Free software licenses
definitely have their place, but I think that the world would be poorer
without a license like the GPL. The GPL ensures an even playing field so that
someone can't take a large Free project, add a small piece and compete with
the original project using different rules. If someone wants to compete
against a GPLed project, they either have to play by the same rules or build
their own project from the ground up.

Instead of "copyright or not copyright", I think the Free software movement
has shown that there is a range of restrictions that can be beneficial.
Picking the appropriate restrictions for your project is an incredibly
important task. When looking at CC (Creative Commons) licenses, I think it
becomes a bit more obvious what things are valuable. They definitely
benefitted from being able to look at the history of Free Software development
when these licenses were developed.

I know there is a growing movement of people who are extremely enthusiastic
about very unrestrictive licenses. However, I can't help thinking that they
miss something -- only thinking about a binary world of very restrictive (all
rights reserved) and non restrictive (at best attribution only). To be honest,
I love the thought of living in a world where everything was CC0 and everyone
would willingly encourage people to take the source code and make derivative
works. Of course it isn't. Even in a world without copyright, this would not
happen because lacking legal means, companies would pursue technical means of
making it difficult to make derived works. Because of this I tend to license
my work as GPL because I know a thriving, fair community can be served this
way. The restrictions (made possible by copyright) are valuable.

~~~
ta0967
_doing away with copyright does not seem to be on the agenda of those who are
concerned with Software Freedom (notably the FSF). If it were, we could all
move to CC0 from GPL and be happy._

that's wrong. FSF is concerned with preserving software users' freedoms.
abolishing the copyright without further changes to the legal landscape would
have terrible consequences for those rights: even though you would be able to
sell copies of any (say) software no matter how you procured it, you wouldn't
get the source and wouldn't have the freedom to modify it for your needs.

 _The GPL ensures an even playing field so that someone can 't take a large
Free project, add a small piece and compete with the original project using
different rules._

that's true, but we don't need copyright to ensure creative works users'
rights. the GPL is a hack, using the copyright (law meant to restrict your
copying rights) to subvert those who try take away your right to copy. we
don't need copyright for that any more than we need copyright to have other
public goods funded by taxes, for example. all that is needed is a law
codifying the software users' freedoms formulated in the GPL.

 _I love the thought of living in a world where everything was CC0 and
everyone would willingly encourage people to take the source code and make
derivative works._

that's also the GPL world.

------
smoyer
I actually like the no-nonsense nature of this page. It would be even better
if Alex profited more in the long run (he's got amazing images) and if less
was going to support the legal system that created the copyright mess in the
first place.

One step at a time I guess!

------
underwater
If you look up the case that Alex linked to it turns out that the company he's
suing were used hand illustrated paintings [1] that seemingly traced Alex's
original photo.

That's still fairly sketchy, but hardly the case of blatant republishing of
photos that he's alluding to. I can actually see them arguing fair use.

[1] [http://cdn.orkin.com/images/ants/red-imported-fire-ant-
illus...](http://cdn.orkin.com/images/ants/red-imported-fire-ant-
illustration_1480x1062.jpg)

------
bthomas
Naive question: how does the legal system determine appropriate damages for
this kind of infringement? Can ImageRights just name a number, or is there
some kind of precedent?

Using a $500 photo intuitively seems worse than using a $5 photo. But if the
offender had no intent - ie. a grandmother that didn't know you can't just
copy anything from Google Images - would be bizarre to have punitive damages
be a multiplier of the original license cost.

~~~
kweks
Depends on the country. I recently had a case in France where a very well
known magazine used one of my photos without permission; my lawyer advised
that photo worth is judged by the reputation of the photographer.

If you're an amateur happy snapper, you'll get hardly anything. If you're a
world famous photographer, you'll get significant amounts.

In one regard, that seems fair - and in another - grossly unfair.

~~~
scott_karana
Sounds like "greater of: reputation of infringer and reputation of
photographer" would work.

------
mckoss
>>> Our government’s copyright enforcement framework treats infringements as
civil matters that generally require legal counsel.

I wish it did! Most infringement of a commercial work seems to incur criminal
penalties (though you can recover civil damages as well).

[http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html](http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html)

~~~
tptacek
Though there's wiggle room in the statute, the USG has two bars to clear in
order to criminally prosecute the misuse of a copyrighted photo as a
promotional device for a business:

* The infringement must be not only intentional but _willful_ , which implies not only that the infringer deliberately used the photograph, but did so with full awareness of their duties under copyright law; that's a higher bar than simple intent.

