Thought-Factory.net Philosophical Conversations Public Opinion philosophy.com Junk for code
PortElliot2.jpg
'An aphorism, properly stamped and molded, has not been "deciphered" when it has simply been read; rather one has then to begin its interpretation, for which is required an art of interpretation.' -- Nietzsche, 'On the Genealogy of Morals'
RECENT ENTRIES
SEARCH
ARCHIVES
Weblog Links
Library
Fields
Philosophers
Writers
Connections
Magazines
E-Resources
Academics
Other
www.thought-factory.net
'An aphorism, properly stamped and molded, has not been "deciphered" when it has simply been read; rather one has then to begin its interpretation, for which is required an art of interpretation.' -- Nietzsche, 'On the Genealogy of Morals'

Prospect Journal + photographer's intellectual property « Previous | |Next »
December 7, 2010

I came across Prospect Journal an online journal that is produced by University of California, San Diego. It even has an informative blog. This is work solidly within the public domain and an "innovation commons." It is an example of how the Internet is built on an 'innovation commons.'

The Journal's blurb states that the journal showcases:

works created by students who wish to broaden their understanding of issues of contemporary and global relevance. Placing ourselves at the intersection of policy and the arts, we believe that together we can better understand current affairs from a variety of vantage points.Our essays analyze issues and prescribe solutions to problems around the world in a thought provoking manner. Visually-arresting art pieces convey a multitude of perspectives by representing themes that make policies memorable. Travelogues and photo essays allow first-hand exposure to locales that may seem distant, but have a lasting influence on domestic policies.

So the journal is not part of the counterrevolution by those who prospered under the old regime, are threatened by the Internet and who aim to enclose the commons in the name of private property.

The stories were interesting and each article had an interesting photo. Then I noticed the top three stories on the webpage did not credit the photographer, despite having a extensive bibliography. The only credit on two of them is 'Image courtesy of Flickr.' Everyone knows that Flickr is not the creator of the photo. It is an archive of the work of photographers. So the photos were not being credited and Smit's creative expression not recognized.

Then I came across this image posted by Jonathan van Smit (Kiwi) in my contacts on Flickr. Underneath the image Kiwi stated, I'm getting tired of people using my photos without permission or attribution....eg., University of California, San Diego. So the photos in Prospect Journal were being ripped off, even though it is not that difficult to ask for permission or to grant attribution for a photo for non-commercial use.

Why aren't they collaborating with photographers on their stories? Isn't that how the open digital culture based on the doctrine of fair use works? The editorial team took the story down and stated in comments on the photo:

We assure you that our staff had no intention to steal or reproduce Mr. Van Smit's work without obtaining permission and using proper citation.

However, the top three stories on the webpage do not credit the photographer, despite having a extensive bibliography. The only credit on two of them is 'Image courtesy of Flickr.' They have chosen good photos that given an added dimension to the text ---but stolen the intellectual property rights in the process. This appears to be the standard practice of the Prospect Journal's staff.

Historically, copyright law has struck a balance between giving creators enough incentive to create -- and enough money to live on+- and freeing up their works for future generations. Recently, however, the debate over intellectual property rights is framed by the culture industry in an either or: no protection (i.e. anybody can take anything over the Internet and do what they want with it) versus complete protection (the copyright holder is allowed to decide any and all use of the protected material), which the complete control copyright-holders (or at least the big corporate players) are now claiming (and are close to getting).

The permission and attribution required by fair use of the image is the middle ground between the corporations "companies vs. pirates" view. Kiwi displayed the license information and he displayed the licensing information in an understandable way. Permission would have been easy to obtain case and attribution is standard practice in academia for non-commercial use. The Prospect Journal's staff failed to do either.

| Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 4:43 PM |