On 2013-10-19 01:10, DANET PIERRE wrote:
>- The photography "industry" (read: stock agencies and similar
>distribution models) have learned this a long time ago: even so-called
>"rights managed" licenses are just that: a license, based on mutual
>trust. Some independent photographers are still learning this, and how
>to use new business models, but there is progress.
Do you really believe in mutual trust in this world ? I would love to believe
this but sorry, this is an utopian view.
No, it's just common practice. If you want a photo for your website, or
a magazine, you can go to a photostock company, find an image that
matches what you need and buy a license for your usage. You can choose
what you you need a license for, and for how long, and the price you pay
depends on that. Maybe you want exclusive usage of the photo, then you'd
pay more for that (because you'd be the only one paying for it). Then
you get the photo.
No DRM. Just the photo, for you to use as you've chosen to use it. The
stock seller effectively trusts you to stick to that license. You trust
the stock agency (or photographer) if you buy exclusive use, that they
will indeed not sell it to someone else. Like most any contract, this
contract depends on trust - but if any party breaks that trust, there is
the law (not necessarily copyright law even: contract law is probably
sufficient). This is how it *works* and has worked for many decades. I'm
just describing one common practice of selling and buying photographs
(there are more, of course).
No 'Utopia' here: just one (very common) business practice.
Next time you see a photo in a magazine, on a web site, or on a book
cover, or on the coasters on your table, think about how that photo got
there, and how DRM plays no role at all - but trust does. (How would you
even *do* DRM for printed photos? :))
--
Marjolein Katsma Photography
http://www.artflakes.com/en/shop/marjoleink
http://marjoleink.photoshelter.com/
http://marjoleink.redbubble.com/
