Leslie Burns' non-lawyer presence
In Esquire’s case, the answer is, apparently, both. According to this AP article, Esquire is releasing an issue with an “electronic ink” cover that flashes images and text. Inside, Ford has a spread that uses the same technology to show one of its cars.
What does this mean for print in the future? And what does it mean for photographers whose images may be part of a flashing electronic ink ad in a print pub?
Ms. Rowling scores yet another victory for intellectual property creators by successfully getting an injunction stopping the release of the Harry Potter Lexicon. The “author” of that book claimed that his “encyclopedia” using vast amounts of Rowling’s work was protected under fair use. Not so fast, Bucko!
Note that the damages awarded were really minimal. This was because the Court did not want to discourage legitimately compiled reference works. Also, the book had not been released yet.
HOW magazine has an interesting article on a researcher’s theory of creativity. It’s a bit (just a teeny bit) academic, but very interesting nonetheless. Give it a read and figure out which of the two kinds you might be.
Just because someone spends a ton of money on a promo, doesn’t mean it is any good. Take the newMicrosoft commercial made by CP&B with Jerry Seinfield.
How many millions did this cost to make? How many millions have been spent on placement? But where is the core message? What does it offer the buyer?
In my opinion (and I’m sure others will disagree), it’s not even funny. But it fails mostly because the CP&B folks (and MS) tried too hard to be Apple-esque–quirky/witty as the Mac/PC ads have been–and in copying (without looking like they were copying) they stopped being themselves.
So, you can spend a butt-load of money, but it will fall flat if you forget to be, well, you.
(thanks åsk for the link)
Ew. They are collecting data with Chrome. Ick.
Thanks to fellow adlander Brent Hahn, here is something you absolutely MUST read if you are even vaguely interested in Google’s new Chrome browser. Basically, the terms are such that you give away the rights to your content….for many of you, that would be your images. Quote:
In other words, by posting anything (via Chrome) to your blog(s), any forum, video site, myspace, itunes, or any other site that might happen to be supporting you, Google can use your work without paying you a dime. This doesn’t just apply to blogger, youtube, gmail etc, and if you think it does, re-read section 1.1 and 11. It applies to everything you pass through Chrome.
Yowza!
****UPDATE****
Apparently the outcry from the blogosphere worked–Google has updated and (I hear, I haven’t read them yet) corrected the rights. Check in the comments for more info, and the info in the link above has been updated too.
Jamie Nelson is a talented photographer. Apparently, BBDO liked her work so much, they wanted to use it. Problem is, I guess, they didn’t want to pay for it so they got another photographer to recreate one of her images.
This isn’t even close to being a questionable case–it’s totally an infringement and I hope she goes after them (including the other photographer!) with a great lawyer.
Of course, I assume that a pro like her is registering all her images… and that you are registering yours too. Right? Don’t make me come back there and beat you. 😉
There is another thing you can do to help prevent copyright infringement. When a client comes to you with an image (not a marker comp or other non-infringing comp) tell them that you can’t shoot it. Tell them that no mater how much or little you change, you (and they) could get sued for copyright. Let them know that there is NO acceptable percentage of change to save you–that is, the law does not cite a percentage. If reasonable people (a jury or even one judge, depending) would think that the images are too alike, that’s all it takes.
And go after the photographers, not just the clients, who rip off your work.
(hat tip to åsk for the link)