Weekend Site-Seeing
This weekend we’re going over to the Orphan Works Opposition Headquarters. I hope you will go poke around to get a better sense of the absurdity of this legislation. Sign the petition, and send an e-mail to your congressperson.
At one time I pointed out this fox image used without permission or payment on this site. A casual Saturday afternoon search on the Internet brought it to our attention. Right now, under current copyright law it is illegal for that organization to use that image without our permission. We are well within our rights to say, “Yo, stop it!” and we could even pursue damages. As I understand it, if current legislation passes, we would not be able to stop them from using it because they are a non-profit organization.
Do you suppose the person who maintains the Web site (and stole the image) is expected to do it for free? Do you suppose the organization managers do their work for free? No and no. “Non-profit” does not mean staff are not paid. I have a number of friends who work for non-profit organizations. They earn better livings than we do, I assure you. Yet some politicians and lobbyists think our work shouldn’t require remuneration.
Yeah. It’s a croc.
Follow comments via the RSS Feed | Leave a comment | Trackback URL
, by Ellen Ruppel Shell
, by Elizabeth Strout.
MotherReader Wrote,
I didn’t know about this and I clearly should. Thank you.
Link | November 16th, 2008 at 5:59 pm
Shelly Wrote,
Absolutely, without a doubt, you should get paid for the use of your image. No question there.
But (you knew this was coming, didn’t you?), please keep in mind that there are lots and lots and lots of non-profits out there where absolutely no one gets paid. Right now I work with four non-profits, and on only one does anyone get paid anything. And what they get it a mere pittance. All four have websites; three of those have webmasters who contribute 100% of their work as volunteers. On the one where the webmaster gets paid, it’s something like $2K for the year.
I think it’s quite possible that people may use your images (and others’ images) without knowledge that they’re cheating someone. If I had done that, I would have appreciated a heads-up from the owner of the image (or from someone who knows it’s not up to snuff)…I’d gladly remove the image or attempt remuneration. In the case of the fox, it sounds as though the person was trying to do the right thing by listing where the image came from (though they flubbed that, too). Maybe their hearts were in the right place, but they knew not what they were doing.
I try to give folks the benefit of the doubt.
I see, too, that the use of the images is a horrible uphill battle, How can you possibly try to keep track of your images and where they may end up? Sounds exceptionally daunting.
I admire your work against this bill and fully agree with you. I merely needed to get my two cents in regarding the non-profits.
Link | November 17th, 2008 at 10:09 am