* To be a felony, the infringement must not only have a goal of commercial advantage or private gain, but that advantage itself must be with respect to the reproduction and/or distribution rights of the original author.

If you deliberately harvested this guy's bug pictures and resold them, you'd
be easy to charge criminally. But slapping one of his pictures on your website
is probably too fuzzy to charge criminally.

~~~
harshreality
I don't believe there does have to be advantage/gain, if the retail value of
the work exceeds $1_000. [1]

He seems to be taking a very reasonable tact by going after genuinely
commercial abusers, if his description is correct.

[1]
[https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/506](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/506)

~~~
tptacek
From the DOJ Criminal Resource Manual:

 _There are four essential elements to a charge of criminal copyright
infringement. In order to sustain a conviction under section 506(a), the
government must demonstrate: (1) that a valid copyright; (2) was infringed by
the defendant; (3) willfully; and (4) for purposes of commercial advantage or
private financial gain._

The language in (4) is actually the subject of a good deal of discussion,
because it changed (to that) relatively recently.

~~~
harshreality
I don't understand the context. Is that published to give a general, and not
completely accurate, picture of the law? Or is the DOJ actually saying they
won't enforce 17 USC 506 a-1-b?

It's not a reflection of the actual law. Maybe it's a mistake. Even if it's an
accurate reflection of DOJ policy, they can rewrite it whenever, and start
enforcing the law as written... retroactively, even.

------
DanBlake
What was the result of the lawsuit v orkin? Doesn't show any of the details /
payout

~~~
scott_karana
It was filed last December, so maybe it wasn't resolved yet?

------
mattbgates
On a bright note, you take gorgeous photography and I agree with you.. at
least get your written permission to use, and if you don't want someone to use
them, than its yours only.

------
em3rgent0rdr
Many people here believe a necessary and legitimate role of law is to provide
specific methods for creators of intellectual goods to earn income, and are
willing to encroach on people's freedoms in order to archive this goal.
Other's don't view this as a necessary or legitimate role of law (and many
aren't even convinced that intellectual property law actually provides a net
benefit from a utilitarian standpoint).

I believe it is specifically the creator's responsibility (and in general, the
market's role) to figure out how the creator can make money.

I am reminded of a rather blunt slogan found in cat-v
([http://harmful.cat-v.org/economics/intellectual_property/](http://harmful.cat-v.org/economics/intellectual_property/))
and in the Center for the Study of Innovative Freedom's page
([http://c4sif.org/](http://c4sif.org/)): "Your failed business model is not
my problem."

------
clamprecht
Does anyone else get the startup idea I got? Photo copyright infringement
enforcement as a service? Feels too dirty to interest me, but maybe there's a
business there for someone.

~~~
MichaelApproved
This exists.

------
gesman
The guy spent $50k on equipment to make these photos. Sorry iPhone/Android
users. Pro photo equipment IS expensive. No matter how many terapixels your
piece of shit, made in China pocket device is claimed to have, the true pro
equipment takes a mortgage to have. And muscles to carry. High quality glass
is heavy. And expensive (did I already said that?) to manufacture.

It's all still made in Japan. Every little thing on it is.

And that's a price to pay for top quality.

And so - his response is reasonable.

~~~
daturkel
The licensing would be every bit as justified if the gear were cheap. This is
how he makes his living, he's under no obligation to give it to anyone for
free.

------
nsnick
No one can ever arrange bits in that order because I was the first one to do
it.

~~~
s73v3r
You're making it sound like there was no effort that went into capturing that
image.

~~~
icebraining
Well, for copyright, it doesn't actually matter anyway.

------
bthomas
How much are the infringement letters demanding? $200 for a $100 photo is
totally reasonable; $1000 and he has no moral argument.

~~~
kevan
$200 probably wouldn't cover lawyers fees. From an amoral perspective, there's
a simple cost function: (cost to buy) vs (chance of being caught * cost of
damages). If you don't make the cost of damages high enough then the behavior
will continue. [0]

[0]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punitive_damages](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punitive_damages)

~~~
bthomas
This assumes all violators are doing it willfully. I imagine most restaurant
owners that make a Squarespace site in an afternoon have no idea you can't
just copy something from Google Images.

~~~
s73v3r
Too bad. Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

------
FreakyT
I can see the guy's point, but at the same time, I found the tone of the
write-up to be unbearably smug.

Evidently the law is on his side, but reading the way this page is written
makes me wish that it weren't.

