I thought it was an advert for a competition involving Seagate, not

just a banner promoting the event itself?



Theres an interesting array of possible uses of copyrighted material

without permission, that some people will argue should be allowed, and

that make the inflexibility of copyright seem very silly and creative

commons less silly, though still not perfect. Ive not seen adverts

feature in this grey area before, they are pretty much the most

commercial use of material that someone could make, I would have thought.



Its not crime of the century and there are certainly companies doing

things which are potentially much more harmful/unfair to creators than

this incident, but its still enough to instill a sense of injustice in

some people, and for people to want to see a resolution, and groan &

moan at podtechs responses so far.



Im struggling even to find much to speculate about why there hasnt

been an amicable solution already. Either the price is considered

wrong, or podtech belive they have the rights to photographs taken at

the event, or they thought they already had some other deal, or they

dont think it is his photo? Whatever, I would think its far easier for

this situation to be happily resolved than it will be to get a result

with wider issues of creators getting a fair share of pie in the world

of online video, a battle thats far more daunting.



Cheers



Steve Elbows

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Meiser"

<groups-yahoo-com@...> wrote:

>

> Well... I'm glad people haven't resorted to name calling.

>

> Got to say, while I love podtech I'm a little disapointed at their

> response. The accussations about lan presenting a one sided story...

> is it his responsibility to present both sides? Is that even possible?

> And Scoble's negative conjecture about "loosing money on the

> vloggies"... is an unecissary and unwarranted resentful remark toward

> the whole community which reflects poorly on podtech. It is perhaps

> the thing that disturbs me most about this.  Very disapointing.  As

> for bringing up deaths in related people's families... very

> unforetunate remark.

>

> I don't know what other side to the story there is... The facts are

> this... Podtech used lan's photo... mistakes happen... noone here

> holds a grudge... but they've had more then enough time to resolve it

> and haven't.

>

> There's no need to drag the whole thing through the mud on either

> side... I just hope podtech and lan can resolve the issue so we can

> leave it quickly and quietly behind. I don't believe it's indicative

> of any larger issue... it's not like some printing company is selling

> prints of dozens of Lan's photos for hundreds of dollars each. It was

> an event to promote videobloggers.

>

> I'd hope because of that context Lan would accept an appology from

> Podtech but that's up to Lan.

>

> On a related note, perhaps this will provide some perspective.  Some

> kids from Maryland got their yearbooks recently to find a slew of

> their facebook pictures in them.

>

> How's that for intellectual property theft? How would you have liked

> to recieve a yearbook only to find a bunch of your pictures from your

> blog in it?  Makes a somewhat subtle duotone photo in the background

> of a banner seem like a relatively minor incident by comparison. Not

> to diminish the injustice to Lan, but there are worse things that

> could have happened.

>

> http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070627/012707.shtml

>

> I hope the matter gets resolved quickly. The only shame here is that

> it hasn't been resolved already and was allowed to drag out.

>

> Group hug? :)

>

> -Mike

> mmeiser.com/blog

> mefeedia.com

>

> On 6/29/07, Adam Quirk, Wreck & Salvage <quirk@...> wrote:

> > I've been surprised by all the vitriol.  I'd have thought that

Podtech would

> > have built up a couple brownie points with y'all by now, what with

their

> > paying you real money, and hosting awards shows for us all to

circle-jerk

> > at.

> >

> > Maybe the lesson here is to get paid First?  Once you put

something online,

> > you don't own it anymore than you can claim to own a rainbow

hovering above

> > your house.  It's in the public consciousness, part of the firehose of

> > experiences that we all consume, transitory experiences.  I think

especially

> > in this case since it's a digital photo of Casey McKinnon, if

anyone has a

> > claim to some money it would be her.  If someone else made a

recording of a

> > song I was playing, and royalties were to be paid for that

recording, I'd

> > likely be the one to receive them.  But I wouldn't demand them.

Something

> > just sits wrong with me when I hear about people billing other

people for

> > services that they weren't hired to provide.

> >

> > Creative Commons is pretty silly, not as silly as traditional

copyright, but

> > pretty silly.

> >

> > I'm heading out of town now so I won't be able to respond to any

shit slung

> > my way for a while :)

> >

> > P.S. Lan, you're a badass photog, I'm glad I found your work via

this mess.

> >

> > -Adam

> >

> >

> > On 6/29/07, tim@... <tim@...> wrote:

> > >

> > > Can we give this a rest for a week or two and see what happens?

> > >

> > > This group does some very cool things and discovers news worthy

> > > information all the time and this has the two side talking.

> > >

> > > It sounds like something is going to happen and that this will come

> > > to a settlement but I don't think that will happen untill after the

> > > 4th of July so can we pause for a little while, bring it back up

> > > later if we need to and move on to some fun stuff like What iPhone

> > > line is Steve Garfield standing in?  or Why is Ask a Ninja going to

> > > Israel ?

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Tim

> > >

> > > Tim Street

> > > Creator/Executive Producer

> > > French Maid TV

> > > The Viral Video of "How To's" by French Maids

> > > http://frenchmaidtv.com

> > > Subscribe for FREE on

> > > <ahref="http://www.frenchmaidtv.com/itunes "

target="_blank">iTunes</a>

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > On Jun 29, 2007, at 9:46 AM, Devlon Duthie wrote:

> > >

> > > > I'm with Carl.

> > > >

> > > > If we want to use crowd 'weight' wouldn't an email/blog/pr frenzy

> > > > be more

> > > > effective?

> > > >

> > > > also, just saying :)

> > > >

> > > > --

> > > > -Devlon

> > > >

> > > > http://devlonduthie.com | http://mefeedia.com |

http://node-64.com/

> > > > blog

> > > > MSN: du.th.ied

> > > > AIM: devlond

> > > >

> > > > -----Original Message-----

> > > > From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com

> > > > [mailto:videoblogging@yahoogroups.com]

> > > > On Behalf Of Carl Weaver

> > > > Sent: Friday, June 29, 2007 8:02 AM

> > > > To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com

> > > > Subject: [videoblogging] Re: Hey PodTech - What's up with

Lan's image?

> > > >

> > > > I have a problem with raising money for Lan on the list. Yes, Lan

> > > > deserves his fees (and 3 times that because of the

infringement) but

> > > > to raise it ourselves lets Podtech off the hook a little bit.

Okay, so

> > > > Lan is paid - why should Podtech cough up the dough then?

> > > >

> > > > I'm just sayin'...

> > > >

> > > > Carl

> > > >

> > > > Carl Weaver

> > > > Photographer

> > > > http://www.carlweaver.com

> > > > http://www.camerasamurai.com - Photography education, news, tips

> > > > and more

> > > > http://dcmetrostories.com - DC Metro Stories: Stories about the

> > > > people,

> > > > places

> > > > and events in the DC Metro area

> > > > http://nextlifeintheafternoon.com - A Journey Through Thailand

> > > >

> > > > Michael Sullivan wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > no comment....

> > > > >

> > > > > except that i bet we could organize a little crowdfunding effort

> > > > to pay

> > > > lan

> > > > > before podtech does.

> > > > > care for some competition, podtech?

> > > > >

> > > > > lan, how much do we need to raise?

> > > >

> > > > Yahoo! Groups Links

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Yahoo! Groups Links

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> >

> >

> > --

> > Adam Quirk

> > Wreck & Salvage

> > 551.208.4644

> > Brooklyn, NY

> > http://wreckandsalvage.com

> >

> >

> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > Yahoo! Groups Links

> >

> >

> >

> >

>

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







###







From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com [mailto:videoblogging@yahoogroups.com]

On Behalf Of Mike Meiser

Sent: Friday, June 29, 2007 1:58 P

To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com

Subject: Re: [videoblogging] Re: Hey PodTech - What's up with Lan's image?







Well... I'm glad people haven't resorted to name calling.



Got to say, while I love podtech I'm a little disapointed at their

response. The accussations about lan presenting a one sided story...

is it his responsibility to present both sides? Is that even possible?

And Scoble's negative conjecture about "loosing money on the

vloggies"... is an unecissary and unwarranted resentful remark toward

the whole community which reflects poorly on podtech. It is perhaps

the thing that disturbs me most about this. Very disapointing. As

for bringing up deaths in related people's families... very

unforetunate remark.



I don't know what other side to the story there is... The facts are

this... Podtech used lan's photo... mistakes happen... noone here

holds a grudge... but they've had more then enough time to resolve it

and haven't.



There's no need to drag the whole thing through the mud on either

side... I just hope podtech and lan can resolve the issue so we can

leave it quickly and quietly behind. I don't believe it's indicative

of any larger issue... it's not like some printing company is selling

prints of dozens of Lan's photos for hundreds of dollars each. It was

an event to promote videobloggers.



I'd hope because of that context Lan would accept an appology from

Podtech but that's up to Lan.



On a related note, perhaps this will provide some perspective. Some

kids from Maryland got their yearbooks recently to find a slew of

their facebook pictures in them.



How's that for intellectual property theft? How would you have liked

to recieve a yearbook only to find a bunch of your pictures from your

blog in it? Makes a somewhat subtle duotone photo in the background

of a banner seem like a relatively minor incident by comparison. Not

to diminish the injustice to Lan, but there are worse things that

could have happened.



http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070627/012707.shtml



I hope the matter gets resolved quickly. The only shame here is that

it hasn't been resolved already and was allowed to drag out.



Group hug? :)



-Mike

mmeiser.com/blog

mefeedia.com



On 6/29/07, Adam Quirk, Wreck & Salvage <quirk@...

<mailto:quirk%40wreckandsalvage.com> > wrote:

> I've been surprised by all the vitriol. I'd have thought that Podtech

would

> have built up a couple brownie points with y'all by now, what with their

> paying you real money, and hosting awards shows for us all to circle-jerk

> at.

>

> Maybe the lesson here is to get paid First? Once you put something online,

> you don't own it anymore than you can claim to own a rainbow hovering

above

> your house. It's in the public consciousness, part of the firehose of

> experiences that we all consume, transitory experiences. I think

especially

> in this case since it's a digital photo of Casey McKinnon, if anyone has a

> claim to some money it would be her. If someone else made a recording of a

> song I was playing, and royalties were to be paid for that recording, I'd

> likely be the one to receive them. But I wouldn't demand them. Something

> just sits wrong with me when I hear about people billing other people for

> services that they weren't hired to provide.

>

> Creative Commons is pretty silly, not as silly as traditional copyright,

but

> pretty silly.

>

> I'm heading out of town now so I won't be able to respond to any shit

slung

> my way for a while :)

>

> P.S. Lan, you're a badass photog, I'm glad I found your work via this

mess.

>

> -Adam

>

>

> On 6/29/07, tim@... <mailto:tim%40frenchmaidtv.com>

<tim@... <mailto:tim%40frenchmaidtv.com> > wrote:

> >

> > Can we give this a rest for a week or two and see what happens?

> >

> > This group does some very cool things and discovers news worthy

> > information all the time and this has the two side talking.

> >

> > It sounds like something is going to happen and that this will come

> > to a settlement but I don't think that will happen untill after the

> > 4th of July so can we pause for a little while, bring it back up

> > later if we need to and move on to some fun stuff like What iPhone

> > line is Steve Garfield standing in? or Why is Ask a Ninja going to

> > Israel ?

> >

> >

> >

> > Tim

> >

> > Tim Street

> > Creator/Executive Producer

> > French Maid TV

> > The Viral Video of "How To's" by French Maids

> > http://frenchmaidtv.com

> > Subscribe for FREE on

> > <ahref="http://www.frenchmaidtv.com/itunes " target="_blank">iTunes</a>

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > On Jun 29, 2007, at 9:46 AM, Devlon Duthie wrote:

> >

> > > I'm with Carl.

> > >

> > > If we want to use crowd 'weight' wouldn't an email/blog/pr frenzy

> > > be more

> > > effective?

> > >

> > > also, just saying :)

> > >

> > > --

> > > -Devlon

> > >

> > > http://devlonduthie.com | http://mefeedia.com | http://node-64.com/

> > > blog

> > > MSN: du.th.ied

> > > AIM: devlond

> > >

> > > -----Original Message-----

> > > From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com

<mailto:videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com>

> > > [mailto:videoblogging@yahoogroups.com

<mailto:videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com> ]

> > > On Behalf Of Carl Weaver

> > > Sent: Friday, June 29, 2007 8:02 AM

> > > To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com

<mailto:videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com>

> > > Subject: [videoblogging] Re: Hey PodTech - What's up with Lan's image?

> > >

> > > I have a problem with raising money for Lan on the list. Yes, Lan

> > > deserves his fees (and 3 times that because of the infringement) but

> > > to raise it ourselves lets Podtech off the hook a little bit. Okay, so

> > > Lan is paid - why should Podtech cough up the dough then?

> > >

> > > I'm just sayin'...

> > >

> > > Carl

> > >

> > > Carl Weaver

> > > Photographer

> > > http://www.carlweaver.com

> > > http://www.camerasamurai.com - Photography education, news, tips

> > > and more

> > > http://dcmetrostories.com - DC Metro Stories: Stories about the

> > > people,

> > > places

> > > and events in the DC Metro area

> > > http://nextlifeintheafternoon.com - A Journey Through Thailand

> > >

> > > Michael Sullivan wrote:

> > > >

> > > > no comment....

> > > >

> > > > except that i bet we could organize a little crowdfunding effort

> > > to pay

> > > lan

> > > > before podtech does.

> > > > care for some competition, podtech?

> > > >

> > > > lan, how much do we need to raise?

> > >

> > > Yahoo! Groups Links

> > >

> > >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > Yahoo! Groups Links

> >

> >

> >

> >

>

>

> --

> Adam Quirk

> Wreck & Salvage

> 551.208.4644

> Brooklyn, NY

> http://wreckandsalvage.com

>

>

> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

>

>

>

>

> Yahoo! Groups Links

>

>

>

>











[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

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, "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

>

>

>

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:videoblogging@yahoogroups.com]

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]

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"

<robertscoble@...> 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:videoblogging@yahoogroups.com]

> 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]

>

hi everybody,



I've been lurking on this thread and watching this whole thing develop. I

thought I might add my 2¢...



Is US$3k unreasonable for this photo? We on this list don't know.



I'm not in the field, but my wife is a commercial illustrator and I assume

the markets work similarly. The price for usage is based on many factors

that we don't have the specifics for. Mr. Bui isn't selling the photo, he's

selling usage rights. Generally prices are negotiated around size of

reproduction, exclusivity, distribution (how many eyeballs will see it), how

many times it can be used, it what regions it can be used, etc, etc. We

don't have any of these specifics so it's very hard to make a judgment on

whether or not the price is reasonable.



IMHO if what Mr. Bui is selling is the right to use this photo 1 time

non-exclusively on this printed banner at the conference then 3k seems high

to me. But, as he said, it's been used so he is now in the more powerful

negotiating position.



Having said that it would probably be best for everyone to resolve it using

a mediator that knows the market and have both parties agree to abide by

whatever price this mediator comes up with.



Good luck to everyone involved :)



On 6/30/07, Lan Bui <lan.bui.vloggroup@...> wrote:

>

> 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"

> <robertscoble@...> 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:videoblogging@yahoogroups.com]

> > 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]

> >

>

>

>

>

>

> Yahoo! Groups Links

>

>

>

>





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Howdy T. Whild,



$3k isn't absurd, especially not for a professional photographer.

Mostly it depends on what the photo is being licensced for, and what

the photog has historically charged.



In this case it looks like it was for a one-off or atleast very

limited run banner... and I personally agree with you that it seems a

little high.



Unforetuneatly when the photo is used without permission then I think

it's the photog's call. There fundamentally can't be negotiation after

the fact.



This is why maybe if Podtech and Lan can't agree what I would suggest

is they both agree to have some party they both trust be the

arbitrater. There's plenty of great people in this space they both

know and can trust.



-Mike



On 6/30/07, T. Whid <email.t.whid@...> wrote:

> hi everybody,

>

> I've been lurking on this thread and watching this whole thing develop. I

> thought I might add my 2¢...

>

> Is US$3k unreasonable for this photo? We on this list don't know.

>

> I'm not in the field, but my wife is a commercial illustrator and I assume

> the markets work similarly. The price for usage is based on many factors

> that we don't have the specifics for. Mr. Bui isn't selling the photo, he's

> selling usage rights. Generally prices are negotiated around size of

> reproduction, exclusivity, distribution (how many eyeballs will see it), how

> many times it can be used, it what regions it can be used, etc, etc. We

> don't have any of these specifics so it's very hard to make a judgment on

> whether or not the price is reasonable.

>

> IMHO if what Mr. Bui is selling is the right to use this photo 1 time

> non-exclusively on this printed banner at the conference then 3k seems high

> to me. But, as he said, it's been used so he is now in the more powerful

> negotiating position.

>

> Having said that it would probably be best for everyone to resolve it using

> a mediator that knows the market and have both parties agree to abide by

> whatever price this mediator comes up with.

>

> Good luck to everyone involved :)

>

> On 6/30/07, Lan Bui <lan.bui.vloggroup@...> wrote:

> >

> > 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"

> > <robertscoble@...> 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:videoblogging@yahoogroups.com]

> > > 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]

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > Yahoo! Groups Links

> >

> >

> >

> >

>

>

> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

>

>

>

>

> Yahoo! Groups Links

>

>

>

>

Make a mistake and own it? Priceless!



My opinion and thoughts (for what that's worth)



I missed a lot in this thread. Not likely I will be able to catch up

either. So if I am repeating someone else's input it is truly a case

of like minds thinking.



Robert, you are a stand up guy. No doubt and big props to you.



Lan, understand how you feel and do not find fault with your position.



To quote Rodney King ... oh never mind.



$300 is too low (considering this is after the fact) and $3000 is too

high considering the limited use of the image and it's purpose.

(Podtech may be a business, but we should lead by example too, we are

suppose to be in this boat together).



Solution (and certainly not the only): vlogger legal defense fund!



How to do this? Podtech ponies up $1000.00 total which pays Lan

$600.00 (double the lowest possible PRE use negotiated license fee)

and opens a legal defense fund for video bloggers using the remaining

$400 for the creation of this funds cost and a initial deposit. Lan

can (if he chooses) donate any amount he sees fit to this fund.



Seems like a nice way to make nice.



I know that this means that guidelines, rules and a bunch of other

stuff might need to be put into effect. Then again, this group seems

to me at least, to be capable of expressing opinion that can be used

to gauge under what circumstances funds would be disbursed.



If a fund is set up, I would like to be the third person to contribute.









--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Scoble"

<robertscoble@...> 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:videoblogging@yahoogroups.com]

> 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]

>

Hey all,



I've been messing around with Mogulus and we are going to be

attempting to broadcast an adoption of a dog that we will be then

taking into our Performance Dog Rescue ( http://

performancerescues.blogspot.com ).



If you'd care to tune in: http://mogulus.com/channels/watch/1245



Warning:

Crashing FF happens...

Our connection is very slow, 2 bars on a cel, so the vidoe will be

bad... how bad?



That'd be nice to know.



Would appreciate any feedback.

   Cheers,



Ron Watson

http://k9disc.blip.tv

http://k9disc.com

http://pawsitivevybe.com/vlog

http://pawsitivevybe.com







On Jun 30, 2007, at 11:30 AM, bordercollieaustralianshepherd wrote:



> Make a mistake and own it? Priceless!

>

> My opinion and thoughts (for what that's worth)

>

> I missed a lot in this thread. Not likely I will be able to catch up

> either. So if I am repeating someone else's input it is truly a case

> of like minds thinking.

>

> Robert, you are a stand up guy. No doubt and big props to you.

>

> Lan, understand how you feel and do not find fault with your position.

>

> To quote Rodney King ... oh never mind.

>

> $300 is too low (considering this is after the fact) and $3000 is too

> high considering the limited use of the image and it's purpose.

> (Podtech may be a business, but we should lead by example too, we are

> suppose to be in this boat together).

>

> Solution (and certainly not the only): vlogger legal defense fund!

>

> How to do this? Podtech ponies up $1000.00 total which pays Lan

> $600.00 (double the lowest possible PRE use negotiated license fee)

> and opens a legal defense fund for video bloggers using the remaining

> $400 for the creation of this funds cost and a initial deposit. Lan

> can (if he chooses) donate any amount he sees fit to this fund.

