Is that jrenaut?

Do you often have one kid facing backwards? I don’t know why that looks so odd to me.

Anyone familiar here?

Here’s a link to a better version of the picture. I was going to buy a copy but Getty wants $150 (which the sales rep says is discounted down from $325 because I’m in the photo) for a copy for personal use.

Now, I know my kids and I are all fantastically attractive, and even more so because we’re biking, but I can’t imagine what commercial value that image has to anyone. So, the photographer (who I talked to over email, seems like a really nice guy) tells me the Washington Post retains the copyright, which I assume means it was a Work for Hire. That means the copyright runs out in March of 2110 (95 years from first publication).

So, in the next 95 years, what do you suppose the chances are that ANYONE purchases that photo for ANYTHING? The state of intellectual property law in this country is so ridiculous. What are the chances the Post is even in existence in 2110? What are the chances ANY business now paying artists for hire is around in 2110? I’m sure it’s a real incentive to “promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts”, knowing the creditors at your bankruptcy sale will have some [expletive deleted] intellectual property to sell.

Anyway, end rant. Pretty cool that we were in the Post, though.

@DismalScientist 112160 wrote:

Do you really want the picture of the building? Just copy the picture and crop sufficiently to remove the logo.

While I find IP law to be an abomination, I do try not to infringe upon it. I don’t think a tight crop counts as “transformative”.

@DismalScientist 112160 wrote:

If they ever do sell the picture demand a royalty share since it was taken and published without your permission.

You have no reasonable expectation of privacy on a public street. They don’t need my permission.

They added a logo to to middle of the picture–something non-transformative–and posted on the internet. I would think that the picture with the logo on it is now in the public domain and certainly available for non-commercial use.

What really frustrate me is that Getty is not maximizing their profits. Clearly there is some positive price that they can offer you in order to separate you from your money.

@DismalScientist 112168 wrote:

They added a logo to to middle of the picture–something non-transformative–and posted on the internet. I would think that the picture with the logo on it is now in the public domain and certainly available for non-commercial use.

First, it’s nearly impossible to get anything into the public domain in the US. I’m not a lawyer, but I believe anything eligible for copyright can not be in the public domain until the copyright expires.

If you argue that the image with the Getty logo is non-transformative, it would still be covered by the Washington Post copyright. They have clearly licensed the photo to Getty to sell on their behalf.

If you argue that the image is transformative, Getty has the copyright, and nothing changes except who gets the money for it.

This all became moot (save for the academic argument) literally as I’m typing, since I got an email response from the Post to my request to purchase it through them. They’re offering much more reasonable terms. You’d think Getty might be annoyed that the Post is undercutting them, but maybe they count on people not being able to use Google or something.

@mstone 112230 wrote:

I suspect that you’re not their target audience…

Their target audience seems to be people with more money than sense. Good target audience if you can get it.