Robert, I'm sorry about the miscommunication on negotiation. I only come to you now because you offered yourself, I never thought you were one to make executive decisions at PodTech (correct me if I'm wrong). I know John is someone that can make executive decisions.
I know how hard it must be for him to deal with his mother death. It is a horrible time for me to be asking anything of him. I keep posting to the group in reply to posts, but I want to talk to John when he is ready; or talk to someone else that can make decisions for PodTech. -Lan www.LanBui.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Scoble" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > You told me on the phone that you did not want to negotiate. At least that's > how I remember hearing it. Sorry if I heard wrong. You told me specifically > that PodTech was not in position to negotiate. > > > > The problem is I'm getting in between you and John Furrier. John's mom died > this week which is causing problems figuring out where things are. > > > > I'll get him to answer you. > > > > Regarding photo prices, I talked with photographers who work for Associated > Press, Business Week and other magazines. > > > > I agree that we dropped the ball. No excuses there, but I wasn't involved > back then and am trying to clean up a mess and having trouble getting it > cleaned up because of John's mom's death. > > > > Robert Scoble > > > > ### > > > > From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Behalf Of Lan Bui > Sent: Friday, June 29, 2007 10:51 PM > To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com > Subject: [videoblogging] Re: Hey PodTech - What's up with Lan's image? > > > > Robert, thank you for finally coming out and saying something for > PodTech to the community. > > First, I must say that your statement: > > "He believes his work is worth that and believes that there isn't room > for negotiation on this issue." > > Is a lie. > > One of the points in my blog post was that I wanted, at minimum, to be > contacted to negotiate. In the last couple days I did negotiate down a > lot less than $3000 and even sent an updated invoice for it. So how is > this not negotiating on the issue? Remember we talked about this on > the phone, so I'm not sure why you left that out. > > PodTech had the chance to ask to purchase a license to use the > photograph before it was used, at which time they would be able to set > the terms. That didn't happen. Now that they have used the photograph > already, who should set the terms? > > I gave PodTech over a month to respond to my terms and they didn't. > When it was just me that was involved PodTech didn't care. When others > started to blog about it and it was giving them a bad name, then > PodTech started to care. Remember, that blog post was up for about a > month before others started take notice to it. So PodTech showed to me > they don't care about me, they only care about their image in the > public eye. > > Next, I am not Thomas Hawk. Wait... Thomas Hawk? I will be the > professional and not discuss the prices that PodTech pays him. > Remember Robert, you told me how much PodTech pays him and that > reinforced my price even more! > > You also said: > > "It was easy to see how a mistake was made since usually people in the > community who, when invited to an event we held usually give us photos > that were snapped at our events for free" > > I was not contacted... so how could there be a mistake regarding > permission? I also never gave (if you meant sent in to PodTech) any > photographs that this one could be mistaken for. > > You also said: > > "it's easy to miss the copyright on Flickr" > > Come on, that argument is weak. Putting something in the same place on > every page on flickr makes it very easy to not miss. > > You said: > > "I asked several professional photographers, the average fee was > $300." and "3x what most professionals in the marketplace charge for > this kind of work" > > Please don't lie again. The $300 price point is for stock photography. > I even asked John where you guys got $300 from and he said "that is > standard for a stock photograph". If there is a photograph with Casey > McKinnon holding Vloggies in a stock photography book somewhere I > would love to see it. The photograph that was chosen was chosen > because it had great value. It is not stock photography and I am not a > stock photographer. > > Ok, lastly. Lets say I accepted $1000. Wow that sounds like a lot of > money to many people that aren't making money from their creative > work. Well this issue is not about me making money. It is about > setting a precedent. > > If we allow companies to steal work and only pay a standard small fee > when they are discovered, what is the incentive for them not steal > again? Is that what other companies should learn from this? Just take > now and deal with it later if it ever comes up. And don't worry, it > still won't cost more than if we paid up front. > > To anyone else reading this: I hope this clarifies and corrects > Roberts post. > > -Lan > www.LanBui.com > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com > <mailto:videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com> , "Robert Scoble" > <robertscoble@> wrote: > > > > Here's what happened. > > > > > > > > An employee made a mistake. We recognize that a mistake was made. It was > > easy to see how a mistake was made since usually people in the community > > who, when invited to an event we held usually give us photos that were > > snapped at our events for free and it's easy to miss the copyright on > > Flickr. Thomas Hawk, for instance, takes lots of photos at our > events and > > gives them to us for free since he's appreciative for the community > work we > > do. > > > > > > > > We asked around what a photo like the one that we used by Lan Bui > was worth. > > I asked several professional photographers, the average fee was > $300. Lan > > was not commissioned to take photos and an employee made a mistake > by using > > a photo and not making sure we had the rights to use it before using it. > > > > > > > > But Lan wants $3,000. > > > > > > > > We have offered Lan something between those two prices which we feel > is fair > > ($1,000 is the price I saw offered by PodTech CEO John Furrier, which is > > more than 3x what most professionals in the marketplace charge for > this kind > > of work). > > > > > > > > Lan wants $3,000. He believes his work is worth that and believes > that there > > isn't room for negotiation on this issue. > > > > > > > > So we're at an impass. > > > > > > > > I'm personally sorry for the whole way this thing has been handled, > though, > > and still would like to find a way to get the two parties to reach > closure > > on this problem. > > > > > > > > I do want to make sure Lan gets compensated properly for his > intellectual > > property, but we want to reach a fair price and one that's based on what > > professionals expect. > > > > > > > > Robert Scoble > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] >
