The Whole “Facebook want all my stuff, and for free!!!” vs. “Well you signed up for it, you should have read the small print dumbass!!!” furor…

If you over farm or over reach for any product you’ll lose the ability to access it in the future.

Fish, trees, water… there is a bell-curve of possible exploitation.

That model can probably be carried across to the arguments that surround the demand for cheap (read free) content that helps create viable advertising spaces on the internet.

comment posted (on a much earlier posted image) last night

The hoohah I seemed to have got caught/swept up in by re-posting the above (yes, somewhat naively) is part of this…

i.e the “Facebook want all my stuff and for free!!!” vs. “Well you signed up for it, you should have read the small print dumbass!!!” furor.

Here’s the link that explains it all in a not as “patronising and still somewhat missleading classic internet-troll way” (at least as the other cut and paste response that seems to be circulating at the moment), that with a little faith in human nature should alleviate your fears about your precious stuff…

See, Facebook just (as their Twitter profile* states) Give “people the power to share and make the world more open and connected”. In the best case scenario they just want free reign to share the images YOU choose to post, just as you agreed to let them… i.e if someone, a friend of yours re-posts a pic or video of a party you both attended onto your mutual friends page, this agreement just stops Facebook being sued when you all fall out over that girl you where all talking to in the video and suddenly one of you wants it removed and calls their family lawyer.

*why the military aircraft as the backdrop?

It’s not like they are going to deny of your rights to earn money off of work you created by effectively stealing your work and denouncing your prior right to declare your ownership of that work and your intellectual property rights over it. Or give your stuff to people without telling you… The wording does not expressly say that does it?

Of course… it could still have wider, more long-term implications, not so much for your family photos and those video of your dancing dogs…

But perhaps for issues such as this – or more importantly THIS:

Brad Holland a world renowned commercial illustrator takes up the story – (this is a few years old, and the story has moved on a little – you’ll note sevral sites and articles discuss the Bill in the past tense for example – so you might want to check out this report for yourself, and follow where it leads – i.e. the digital works papers shuffling about in the UK government offices).

This excerpt is particularly poignant …and I quote:

“The War on Authors isn’t new. Dickens, Victor Hugo and others were vilified for promoting copyright law more than a hundred years ago. What’s new is a technology that tips the scales against authors**.

Visual artists opposed the Orphan Works Act because it would impose a radically new business model on the licensing of our property. It would let giant image banks access our commercial inventory and metadata and enter our commercial markets as clearinghouses to compete with us for our own clients. I can think of no other field where small business owners can be pressured by the government to supply potential competitors with their content, business data and client contact information – all at their own expense.

Google and other large database, advertising and search engine companies clearly have a major financial stake in the weakening of copyright law through new legislation. The Orphan Works Act, if it should ever be enacted, would solve the problem that has vexed so many start-up Internet companies: how to make money by giving away free content. By opening the door to potentially billions of “permitted” infringements of protected copyrights, this legislation would allow big Internet companies to create entirely new business models by licensing content they don’t have to pay for — through the digitizing, archiving and monetizing of the intellectual property of ordinary citizens. If this legislation were to pass, its consequences would be far-reaching, long lasting, perhaps irreversible, and would strike at the heart of art itself.”

**read “creatives & makers” of all types/artists/musicians/film-makers/illustrators etc.

Holland is featured in the documentary, “Citizen 3.0 Copyright, Creativity and Contemporary Culture,” available at www.kinobserver.com and his article, “First Things About Secondary Rights,” published by The Columbia Journal of Law and the Arts is available at weblog.ipcentral.info/holland_ColumbiaLaw.pdf – Holland’s blog, Poor Bradford’s Almanac, can be accessed at http://www.drawger.com/holland/?article_id=9022 © 2010 Brad Holland

It’s the above links that probably made myself and a whole bunch of “generally sane and savvy creative types” jump at the chance of someway of expressing our wish to be at once, both part of this “community” (a good thing) and able to retain control of our creations/work.

Just saying to us (and I assume there is a fair few of us) that “we agreed when we signed up” like some slick suited lawyer doesn’t make it correct, right, acceptable or more importantly, any more ethically sound.

It is in fact a con-trick, slight of hand (or small print), no different in the long run from the guys who masquerade as one thing (the service providers of a social network and ‘community”/a gas man) and turn out to be another (an free content collector for big business/a bogus gasman and thief), and therefore sits on the morally dubious side of the “nice doing business with you” fence.

It will always come down to “what’s right” vs. “what will earn heaps of cash for shareholders”… always has.

Yes, yes… I could delete my account (and I have deleted some images) but I’ve been on Facebook for several years now and its a great way to keep in touch with family and friends all of whom are spread about the globe. So why would I? Are you telling me that Facebook aren’t hedging their bets with this one on similar attitudes…

Facebook is a great product, that I use for FREE… just as is Google… so why shouldn’t I give a little?

Besides the threat of miss-use seems slim at the moment, but like Mr Holland I wonder where it is going and how long before I have to remove everything “I” have created (you can talk-up your re-mix culture all you want, but remember, some of us are still able to create as well as re-mix) from the internet in order to protect my ability to earn money at the very thing I trained for many years to do.

I don’t want to remove it all.

I want to share my images.

I want to use the internet to show people what I can do and love doing, and perhaps to then engage some of those people to work with me on commercial creative projects.

If you don’t believe me look! I actually advocate the practice!

But hey, how naive am I? Right?

Every man for himself, I guess that how some of you like it… well, wait until the power starts to run out… and they start putting up the price of energy products… oh wait…

g.

I’m not even going to get into “US gov agencies not having to try anymore to get info on yous because your giving it up to them wholesale via social networking” conspiracies…

Y’all can play with that foamy-mouthed monkey yourselves.

Advertisements

~ by hesir on November 27, 2012.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: