Infringement in the New Photography Era, Part III

So, following up on Part I and Part II, what to do about licensing and infringement in the New Photography Era?

  This image was in use as someone's MySpace background.

This image was in use as someone's MySpace background.

What I want: my images to be published and to get paid. What I have got so far: they remove the images. So that's not really working.

It's barking up the wrong tree, in all likelihood. Most of these infringers are not making any money, have little appreciation of professional photography and what it takes to make it, and sparse or incorrect understanding of intellectual property rights. And I can't say I blame them. My livelihood is dependent on it, I'm interested in it, I've studied it, and still sometimes the concepts slip away from my understanding, and I have to chase them down. And many of my peers seem to be uninterested.

Content creators have interests, but their interests are varied. I want to make a profit on my images, but some people are only interested in attention. For others, giving away some content to sell other works, while others may give away content to sell consulting services.

So it's left to professional organizations, advocates, and corporations to stand up for content creators. The professional organizations fight for the content creators, but they're perhaps a little slow. The advocates are vocal but pull in different directions. And the corporations have a lot of power, but only their own interests at heart, which are usually in conflict with the content creators.

For example, some organizations:

Some advocates:

And of course, corporations:

I don't agree 100% with any of them. But I do know that my images, services, and vision have value, and that it's up to me to manage the perception of that value. So when it comes to infringement, small or large, I will continue to do what I can to moderate it, because, as they say, the way you do anything is the way you do everything.