Re: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images

[SKID Photography <skid@bway.net>]

Anthony Atkielski wrote:

> Harvey writes:
>
> > In a word, yes.....to both questions.
>
> Interesting.  I am surprised that anyone would be willing to pay for a 
>thumbnail
> image.  Web-resolution images are easier to understand, but even if that is a
> source of revenue, why would putting them in a search engine make them any 
>more
> likely to be stolen than leaving them on your site?
>
> Personally, I have a very hard time finding buyers for Web images; most people
> want them for free, and even if they are willing to pay, they don't want to 
>pay
> much.  I cannot cover my costs with what people are willing to pay for a Web
> image, which is one reason why I still shoot film (high-resolution images, 
>such
> as those obtainable from film, are worth much more than Web-resolution images,
> and since they are not themselves on my site, they cannot be stolen).

I cannot/will not get into a discussion of business practices, but suffice it 
to say, that the fees generated
from licensing web images are more than worth our time and effort.

And it's not the 'thumbnails' that we worry about getting lifted, it's the 
larger images on our website
(although our website is currently down).

Again, I maintain that saying that an image on a web search engine 'might' be 
copyrighted is misleading, when,
more than likely, it *is* copyrighted.  Perhaps they should, on every page, of 
every search, have a paragraph
about copyrights.  It would not take much effort on their part, and go a long 
way to alleviate the ..."Oh, I
thought it was in the public domain' excuse.

Harvey Ferdschneider
partner, SKID Photography, NYC