>

> Seems like a nice way to make nice.

>

> I know that this means that guidelines, rules and a bunch of other

> stuff might need to be put into effect. Then again, this group seems

> to me at least, to be capable of expressing opinion that can be used

> to gauge under what circumstances funds would be disbursed.

>

> If a fund is set up, I would like to be the third person to

> contribute.

>

> --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Scoble"

> <robertscoble@...> 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:videoblogging@yahoogroups.com]

> > 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]

> >

>

>

>







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi, although not really set up to act as a slush fund to broker

disputes between two parties within the community, I actually have

established a fund for legal support for those independent media

makers who find themselves in hot water, and I believe there is a tad

over $3,000 in the account which will be overseen by the Free The

Media Foundation which still needs to be established. But, yes, a

legal fund for the collective good all of us is of crucial

importance. When I was carted off to jail, I had no idea how I'd

raise the funds for an appeal. Fortunately, my little pay-pal banner

was rather productive and there was about $3,000 left-over to

establish this fund for the next time such a situation strike.



Josh





On Jun 30, 2007, at 8:30 AM, bordercollieaustralianshepherd wrote:



> Make a mistake and own it? Priceless!

>

> My opinion and thoughts (for what that's worth)

>

> I missed a lot in this thread. Not likely I will be able to catch up

> either. So if I am repeating someone else's input it is truly a case

> of like minds thinking.

>

> Robert, you are a stand up guy. No doubt and big props to you.

>

> Lan, understand how you feel and do not find fault with your position.

>

> To quote Rodney King ... oh never mind.

>

> $300 is too low (considering this is after the fact) and $3000 is too

> high considering the limited use of the image and it's purpose.

> (Podtech may be a business, but we should lead by example too, we are

> suppose to be in this boat together).

>

> Solution (and certainly not the only): vlogger legal defense fund!

>

> How to do this? Podtech ponies up $1000.00 total which pays Lan

> $600.00 (double the lowest possible PRE use negotiated license fee)

> and opens a legal defense fund for video bloggers using the remaining

> $400 for the creation of this funds cost and a initial deposit. Lan

> can (if he chooses) donate any amount he sees fit to this fund.

>

> Seems like a nice way to make nice.

>

> I know that this means that guidelines, rules and a bunch of other

> stuff might need to be put into effect. Then again, this group seems

> to me at least, to be capable of expressing opinion that can be used

> to gauge under what circumstances funds would be disbursed.

>

> If a fund is set up, I would like to be the third person to

> contribute.

>

> --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Scoble"

> <robertscoble@...> 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:videoblogging@yahoogroups.com]

> > 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]

> >

>

>

>







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Well it's been another week and a half since we've heard anything. Is

this thing resolved yet?

- Verdi

>Well it's been another week and a half since we've heard anything. Is

this thing resolved yet?



I'll check. Last I heard Furrier was willing to pay $1,000 and Bui wanted

$3,000. Not sure if either of them have moved from those positions but it's

very possible that this is headed to some sort of court unless one of them

bends. For my part in it I'm sorry about the whole issue, it was caused by

an employee who made a mistake and feels bad about it and was amplified by

no follow through and making sure there was some sort of resolution to the

issue.



By the way, I've seen a few people say that PodTech is unresponsive on other

issues, like sending out Vloggies. I have no idea who hasn't gotten Vloggies

yet,  but if anyone has any other issues with PodTech or me or still is owed

a Vloggie my personal phone number is 425-205-1921 and you can call me

anytime for any reason.



Robert Scoble

PodTech.net







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I will be posting an update very soon (target is the end of the week).



But, I do have to say my last post to this group must not have been clear. I did

send an

invoice for less than $3000.



I'll also ask that we wait until I have posted my update to talk about it any

more. I hope

that doesn't sound rude.



-Lan





--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Scoble" <robertscoble@...> wrote:

>

> >Well it's been another week and a half since we've heard anything. Is

> this thing resolved yet?

>

> I'll check. Last I heard Furrier was willing to pay $1,000 and Bui wanted

> $3,000. Not sure if either of them have moved from those positions but it's

> very possible that this is headed to some sort of court unless one of them

> bends. For my part in it I'm sorry about the whole issue, it was caused by

> an employee who made a mistake and feels bad about it and was amplified by

> no follow through and making sure there was some sort of resolution to the

> issue.

>

> By the way, I've seen a few people say that PodTech is unresponsive on other

> issues, like sending out Vloggies. I have no idea who hasn't gotten Vloggies

> yet,  but if anyone has any other issues with PodTech or me or still is owed

> a Vloggie my personal phone number is 425-205-1921 and you can call me

> anytime for any reason.

>

> Robert Scoble

> PodTech.net

>

>

>

> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

>

What is rude is you bringing this up into the group!



--- Lan Bui <lan.bui.vloggroup@...> wrote:



> I will be posting an update very soon (target is the

> end of the week).

>

> But, I do have to say my last post to this group

> must not have been clear. I did send an

> invoice for less than $3000.

>

> I'll also ask that we wait until I have posted my

> update to talk about it any more. I hope

> that doesn't sound rude.

>

> -Lan

>

>

> --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Robert

> Scoble" <robertscoble@...> wrote:

> >

> > >Well it's been another week and a half since

> we've heard anything. Is

> > this thing resolved yet?

> >

> > I'll check. Last I heard Furrier was willing to

> pay $1,000 and Bui wanted

> > $3,000. Not sure if either of them have moved from

> those positions but it's

> > very possible that this is headed to some sort of

> court unless one of them

> > bends. For my part in it I'm sorry about the whole

> issue, it was caused by

> > an employee who made a mistake and feels bad about

> it and was amplified by

> > no follow through and making sure there was some

> sort of resolution to the

> > issue.

> >

> > By the way, I've seen a few people say that

> PodTech is unresponsive on other

> > issues, like sending out Vloggies. I have no idea

> who hasn't gotten Vloggies

> > yet,  but if anyone has any other issues with

> PodTech or me or still is owed

> > a Vloggie my personal phone number is 425-205-1921

> and you can call me

> > anytime for any reason.

> >

> > Robert Scoble

> > PodTech.net

> >

> >

> >

> > [Non-text portions of this message have been

> removed]

> >

>

>

>

>





Jimmy CraicHead TVVideo Podcast about Sailing, Travel, Cocktails and other good

Craichttp://www.jchtv.com/







________________________________________________________________________________\

____

Looking for a deal? Find great prices on flights and hotels with Yahoo!

FareChase.

http://farechase.yahoo.com/

On 6/30/07, Lan Bui <lan.bui.vloggroup@...> wrote:

>

> 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?

>



This to me is the bottom line.  If a company wants to negotiate the price

for a creative work, their only opportunity to do so is before they use it.



