I agree that it may feel weird when you see your image in a place without knowing it would be there beforehand, but I think it is MUCH MUCH more important to defend the ability of art to be as CREATIVE as possible with as FEW roadblocks in its path.

Video art and sound art, especially modern experimental work (as well as aforementioned documentary work), thrives on mashup culture. To me, this is a clear cut case of a professional going after a non-profit group of people having a little fun in their time off work, trying to make something creative. I think it’s very petty.

what about appropriation? hasn’t it been defended in art?

Haven’t many famous photographs been produced of other photographs, including some of the best selling of all time? (prince’s marlboro photograph)

Isn’t photography itself one of the most heavily contested mediums, for “stealing” other artists images and using them? Aren’t photographers often protesting someone trying to get them to stop taking pictures of their buildings, sculptures, faces, etc?

With the internet comes the next level of this debate, and I see it as one that traditional art and copyright is set to lose. Artists will do whatever it takes to make whatever points they want to make, as trivial or earthshattering as they may be.

I say use it to your benefit and don’t end up lost with the flow.

I want to add that I think in different circumstances the response of the photographer should be appropriate.

some examples of unapproved use and what I think is appropriate:

Corporate ad – Send bill or use legal action

Editorial usage (in a publication for sale) – send bill or use legal action

Website Usage for corporation – Send bill or use legal action

Website for nonprofit – send email asking if they knew they forgot to ask, possibly compensation if they are able, ask for credit

non-profit publication – ask for credit, possible compensation

arts non-profit publication (zine) – ask for credit

arts usage (appropriation, gallery, etc) – ask for credit

internet video – ask for credit, postdated royalties if video ever becomes popular and makes large amounts of money (never)

myspace, livejournal, imageboard (such as 4chan.org), etc – laugh, post credit yourself as anon, stop being such a stickler and realize the internet is always going to be a den of scum and villainy. Go have an ice cream.

Rights holders have increasingly argued that film makers must ask for prior permission and clearly attribute each image and clip, which has forced independent film makers to spend years tracking down permissions and forcing them to legally defend each second of their films.

http://blog.stayfreemagazine.org/2005/02/copyright_and_d.html

Perhaps Lane Hartwell didn’t set out to attack the rights of documentary film makers or independent video artists. But this is the route she’s taken…

I wouldn’t call myself a starving blogger, but I don’t get paid to blog. I also don’t make any money from advertising.

I’m also a photographer and make money from my photos. Unfortunately, I can’t take photos to match each post’s topic, and I can’t afford purchasing clip art, so I do what (seemingly) most people do: a google search.

As I learn more about creative commons and how to use it, I have consciously tried to change my photo-raiding ways. Over the last couple of weeks, my system for attribution has shifted from just linking back to the original, to actually putting title, artist (with link to their flickr page) plus link to creative commons description.

I still don’t know if that is correct, but I feel more comfortable about it.

oh, PS, Brian: I used a photo of yours in Thursday’s post. Let me know if I didn’t do it correctly….