Best Business Practices for Photographers [154]
As a freelancer, the notion that these companies want to own the copyright, feel they deserve the copyright, feel they are entitled to it, or take the attitude that "I paid for it, so I own it" shows ignorance about the intent of the framers of the Constitution and the law today. Let's take a look at an example. If, when driving through New York City, a Californian comes to a stop at a stoplight and then makes a right on red, that driver will get a ticket. You can't expect that your explanation to the issuing officer ("But officer, I didn't know I couldn't do that!") will mean you don't get or don't deserve the ticket. Further, an infrequent Manhattan driver in Manhattan might make the same claim.
Someone who has never licensed photography is similar to the aforementioned California driver in Manhattan. For the driver, there may be some room to get a warning ticket. And the photographer may be afforded an explanation by a copyright owner about how he can and can't use the work created.
In the case of the infrequent Manhattan driver, he lives in New York City and is obligated to know his city's driving rules—just as the ad agency or publishing conglomerate must know about the rules of copyright and the consequences for an infringement.
To give you an understanding of just how much the founders of the United States valued the concept of copyright, consider this. The Constitution begins "We the People," and the first section—the first—stipulates what legislative powers are held by Congress, as well as who can be a member of Congress and who can be a Senator. In Section 8, the Constitution stipulates that Congress shall:
"promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"
This limited exclusive right is the basis for US copyright. At the end of the chapter, I'll include suggested books that go into detail on how the US copyright is based upon English law. These books are excellent resources to understand the birth of copyright. This exclusive right delineation comes before a discussion of who can be the president and how. It comes before the rules and obligations of the states. Further, it comes before Constitutional corrections—things they forgot about or were wrong about and needed to fix or add—the Bill of Rights, ending slavery, the right to bear arms, and such, which became the various amendments to the Constitution. I say this because I hear all too often how copyright is not important to some photographers and that they don't really care or enforce their copyright.
Just as I get incensed over violations of a citizen's civil rights or prejudice against race or sex, I get angry on principle when people infringe on my right, given to me at the same time as senators and representatives, and before the president, and before the states, and before the right to bear arms, and before the numerous other amendments. The framers hundreds of years ago and people throughout time since have recognized the value of "useful arts" and sought within the first 1,600 words of a document that, without amendments, is approximately 4,500 words in length. When I hear a fellow artist say, "Oh, I really don't care about copyright," I find that offensive. I think that if "copyright" were to be substituted for "the right to keep and bear arms" or "the abolition of slavery" or "equal rights for men and women," almost everyone else would be offended by the artist's statement of disinterest. Yet it was these rights that were parts of the Bill of Rights—that were amendments to the constitution. The basis for copyright was not an amendment; it was in the body of the Constitution. So I encourage anyone who "doesn't care" about copyright, who is willing to sell it for a minute fraction of what it's worth, or who looks at someone who is enthusiastic about protecting their own copyright with disdain to rethink their own principles and perspective. Yes, I believe in copyright