Trying to say "ah well we'll give you X" after it's already been used

without permission is not only unfair ... its probably not a very strong

legal position. (IMNAL)



If a company is going to use photos from flickr .... they should know how to

look for the license icon on a flickr page.  If they fail to do so its not

the photograph owners fault.



Lastly I'm having a hard time accepting the implied "well anyone else would

have just given us the photo because we're oh-so-loved and do so much for

everyone" angle .. even if thats true, saying it out loud kinda ruins it.

:-P



PodTech:  Stop thinking of this as trying to pay what YOU feel the photo is

worth (your opportunity to do that was before you used the photo), and start

thinking of this as paying Lan for infringing on his copyright ... surely

that is something you can understand is worth more than a stock photo (even

if you cant for some reason understand that this photo is as well).



-  Dave



--

http://www.DavidMeade.com





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Quirk, you an iconoclastic shitstirrer :)



I haven't seen much vitriol.  Given the occasional time this group's

really lynched people (particularly corporations), I think

everybody's been quite nice.  Apart from one silly link to some

shitty blog, everyone else has just been saying, 'Yo, What's going

on?  Why aren't you paying up?  Why aren't you talking?'.  And I

think Lan's handled it really calmly, especially given that Podtech

have appeared to imply that he's being dishonest with us somehow.



Copyright is silly, yeah - IP is pretty silly, but at least it allows

individuals to be paid for stuff they make.  Since that's the way it

has to be to avoid people being exploited (like having a Union for

creativity), Creative Commons is just an attempt to do it all a bit

more intelligently.



And in my mind, your song being recorded and played by someone else

is as different from someone composing and recording your face as a

single image as it is from you being an actor in or director of a

film or an author of text.  Each have different authorship rights.

Casey wasn't performing a creative work, and i assume she signed a

release for Lan allowing him to use the image he took of her?

Whether Podtech needed to contact or reward her somehow for being the

face of their competition campaign is another matter.  You wouldn't

just be able to use, say, Kate Moss's face on an ad for a cosmetics

product competition without her permission.  But if you did, the

photographer would also get paid.



You said that if you put stuff online, you don't own it any more than

you own the rainbow over your house...  But this isn't really about

ownership, is it? It's about someone getting someone else to do their

work for them for free.  Yeah, I don't particularly care about the

copyright of my Twittervlog films, and I'm not using them to make a

living - I'm happy for people to use them however -  but if, say,

Nokia used one of my films as a background for an N93 competition

without asking, and i found out long after it was over, and i'd

received no benefit from it in terms of links, attribution, new

viewers and connecting with new people, i probably would not be

totally cool with that.  I'd say that they were cheeky c***s.  (I

hate starring out words, but I suppose I have to star out this one).

If they'd used a *commercial* film of mine - something i'd created in

order to be able to buy myself food, and not paid me for it, I'd feel

even more strongly.  I'd effectively be working for them for free,

and even a small amount of money makes a much bigger difference to an

individual than it does to a corporation.



Anyway, that's what I think.  Not that you'll ever read it,

probably.  Have a nice trip.



Rupert

http://twittervlog.blogspot.com/

http://www.twitter.com/ruperthowe/

http://feeds.feedburner.com/twittervlog/





On 29 Jun 2007, at 19:45, Adam Quirk, Wreck & Salvage wrote:



I've been surprised by all the vitriol. I'd have thought that Podtech

would

have built up a couple brownie points with y'all by now, what with their

paying you real money, and hosting awards shows for us all to circle-

jerk

at.



Maybe the lesson here is to get paid First? Once you put something

online,

you don't own it anymore than you can claim to own a rainbow hovering

above

your house. It's in the public consciousness, part of the firehose of

experiences that we all consume, transitory experiences. I think

especially

in this case since it's a digital photo of Casey McKinnon, if anyone

has a

claim to some money it would be her. If someone else made a recording

of a

song I was playing, and royalties were to be paid for that recording,

I'd

likely be the one to receive them. But I wouldn't demand them. Something

just sits wrong with me when I hear about people billing other people

for

services that they weren't hired to provide.



Creative Commons is pretty silly, not as silly as traditional

copyright, but

pretty silly.



I'm heading out of town now so I won't be able to respond to any shit

slung

my way for a while :)



P.S. Lan, you're a badass photog, I'm glad I found your work via this

mess.



-Adam











[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

On 6/29/07, tim@... <tim@...> wrote:

> Can we give this a rest for a week or two and see what happens?



Hmmmm...

This is from Lan's post on May 14th:

"After I returned home from SXSW I contacted Robert Scoble, hoping he

could put me on touch with the right person to talk about this. He

did; he forwarded my email to this person. After a couple emails back

and forth with her I sent her an invoice for licensed use of the

photograph. That was on March 20th. There was no reply for one week; I

called and emailed again. No reply again, so again I both called and

sent an email... and it has now been over a month and a half without a

single reply since the invoice was sent."



Seems like it's already been over 3 months. Shouldn't that be long

enough to figure things out?



- Verdi

That is a very nice thought but I do not think it is appropriate for

others to raise money for this. The community did no wrong and should

not have to pay.



-Lan

www.LanBui.com

You see?  Again.  I'm sorry if you didn't read my last post - it was

quite long, as usual.



But for the good of your company, you *have* to stop this "we're the

wronged party and Lan is the bad guy, misleading you" tack.



And you have to stop saying things like "it's easy to miss the

copyright on Flickr".



And generally stop putting yourselves in the position of the wronged

party.  It's not playing well.  We've all been trying to tell you

that and you're not listening.



And saying "Lan wants $3000" as if that's going to make everybody

gasp in horror is not going to work, now, either.



$300 is a stock image price.  Not a price for an image as specific as

that you used.  And if Lan was somebody you did not know - a powerful

industry photographer who had taken an image of a celebrity holding

Oscars, which you'd used to advertise your commercial venture - you

would pay a *MASSIVE* penalty for using it without permission.

That's the accepted rules of the game.  Find 'em and Read 'em.



   If I go onto Adobe Stock Images now, I can download a royalty free

STOCK image at A4 (roughly US Letter) size for £339.00 - that's just

under $700.  That's for a stock image.  I don't know who these

photographers were that you spoke to, or how much they knew about the

contents of the image you used... but as far as I'm concerned,

they're just wrong.



As for Lan being unwilling to negotiate... it doesn't sound like

you've done much talking, frankly.  We hear nothing from you, and all

we hear from Lan is that he's been waiting 3 months.  Have you really

*tried* to negotiate.  Or are you so convinced that his price is

outrageous that you're just getting angry (wrongly, i think) and

standing your ground?  If you're offering $300 and no more, that's

not really negotiating either.  Think about it.



Come on - I'll say it again: I like Podtech.  You're good for the

community and you're paying great people to make stuff.  But just

maybe try to see things from an outsider's perspective.  This is

costing you $$$ in PR.  And not doing those people who produce vlogs

for you much good either.  They should be able to be very proud to be

sponsored by Podtech.



