“Ripping off artists” is a poor argument against crowdsourcing.

Clinging to the past. Good luck.

Mike Masnick of Techdirt, Australian Artists Upset That Australian Tourism Campaign Crowdsourced Images:

Reader mick writes in to alert us to a group of photographers in Australia who seem absolutely livid that the government’s latest tourism campaign sought to crowdsource photographs that could be used as part of the campaign. To me, that seems like a perfectly reasonable idea — in fact, a good idea in engaging people and getting them to take part in the campaign.

Makes sense to me.

But it seems that many arts groups in Australia are upset that Tourism Australia aren’t paying contributors:

Artists are being ripped off by copyright rules applied by the federal government’s latest tourism campaign, arts groups claim.

Tourism Australia has been sourcing images and photographs from the public free of charge for use in its latest Nothing Like Australia campaign.

The government agency has previously sourced artwork from commissioned and library-stock photographs, generating income for the copyright holders.

The National Association for the Visual Arts, the Australian Copyright Council and the Arts Law Centre of Australia are protesting the conditions.

They are demanding the agency relicense any photographs used in the campaign to pay royalties to the artists.

Pardon?

Mike nails it,

Let me get this straight. Even though the whole thing is completely optional, and photographers, who don’t like the terms, have every right to just not participate, they’re pissed off that others can participate — of their own free will — by letting the Tourism campaign use their photographs freely. If the photographers don’t mind the terms, why should others? The reality is that these groups are trying to stomp out amateur competition. This whole hissy fit is about limiting the market to professionals, and keeping the amateurs out.

#1, citing “copyright laws” obscures the arts groups’ real position and interest. It’s not about copyright, but about money. #2, claiming that Tourism Australia is “ripping off artists” is a poor argument against crowdsourcing images. They aren’t “ripping off artists”, they’re paying attention to new economic realities and making a good business and marketing decision.

Incumbents, clinging to the past and fighting the losing battle to keep the crowd out of the game, rather than building business models that fit new economic realities. Good luck.

Posted June 1st, 2010 in Perspective, Photography. Tags: australia, free, Photography.

Hello, I'm Taylor Davidson.

I'm an early-stage VC and a photographer. If you liked this post, please subscribe to this blog. For more like this, check out the archives, and follow me on Twitter @tdavidson.

jimgoldstein

“it's not about copyright” well not exactly. It is tangentially. The program in question bypasses copyright protections that ensure income for artists. Their argument from what I've seen paraphrased is weak, but that doesn't mean copyright is a non-issue. To your point though copyright is not the central component to their argument, but part of the equation. To the larger point I think you're getting at and where I'm going is that copyright is the protection many business models are built on for visual artists. When that protection becomes irrelevant how do you rethink and reestablish your business model? Now that is a discussion point central to the brouhaha.
Anonymous

“it’s not about copyright” well not exactly. It is tangentially. The program in question bypasses copyright protections that ensure income for artists. Their argument from what I’ve seen paraphrased is weak, but that doesn’t mean copyright is a non-issue. To your point though copyright is not the central component to their argument, but part of the equation. To the larger point I think you’re getting at and where I’m going is that copyright is the protection many business models are built on for visual artists. When that protection becomes irrelevant how do you rethink and reestablish your business model? Now that is a discussion point central to the brouhaha.
http://www.taylordavidson.com/writing/ Taylor Davidson

“Bypasses copyright protections that ensure income for artists” -> what does that mean?

Check out the results of the crowdsourcing -> http://www.nothinglikeaustralia.com/index.htm and check out the terms that contributors had to agree to -> http://www.nothinglikeaustralia.com/terms.htm

Pretty standard for these types of competitions, right? As an artist, I'll often choose not to contribute to competitions that take too much ownership of the images I contribute: but that's my call, and if others want to agree to the terms, that's their choice.

But yes, the larger point, which we're both thinking about and have discussed before, is about the need to look beyond 1) copyright and 2) excluding “amateurs” as the foundations for business models in digital media businesses.
jimgoldstein

You're going to make me say it aren't you?

“”Bypasses copyright protections that ensure income for artists” -> what does that mean?”

It means money. Copyright protections provide the leverage to ensure artists can enforce their pricing models and licensing fee structure. If content normally paid for with the bite of copyright behind it is no longer employed due to a preference of using freely submitted content then that is an issue for those whose business model just went out the window.