~~~
FooBarWidget
Your response comes over like a false sense of entitlement.

"It’s just a photo! Surely a photo can’t be worth that much."

I can't believe people would actually think that after having obviously done
something wrong.

~~~
noobermin
It's hard. When something is easy to reproduce, it's easier for humans to
devalue it. "It's just a photo/mp3/movie/tv-show"...

The problem is while things like oil and food and human labor are physically
scare, information is not, and not because that information was easy to
initially create, but just as a matter of fact, it is terribly easy to
reproduce.

It might have more to do with psychology than anything.

~~~
mentat
It is not easy to reproduce capturing beauty. If the product is information
than any random bits will do. What we care about is aesthetic bits, which his
is the provider of.

~~~
noobermin
Look, for most people here, we understand that something like the linux kernel
took decades of man hours, if not a century by now. However, it's trivially
easy to copy the result of those years of effort, even if the initial effort
wasn't that easy, as I hint in my post. It turns out that such copying is
legal and desired by the original authors, as it is much easier for them than
it is for artist; still, it is a fact that the _product_ is easy to reproduce
while the _act_ is not. This is at the heart of this whole conflict between
the content-creators and the content-consumers today.

The matter of fact is that artificial[0] constraints on the _product_ of such
creations are the best method we have developed to ensure that the creators
continue to be paid for their work, and I'm not sure of another, feasible way.
Things like generous benefactors, be them individuals, institutions, or
governments, are too few and not with enough capital to support enough
creators without selling their products.

If anyone has a better idea, they could revolution history forever. Apart from
Copyrights, Trademarks, and Patents, however, I know of no other way that will
work.

[0]when I say artificial, I am speak matter-of-factly, not to offend anyone.
The interesting thing is such talent and experience needed to produce such
works _is_ scarce, it's just the product isn't.

~~~
TheOtherHobbes
>The product is easy to reproduce while the act is not.

The act is getting easier and easier to reproduce, up to a certain basic level
- which seems to be good enough for commercial purposes.

The arts have seen an unbelievable explosion of activity. There are more
people writing, making art and music, taking photos, creating code, and
everything else besides, than ever before - not just by a little, but by an
astronomical amount.

The problem is that most of the work is eh-okay. Average-and-worse mediocrity
is very easy to fine. Basic entertaining competence is less common, but still
not rare.

And that seems to be all most consumers want - hence the success of 50 Shades
of Grey, Twilight, and the rest, and their equivalents in other media.

In the past, culture was good at distilling out the extreme talent, so
historically the arts have amassed a fine collection of game-changing
geniuses, while allowing the eh-okay creators to drop into oblivion.

It's Salieri vs Mozart - commercially Mozart was the loser while alive, but
not so much a few centuries later.

Today it's harder to find a Mozart because the modern equivalent is probably
working for an ad agency, and has limited time to produce truly game-changing
genius-level work.

And it might not sell anyway. And it would probably get lost in the noise even
if it did sell.

The answer is probably the much-discussed living wage. Let everyone who wants
to make art get on with making art full time, without having to worry about
starving or being homeless.

Most of it will suck, some of it will be okay, a little of it will be jaw-
droppingly awesome.

tl:dr; It's the socially-enforced dogma that art exists primarily for profit
that causes the problems. Get rid of that, and a lot of the issues go away.

------
scotty79
Please stop polluting public space with proprietary images. If you don't want
to share keep them in your drawer. It's immoral to use the reputation boost
internet provides without accepting that people will share your work.

To downvoters: If copyright lawyers can manufacture morality and play on
lowest instincts ("mine! go away!") so can everybody else ("stop limiting my
freedom!").

On more serious note every resource that is copyrighted should carry plainly
visible note about like warrnings on cigarette packs so mildly creative people
can stay away from it.

~~~
tptacek
From the author:

 _Of all the varieties of infringement-related comments, the “stay off the
Internet” refrains are the most toxic. In one go they both acknowledge that
infringement is bad for artists while also showing no concern for the
Internet, which would be poorer for their absence. “Don’t post it” is the
ultimate nihilistic diss._

~~~
throwaway9324
It's not a "diss" though, but a legitimate opinion on copyright which is found
both in discourse and in law. Just because the author is opinionated and
throws around rhetoric emotional words like "toxic" and "nihilistic" doesn't
make his opinions any more supported.

~~~
wpietri
Many legitimate opinions are toxic and nihilistic.