And the longer it goes on, the more expensive it gets for you.



Rupert





On 30 Jun 2007, at 04:25, Robert Scoble 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



###



From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com

[mailto:videoblogging@yahoogroups.com]

On Behalf Of Mike Meiser

Sent: Friday, June 29, 2007 1:58 P

To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com

Subject: Re: [videoblogging] Re: Hey PodTech - What's up with Lan's

image?



Well... I'm glad people haven't resorted to name calling.



Got to say, while I love podtech I'm a little disapointed at their

response. The accussations about lan presenting a one sided story...

is it his responsibility to present both sides? Is that even possible?

And Scoble's negative conjecture about "loosing money on the

vloggies"... is an unecissary and unwarranted resentful remark toward

the whole community which reflects poorly on podtech. It is perhaps

the thing that disturbs me most about this. Very disapointing. As

for bringing up deaths in related people's families... very

unforetunate remark.



I don't know what other side to the story there is... The facts are

this... Podtech used lan's photo... mistakes happen... noone here

holds a grudge... but they've had more then enough time to resolve it

and haven't.



There's no need to drag the whole thing through the mud on either

side... I just hope podtech and lan can resolve the issue so we can

leave it quickly and quietly behind. I don't believe it's indicative

of any larger issue... it's not like some printing company is selling

prints of dozens of Lan's photos for hundreds of dollars each. It was

an event to promote videobloggers.



I'd hope because of that context Lan would accept an appology from

Podtech but that's up to Lan.



On a related note, perhaps this will provide some perspective. Some

kids from Maryland got their yearbooks recently to find a slew of

their facebook pictures in them.



How's that for intellectual property theft? How would you have liked

to recieve a yearbook only to find a bunch of your pictures from your

blog in it? Makes a somewhat subtle duotone photo in the background

of a banner seem like a relatively minor incident by comparison. Not

to diminish the injustice to Lan, but there are worse things that

could have happened.



http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070627/012707.shtml



I hope the matter gets resolved quickly. The only shame here is that

it hasn't been resolved already and was allowed to drag out.



Group hug? :)



-Mike

mmeiser.com/blog

mefeedia.com



On 6/29/07, Adam Quirk, Wreck & Salvage <quirk@...

<mailto:quirk%40wreckandsalvage.com> > wrote:

  > I've been surprised by all the vitriol. I'd have thought that Podtech

would

  > have built up a couple brownie points with y'all by now, what with

their

  > paying you real money, and hosting awards shows for us all to

circle-jerk

  > at.

  >

  > Maybe the lesson here is to get paid First? Once you put something

online,

  > you don't own it anymore than you can claim to own a rainbow hovering

above

  > your house. It's in the public consciousness, part of the firehose of

  > experiences that we all consume, transitory experiences. I think

especially

  > in this case since it's a digital photo of Casey McKinnon, if

anyone has a

  > claim to some money it would be her. If someone else made a

recording of a

  > song I was playing, and royalties were to be paid for that

recording, I'd

  > likely be the one to receive them. But I wouldn't demand them.

Something

  > just sits wrong with me when I hear about people billing other

people for

  > services that they weren't hired to provide.

  >

  > Creative Commons is pretty silly, not as silly as traditional

copyright,

but

  > pretty silly.

  >

  > I'm heading out of town now so I won't be able to respond to any shit

slung

  > my way for a while :)

  >

  > P.S. Lan, you're a badass photog, I'm glad I found your work via this

mess.

  >

  > -Adam

  >

  >

  > On 6/29/07, tim@... <mailto:tim%40frenchmaidtv.com>

<tim@... <mailto:tim%40frenchmaidtv.com> > wrote:

  > >

  > > Can we give this a rest for a week or two and see what happens?

  > >

  > > This group does some very cool things and discovers news worthy

  > > information all the time and this has the two side talking.

  > >

  > > It sounds like something is going to happen and that this will come

  > > to a settlement but I don't think that will happen untill after the

  > > 4th of July so can we pause for a little while, bring it back up

  > > later if we need to and move on to some fun stuff like What iPhone

  > > line is Steve Garfield standing in? or Why is Ask a Ninja going to

  > > Israel ?

  > >

  > >

  > >

  > > Tim

  > >

  > > Tim Street

  > > Creator/Executive Producer

  > > French Maid TV

  > > The Viral Video of "How To's" by French Maids

  > > http://frenchmaidtv.com

  > > Subscribe for FREE on

  > > <ahref="http://www.frenchmaidtv.com/itunes "

target="_blank">iTunes</a>

  > >

  > >

  > >

  > >

  > >

  > >

  > > On Jun 29, 2007, at 9:46 AM, Devlon Duthie wrote:

  > >

  > > > I'm with Carl.

  > > >

  > > > If we want to use crowd 'weight' wouldn't an email/blog/pr frenzy

  > > > be more

  > > > effective?

  > > >

  > > > also, just saying :)

  > > >

  > > > --

  > > > -Devlon

  > > >

  > > > http://devlonduthie.com | http://mefeedia.com | http://

node-64.com/

  > > > blog

  > > > MSN: du.th.ied

  > > > AIM: devlond

  > > >

  > > > -----Original Message-----

  > > > From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com

<mailto:videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com>

  > > > [mailto:videoblogging@yahoogroups.com

<mailto:videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com> ]

  > > > On Behalf Of Carl Weaver

  > > > Sent: Friday, June 29, 2007 8:02 AM

  > > > To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com

<mailto:videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com>

  > > > Subject: [videoblogging] Re: Hey PodTech - What's up with

Lan's image?

  > > >

  > > > I have a problem with raising money for Lan on the list. Yes, Lan

  > > > deserves his fees (and 3 times that because of the

infringement) but

  > > > to raise it ourselves lets Podtech off the hook a little bit.

Okay, so

  > > > Lan is paid - why should Podtech cough up the dough then?

  > > >

  > > > I'm just sayin'...

  > > >

  > > > Carl

  > > >

  > > > Carl Weaver

  > > > Photographer

  > > > http://www.carlweaver.com

  > > > http://www.camerasamurai.com - Photography education, news, tips

  > > > and more

  > > > http://dcmetrostories.com - DC Metro Stories: Stories about the

  > > > people,

  > > > places

  > > > and events in the DC Metro area

  > > > http://nextlifeintheafternoon.com - A Journey Through Thailand

  > > >

  > > > Michael Sullivan wrote:

  > > > >

  > > > > no comment....

  > > > >

  > > > > except that i bet we could organize a little crowdfunding

effort

  > > > to pay

  > > > lan

  > > > > before podtech does.

  > > > > care for some competition, podtech?

  > > > >

  > > > > lan, how much do we need to raise?

