Re: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images

["Anthony Atkielski" <atkielski.anthony@wanadoo.fr>]

Harvey writes:

> ... but eventually, our screen resolution will be
> the same as paper reproduction.

I don't expect that ever to occur, as there is very little need for it, and it
is technically difficult.  It has taken many years just for the average screen
size to advance from 640x480 to 800x600, and matching print use would require
resolutions of at least 3600x2700 or beyond.  That is not likely to be achieved
with CRT technology, and it may also be very difficult with flat-panel
technology, at least for the foreseeable future.

> It might only take a year or 2, or longer ...

If it happens at all, it will take far longer than two years.  Current screen
resolutions are barely above what they were thirty years ago.  The average
resolution of 800x600 today is not even twice that of text-only CRTs from the
1960s.

Part of this is related to the fact that print resolutions are often well beyond
what people can actually see, and so there is no good reason to try to duplicate
them in display systems.

> For example, who could have predicted, 10 years ago
> that 20 gig hard drives would be the norm ...

And who would have predicted, when solid-state replaced vacuum tubes nearly half
a century ago, that people would still be using huge vacuum tubes (i.e., CRTs)
in 2001?

> ... or that modems would be performing at the
> speeds that they do ...

Modems are only about 10 times faster than they were thirty years ago.  The
inability to make them work _really_ fast is what will cause their demise in the
future, as other methods of communication become available.

> I think that the same will, finally, be true of the
> image search engines as well.

I think that there is a very strong possibility that the Internet and like
technologies will eventually bring about the abandon of copyright as it now
exists.  It will be a long, hard fight, led mostly by giant multinationals who
are the real beneficiaries of copyright (as opposed to individual artists, who
often sign away their rights, anyway), but it will not be successful in the long
run.

> Beyond all of the above:
> We don't like it when our images are appropriated.

Life is tough.

> It is frustrating to think that we can *only* post
> thumbnail sized images on our website, or need to
> disfigure them with our copyright or watermark,
> (for fear of theft)...There must be a better way.

I don't do either of these.  I provide good-sized images with no watermarks or
disfigurement.  I figure that some people will steal the images, but hopefully
enough people will pay for them so that I can still derive revenue from them.
If I can cover my costs and turn a reasonable profit, I'm happy, and the loss of
potential income beyond that is not an issue for me, as I have moral qualms
about such extreme uses of copyright, anyway.

> We collected $10,000 from a tv 'news' show for
> lifting our images from the NY Times, using them
> out of context and without our consent or permission.

How much would you have charged them if they had asked to license the images for
that use?