My feeling is if you're not pushing the envelope with your portfolio to differentiate yourself, add value to your services or expand the cache you offer as an artist then you should expect to suffer a painful demise as a business. Adaptability is key as these low hanging fruit campaigns to crowdsource content will certainly persist. They'll also grow old and stale. The question is will photographers outlast the trend?
http://www.taylordavidson.com/writing/ Taylor Davidson

yes, I'm going to make you say it. cheeky, I know :)

agreed. but here's the the thing: they didn't rip people off. they didn't rip artists off. they told contributors (people / artists / whatever) what the deal was. and people contributed, because monetizing copyrighted content isn't their business model.

that's the reality that anyone who creates digital media faces. and it's what makes “pushing the envelope” and making yourself standout (with great content and context) critical.

cry as we might, the deluge of amateurs aren't going away. better to change and embrace than fight a losing battle.

one more “here's the thing”: yes, crowdsourced campaigns like this do acquire images cheaper than buying licensed images. but the true value of these campaigns is that you're building the marketing into the content by making it social. it's a key part of creating viral social loops, by building the marketing into the product.

just better business.
jimgoldstein

You're preaching to the choir.

Thats what people miss in this. Crowdsourcing content isn't just about the content but engaging with an audience. Photographers have much to relearn in how content is used let alone gathered. In addition photographers would benefit from dissecting such tactics to see how they might apply audience outreach to their own business.
http://www.taylordavidson.com/writing/ Taylor Davidson

I've got a couple thoughts on how to engage and build fans and customers :)
http://www.taylordavidson.com/writing/ Taylor Davidson

“Bypasses copyright protections that ensure income for artists” -> what does that mean?nnCheck out the results of the crowdsourcing -> http://www.nothinglikeaustralia.com/index.htm and check out the terms that contributors had to agree to -> http://www.nothinglikeaustralia.com/terms.htmnnPretty standard for these types of competitions, right? As an artist, I’ll often choose not to contribute to competitions that take too much ownership of the images I contribute: but that’s my call, and if others want to agree to the terms, that’s their choice.nnBut yes, the larger point, which we’re both thinking about and have discussed before, is about the need to look beyond 1) copyright and 2) excluding “amateurs” as the foundations for business models in digital media businesses.
Anonymous

You’re going to make me say it aren’t you?nn”"Bypasses copyright protections that ensure income for artists” -> what does that mean?”nnIt means money. Copyright protections provide the leverage to ensure artists can enforce their pricing models and licensing fee structure. If content normally paid for with the bite of copyright behind it is no longer employed due to a preference of using freely submitted content then that is an issue for those whose business model just went out the window.nnMy feeling is if you’re not pushing the envelope with your portfolio to differentiate yourself, add value to your services or expand the cache you offer as an artist then you should expect to suffer a painful demise as a business. Adaptability is key as these low hanging fruit campaigns to crowdsource content will certainly persist. They’ll also grow old and stale. The question is will photographers outlast the trend?
http://www.taylordavidson.com/writing/ Taylor Davidson

yes, I’m going to make you say it. cheeky, I know :)nnagreed. but here’s the the thing: they didn’t rip people off. they didn’t rip artists off. they told contributors (people / artists / whatever) what the deal was. and people contributed, because monetizing copyrighted content isn’t their business model.nnthat’s the reality that anyone who creates digital media faces. and it’s what makes “pushing the envelope” and making yourself standout (with great content and context) critical.nncry as we might, the deluge of amateurs aren’t going away. better to change and embrace than fight a losing battle.nnone more “here’s the thing”: yes, crowdsourced campaigns like this do acquire images cheaper than buying licensed images. but the true value of these campaigns is that you’re building the marketing into the content by making it social. it’s a key part of creating viral social loops, by building the marketing into the product.nnjust better business.
Anonymous

You’re preaching to the choir. nnThats what people miss in this. Crowdsourcing content isn’t just about the content but engaging with an audience. Photographers have much to relearn in how content is used let alone gathered. In addition photographers would benefit from dissecting such tactics to see how they might apply audience outreach to their own business.
http://www.taylordavidson.com/writing/ Taylor Davidson

I’ve got a couple thoughts on how to engage and build fans and customers :)

Subscribe to the blog

Recent Posts