  > > >

  > > > Yahoo! Groups Links

  > > >

  > > >

  > > >

  > >

  > >

  > >

  > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

  > >

  > >

  > >

  > >

  > > Yahoo! Groups Links

  > >

  > >

  > >

  > >

  >

  >

  > --

  > Adam Quirk

  > Wreck & Salvage

  > 551.208.4644

  > Brooklyn, NY

  > http://wreckandsalvage.com

  >

  >

  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

  >

  >

  >

  >

  > Yahoo! Groups Links

  >

  >

  >

  >



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]













[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I'm doing some video-blogging tests for the Strings '07 conference

(annual String Theory conference @Madrid, Spain):



http://strings07.blogspot.com



I've been in touch with the organizers, & they are excited about

increased exposure over video-blogs, iPod/iTunes/AppleTV/iPhone.

String Theory has been getting a lot of press (mostly critical), so

they could use a publicity boost.  Information videos over iPod/

AppleTViPhone ("Science public outreach") could be a solution.  It's

also great exposure for Blip.tv





Problem is, my submission to iTunes Store of the Feedburner feed is

not going thru:



1) submssion on Wed afternoon went "OK" ("your podcast has been

submitted, we will contact you at xxx@...")

however, didn't get an acknowledgement email from Apple iTunes like I

usually do.  I didn't get an approval within 24 hrs (typical

turnaround for me, never had an issue until now)



2) re-submission on Thu afternoon (& Fri) gave errors

iTunes Store "5002" error.  Now, it's "An error occurred. The iTunes

Store could not process your request, please try again later"



I used Feeburner's "Troubleshootize" (Podmedic & Feedmedic),

everything looks OK



I even tried creating another Blogger blog



http://strings2007.blogspot.com



..same thing.  When I submit a Feedburner feed for one of my existing

iTunes video-podcast, i get "Feed already submitted".



Someone else is having the same problem as me:



http://forums.feedburner.com/viewtopic.php?t=14659



I'm frustrated like him, & I've had to hold off any further video-

posts.  The Blip.tv TV show player is holding me thru, in the meantime.





Is this an iTunes Store issue? Possibly due to the heightened

activity for the June 29 iPhone release?  I remember there was an

iTunes Store snafu, due to heavy traffic after a recent Apple iPod

release.



TIA, for any help/suggestions.









[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Back when 3 Mile Island happened I was in a photo

class and the word on the street was that Time

magazine paid $2000 for their cover shot (in 1982

dollars). Keep your ground Scoble! $1000 more than

fair.

John







--- Robert Scoble <robertscoble@...> wrote:



> >Well it's been another week and a half since we've

> heard anything. Is

> this thing resolved yet?

>

> I'll check. Last I heard Furrier was willing to pay

> $1,000 and Bui wanted

> $3,000. Not sure if either of them have moved from

> those positions but it's

> very possible that this is headed to some sort of

> court unless one of them

> bends. For my part in it I'm sorry about the whole

> issue, it was caused by

> an employee who made a mistake and feels bad about

> it and was amplified by

> no follow through and making sure there was some

> sort of resolution to the

> issue.

>

> By the way, I've seen a few people say that PodTech

> is unresponsive on other

> issues, like sending out Vloggies. I have no idea

> who hasn't gotten Vloggies

> yet,  but if anyone has any other issues with

> PodTech or me or still is owed

> a Vloggie my personal phone number is 425-205-1921

> and you can call me

> anytime for any reason.

>

> Robert Scoble

> PodTech.net

>

>

>

> [Non-text portions of this message have been

> removed]

>

>





Jimmy CraicHead TVVideo Podcast about Sailing, Travel, Cocktails and other good

Craichttp://www.jchtv.com/







________________________________________________________________________________\

____

Take the Internet to Go: Yahoo!Go puts the Internet in your pocket: mail, news,

photos & more.

http://mobile.yahoo.com/go?refer=1GNXIC

Hey John,

It was me who started this thread and who has bumped it every couple

of weeks. Others blogged about and twittered about it and got no

response so I started a thread here.

- Verdi

Hi John,



I realise this has made you cross, but I've also been responsible for

keeping it in the Group here because I think it needs to be aired -

for various reasons that I've explained before and won't rehash at

length now.



Lan has actually been the model of restraint and has not written much

here about it, and has only written in response to questions by other

people who also think it's something they want to discuss here.



The price of the photograph is actually not really unfair, if you

look into it.  And it's not just the value of the photograph -

there's an accepted premium element paid by someone who's used a

photograph without permission, credit, payment.



As for 1982 prices, they can't really be compared.  Everything has

shifted so much in the last 35 years, particularly in the media and

in terms of cost of living and value of the dollar and a whole bunch

of other things.



Back then Heaven's Gate and Inchon were considered extravagantly

expensive Hollywood movies, and cost $44 million and $50 million

respectively, I think.   Heaven's Gate brought down United Artists.

Spiderman 3 (this year) cost about $260 million, I think.  Plus then

about the same again in marketing - making it a half billion dollar

movie.



Also, in 1982 a 2/3 bedroomed row house in a not-particularly-special

street in West London where I live was worth somewhere between £40k

and £60k ($80k and $120k).  It's now worth between £550k and £650k

($1.1m and $1.3m).



So a lot has changed.



But anyway, the value of the photograph is not set by these things,

it's set by the market - and in a situation like this, $1000 isn't,

as you said, more than fair.



Hope all this helps to explain :)



Also, for context, read (the whole of - and comments on) Casey

McKinnon's blog post here:

http://www.caseymckinnon.com/blog/2007/07/10/podtech-needs-more-podtact/



Cheers,

Rupert



On 12 Jul 2007, at 01:53, John Coffey wrote:



Back when 3 Mile Island happened I was in a photo

class and the word on the street was that Time

magazine paid $2000 for their cover shot (in 1982

dollars). Keep your ground Scoble! $1000 more than

fair.

John



--- Robert Scoble <robertscoble@...> wrote:



  > >Well it's been another week and a half since we've

  > heard anything. Is

  > this thing resolved yet?

  >

  > I'll check. Last I heard Furrier was willing to pay

  > $1,000 and Bui wanted

  > $3,000. Not sure if either of them have moved from

  > those positions but it's

  > very possible that this is headed to some sort of

  > court unless one of them

  > bends. For my part in it I'm sorry about the whole

  > issue, it was caused by

  > an employee who made a mistake and feels bad about

  > it and was amplified by

  > no follow through and making sure there was some

  > sort of resolution to the

  > issue.

  >

  > By the way, I've seen a few people say that PodTech

  > is unresponsive on other

  > issues, like sending out Vloggies. I have no idea

  > who hasn't gotten Vloggies

  > yet, but if anyone has any other issues with

  > PodTech or me or still is owed

  > a Vloggie my personal phone number is 425-205-1921

  > and you can call me

  > anytime for any reason.

