in the spirit of "saved you a click," I'll try to save you a Google, with some context re the "Shirley's recent letter to Kanye" reference.
Garbage's singer wrote an open letter calling out Kanye West for calling out Beck for winning a Grammy. this letter calls out the singer for calling out Kanye for calling out Beck.
basically:
Kanye: "you should give the Grammy to Beyoncé, to show respect for artistry."
Shirley: "you should shut the fuck up, to show respect for artistry."
photographer: "you should pay me if you want to use my work, to show respect for artistry."
basically, the artists' opinions here grow progressively less ridiculous as the artists' incomes approach the poverty level. which kind of bothers me.
edit: the artists' opinions also grow progressively less ridiculous as a function of the artists' distance from Kanye West.
Actually, that letter wasn't written to Kanye West. It was written to an anonymous person, who a reporter assumed was West and the story spread from there. Shirley later went on record saying it wasn't written to West, but instead to a record industry insider.
I interpret Garbage's response as saying that they aren't going to make a profit on the book and that they are asking photographers to give them permission to use their photographs gratis in order to keep the price of the book down. I've seen artists do similar recently. What's moronic about that?
What's unclear to me is that Pat Pope says they -told- him the photographs were being used, whereas the response implies he was -asked- if they could be used.
I have no issue with people (Amanda Palmer or otherwise) asking for help at whatever price they want, including free. I think the crowd that gets offended over even asking isn't in the right, and that "no" is a fine answer, as is "yes," or "for tree fiddy" or anything in between.
But if they contacted Pat Pope and just informed him these older photos would be used, outside any rights granted, that would be a far different story.
Pat pope says he was asked. He was told the band liked some of his photos and could they be used free if charge with attribution.
What is missing is whether the original query made it clear that this was a collaboration.
Re-read, and yeah. He doesn't really say it outright, unless it's further down, but does word it as "they would like" and "in return."
I really don't see the issue. Just reply that you don't work for free and be done with it.
I feel like people must get up in arms over this because they're afraid the value of their own work will drop if other people give it away, or something like that. Otherwise it's simply a "it's insulting to think I'd work for free" thing, which simply sounds kind of arrogant to me.
I don't feel threatened by open-source software, even BSD-licensed stuff where someone might sell my contribution, so I'm not real clear where they're coming from.
All they have to do is say no. If everyone says no, the situation will change. If everyone doesn't say no, then it's a damned good thing that Pat Pope doesn't speak for the person who actually wants to do it, then.
I interpreted it as an implicit admission that they don't have any legal documentation they can use any of the old images of them, so they're hoping by sending out mail saying "we're gonna use your photos unless we hear back from you" that most of the photographers will buckle or ignore or overlook the letter. And I've heard variations on "it won't make any [profit] so we don't think we should have to pay [you]" so many times it makes me ill.
I thought it was an interesting theory that they paid for the photo shoot in 1995 therefore had the rights to re-use the imagery as they saw fit. I wondered if they felt that if someone paid to go to one of their concerts in 1995 and heard the music they played, if they then have the right to listen for "free" to that same song from other sources or in other mediums. But really it strikes to the heart of 'payment in context' versus 'payment in ownership' sorts of things.
The economics of information really fascinates me and the concert example is one I use, where paying to see a band play in concert at the stadium, is, in one point of view, paying for the right to sit in a seat at the stadium at a particular time on a particular date. Sometimes the 'value' of sitting there is determined by the sports franchise playing, sometimes by the band that is playing. But more importantly the transaction did not pass on future ownership of the information about what transpired. You can't later get the recording of the band for "free" nor can you distribute a recording of the game you made. The transaction was much more complicated than it seemed.
12 comments
[ 3.5 ms ] story [ 46.5 ms ] threadGarbage's singer wrote an open letter calling out Kanye West for calling out Beck for winning a Grammy. this letter calls out the singer for calling out Kanye for calling out Beck.
basically:
Kanye: "you should give the Grammy to Beyoncé, to show respect for artistry."
Shirley: "you should shut the fuck up, to show respect for artistry."
photographer: "you should pay me if you want to use my work, to show respect for artistry."
basically, the artists' opinions here grow progressively less ridiculous as the artists' incomes approach the poverty level. which kind of bothers me.
edit: the artists' opinions also grow progressively less ridiculous as a function of the artists' distance from Kanye West.
Please read the letter from mr. Pope again, the moronic answer from Garbage on facebook (https://www.facebook.com/GarbageOfficial/posts/9812216918886...) and _think_!
They don't answer Pat's questions, don't understand the whole "payment" thingey and actually believes PAYING for something in 1995 should be enough...
Are they actually too stupid too understand?
Try to answer the two simple questions Pat Pope asked and Garbage didn't answer.
I have no issue with people (Amanda Palmer or otherwise) asking for help at whatever price they want, including free. I think the crowd that gets offended over even asking isn't in the right, and that "no" is a fine answer, as is "yes," or "for tree fiddy" or anything in between.
But if they contacted Pat Pope and just informed him these older photos would be used, outside any rights granted, that would be a far different story.
I really don't see the issue. Just reply that you don't work for free and be done with it.
I feel like people must get up in arms over this because they're afraid the value of their own work will drop if other people give it away, or something like that. Otherwise it's simply a "it's insulting to think I'd work for free" thing, which simply sounds kind of arrogant to me.
I don't feel threatened by open-source software, even BSD-licensed stuff where someone might sell my contribution, so I'm not real clear where they're coming from.
All they have to do is say no. If everyone says no, the situation will change. If everyone doesn't say no, then it's a damned good thing that Pat Pope doesn't speak for the person who actually wants to do it, then.
The economics of information really fascinates me and the concert example is one I use, where paying to see a band play in concert at the stadium, is, in one point of view, paying for the right to sit in a seat at the stadium at a particular time on a particular date. Sometimes the 'value' of sitting there is determined by the sports franchise playing, sometimes by the band that is playing. But more importantly the transaction did not pass on future ownership of the information about what transpired. You can't later get the recording of the band for "free" nor can you distribute a recording of the game you made. The transaction was much more complicated than it seemed.