Had ‘That Year’ Newspaper and their parent company ‘HAL’ asked prior to publishing the photo, it probably would have cost them next to nothing, since Bill is such an outstanding guy. He would have wanted a photo credit and [I assume] a steaming plate of ‘hot wings from hell’ from them. As it turned out, they didn’t ask, they just went ahead & took the easy way out, and published it without verifying ownership & ensuring permission was obtained.

They just freakin’ lucky Bill didn’t send them an invoice for $5,000. Since it’s after the fact, he could probably charge them anything he wanted, and they’d be hard-pressed to defend their actions in court and weasel out of paying the bill.

http://www.thisweeklive.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=105&Itemid=189

Larry, I understand where you are coming from, BUT the law IS the law considering copyright infringement…. This appears to be cut and dried concerning Bill’s photo.

The issue is using the photo on the front page of the newspaper and not asking permission or crediting the photographer. I dont see anywhere in this thread where Bill has claimed there was anything special about the photo.

If I steal a car, and then run it into a tree, I dont get to just pay the owner the fair value of the car and call it good. There are other penalties associated with stealing.

Now if Bill’s photo were in that class, he would have a stronger argument.

It would if they had come to me first and asked me to set my price before they chose to print their image. Unfortunately they do not get to set the price after the fact.

The rest of your comment, while interesting, has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

I will offer my opinion on what lies ahead for the future of photo copyright. I think without doubt and due primarily to the advent and spread of the internet and cellphone cameras, the ownership value and rights of ALL photos will be diminished. And the reason is twofold. 1) there is little creative talent involved. 5 chimpanzees and 5 journalism students could both be taught to point and click a camera and set loose at a place like Woodstock or WE Fest and told to shoot for an hour and that only 1 photo would be selected to win a $500 prize. The odds are virtually equal that the winning photo will come from one of the chimps as from the journalism student. So how can it be argued that there is skill and talent involved? Getting a good photo is more a function of being at the right place at the right time, having the proper equipment and then being able to adjust it post shot via software or other techniques. It is not the same as painting or writing or designing or invented. Taking a photo has become easier because the equipment is more accessible and the cost has virtually vanished. So eventually, this will be argued before the Supreme Court and a reasonable ruling will be made.

The second impetus to making a change in how this now works is the annoying papparazzi and media that have sprung up to hound celebrities and POLITICIANS and anyone of interest. Because these people are so annoying and perhaps even dangerous (i.e., Princess Diana), legislation will someday find its way into law to make this more two-sided in that the subject of the photo will be entitled to payment —perhaps even the majority of the payment, and this will greatly suppress the “photo takin’ industry”.

So I guess Bill should try to get it while he can. The laws will someday change.

Too many people think they are Ansel Adams with a camera. I think back to famous photos that have survived the test of time. I think of the soldiers raising the flag on Iwo Jima and what a powerful photo that is. I think these kinds of photos come along once or twice in a lifetime and again, timing is everything.

In my opinion, we recently had another of these photos taken that I think will last forever and that is the one of all the passengers from the USAir crash standing on the wings of the plane as it sinks into the Hudson River. Now if Bill’s photo were in that class, he would have a stronger argument.

My niece got married recently and had two photographers at her wedding/reception/dance and they took over 2000 photos –all of which are available for purchase on their website. They have their logo burned into the samples on the website so that they can’t be copied without paying for them. I thought about this. It has lowered the value of the photographer while raising the price. It used to be that the photographer had to know something about light and speed and film and focus and alignment etc. THERE WAS TALENT INVOLVED. And he had to have a darkroom and be a chemist and know a little bit about alot of things. Digital photography allows virtual idiots (and I’m one of them) to take photos, crop, highlight and print or send. Who among us couldn’t take 2000 photos and end up with 20 or 30 that make a nice album? And given the over 50% divorce rate in the USA, can you think of any expense that is a bigger waste than wedding photography?

To prove my point, I’m going shopping for tuxedos for my 3 chimps this afternoon!

But what’s the damage here? Bill suffered the potential loss of a sale, but how much is that worth? 50$? 300$?

Though, I suppose one could make the same argument of pirating MP3s and we all know what the damages for that were!