  >

  > Robert Scoble

  > PodTech.net

  >

  >

  >

  > [Non-text portions of this message have been

  > removed]

  >

  >



Jimmy CraicHead TVVideo Podcast about Sailing, Travel, Cocktails and

other goodCraichttp://www.jchtv.com/



__________________________________________________________

Take the Internet to Go: Yahoo!Go puts the Internet in your pocket:

mail, news, photos & more.

http://mobile.yahoo.com/go?refer=1GNXIC











[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

After looking at the poster, I'm wondering if it doesn't fall into the

"fair use" category. It was a faded background image and it wasn't the

only photo on the poster.



Don't let this go to court, Lan. You might lose everything.

No it doesn't meet any criteria at all for fair use.



From http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html:



  "... The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General

Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that

courts have regarded as fair use: "quotation of excerpts in a review

or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of

short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or

clarification of the author's observations; use in a parody of some

of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or

article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a

library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy;

reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to

illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or

judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous

reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the

scene of an event being reported."



Copyright protects the particular way an author has expressed

himself; it does not extend to any ideas, systems, or factual

information conveyed in the work.



The safest course is always to get permission from the copyright

owner before using copyrighted material. The Copyright Office cannot

give this permission.



When it is impracticable to obtain permission, use of copyrighted

material should be avoided unless the doctrine of "fair use" would

clearly apply to the situation. The Copyright Office can neither

determine if a certain use may be considered "fair" nor advise on

possible copyright violations. If there is any doubt, it is

advisable to consult an attorney."



Bill Streeter

LO-FI SAINT LOUIS

www.lofistl.com

www.billstreeter.net





--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Laura Moncur"

<lauramoncur@...> wrote:

>

> After looking at the poster, I'm wondering if it doesn't fall into

the

> "fair use" category. It was a faded background image and it wasn't

the

> only photo on the poster.

>

> Don't let this go to court, Lan. You might lose everything.

>

Well, considering that it was used as an advertisement and not for

criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or

research, I can't imagine a fair use argument could be made.

- Verdi



On 7/12/07, Laura Moncur <lauramoncur@...> wrote:

> After looking at the poster, I'm wondering if it doesn't fall into the

>  "fair use" category. It was a faded background image and it wasn't the

>  only photo on the poster.



--

http://michaelverdi.com

http://spinxpress.com

http://freevlog.org

Author of Secrets Of Videoblogging - http://tinyurl.com/me4vs

Hello Lan and everyone here on this thread.



This sort of "transparent" hashing out of a business matter on line

shows that there is some growing up to do with the new media.



Lan, I appreciate your work, and am sorry that your photo was used

without permission.  It seems to me that Podtech had apologized and

made a reasonable offer.  I would accept it gracefully and move on.



Your photo wasn't being used in a worldwide ad campaign.  I understand

that it was on a display at a convention attended by many of your peers.



It wasn't your face plastered on a billboard, a redubbing of your

video for a 900 sex number, your face on a lunchbox, or potato chips

with your image on them.  This happens too, by the way.  I can tell

you from personal experience.



There is plenty of work for everyone to do without wasting energy on

this.  Settle, move on, make video, be happy.



When you do that, you make me happy.  I like your work as a media

producer.



Let's leave the lawyering to the lawyers, and get creative.

Hi Daniel,



I'm sorry to boringly stand up for the thread again, but I just feel

that you're not quite on the money in what you say.  Also, the way I

read it, I found your tone was a little patronising.  I know plenty

of Old Business where things are hashed out in public by observers -

the idea that we need to grow up instead of talking about the rights

and wrongs of the issue has raised my hackles.



And I'm sorry that this has been going on so long that people feel

they need to be the voice of "reason" and try to stop it.  I don't

particularly think that people have been out of line or lynchmobbish

in the way it's been discussed.  I think almost everyone has handled

it quite well.



Lan is not the one bringing this up and keeping it bubbling.



It's the rest of us, who are concerned about what Podtech did and the

way they've behaved since.



Rupert





On 12 Jul 2007, at 19:52, danielmcvicar wrote:



Hello Lan and everyone here on this thread.



This sort of "transparent" hashing out of a business matter on line

shows that there is some growing up to do with the new media.



Lan, I appreciate your work, and am sorry that your photo was used

without permission. It seems to me that Podtech had apologized and

made a reasonable offer. I would accept it gracefully and move on.



Your photo wasn't being used in a worldwide ad campaign. I understand

that it was on a display at a convention attended by many of your peers.



It wasn't your face plastered on a billboard, a redubbing of your

video for a 900 sex number, your face on a lunchbox, or potato chips

with your image on them. This happens too, by the way. I can tell

you from personal experience.



There is plenty of work for everyone to do without wasting energy on

this. Settle, move on, make video, be happy.



When you do that, you make me happy. I like your work as a media

producer.



Let's leave the lawyering to the lawyers, and get creative.













[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

On 7/12/07, Rupert <rupert@...> wrote:

>

> It's the rest of us, who are concerned about what Podtech did and the

> way they've behaved since.

>



Right. PodTech is a company that wants to work with independent / new-media

producers ... its reasonable for a community of such producers to be

concerned when such a company displays something less than full respect to

OUR rights on OUR media.



We're all eager to believe (I think) that this was a simple oversight on

PodTechs part ... we're not (I don't think) trying to burn them at the stake

for making a mistake ... but rather set some reasonable community

expectations as to how such mistakes should be addressed/handled/settled

going forward ... and having such issues drag out for SO LONG only to be

left with a bottom line of  "look, Mr Independent producer, we're going to

set the price for your media we already stole and used" isn't really gonna

cut it.  You get to negotiate a price be if you do so BEFORE yo use it ....

otherwise you (the guy who stole the content) SETTLE for a price.  Pod tech

needs to settle this and do right by Lan ... not the other way around.



That doesn't mean they have to pay $3k (and Lan has already said he has been

attempting to negotiate and sent multiple quotes) ... but they need to find

a number that is MUTUALLY agreeable with the content producer.



Hopefully they'll work it out and Lan will be able to report that behind the

scenes they reached a settlement and he is happy with the result ... but

until he can say that, a community that PodTech hopes to court has an

understandable concern.



And Lan has been pretty quiet on this all things considered.  Its the rest

of us that wont let it be :-P



- Dave



--

http://www.DavidMeade.com





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

danielmcvicar wrote:



>

> Your photo wasn't being used in a worldwide ad campaign. I understand

> that it was on a display at a convention attended by many of your peers.

>

> It wasn't your face plastered on a billboard, a redubbing of your

> video for a 900 sex number, your face on a lunchbox, or potato chips

> with your image on them. This happens too, by the way. I can tell

> you from personal experience.

>



Daniel,



It sounds like you are saying "besides, your work was not that important".



Are you suggesting that  distribution numbers are the  only factor in

determining value?



Markus



--





Markus Sandy



http://feeds.feedburner.com/apperceptions

http://feeds.feedburner.com/digitaldojo

http://feeds.feedburner.com/havemoneywillvlog

http://feeds.feedburner.com/spinflow







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]