Category: Uncategorized

In case you have ignored the recent notices being sent by Paypal, I want to urge you to pay attention! Paypal is changing its policies and in order to opt out of those changes, you have to jump through some hoops. And you want to opt out, a lot.

Here is the notice Paypal has been sending:

PayPal recently posted a new Policy Update which includes changes to the PayPal User Agreement. The update to the User Agreement is effective November 1, 2012 and contains several changes, including changes that affect how claims you and PayPal have against each other are resolved. You will, with limited exception, be required to submit claims you have against PayPal to binding and final arbitration, unless you opt out of the Agreement to Arbitrate (Section 14.3) by December 1, 2012. Unless you opt out: (1) you will only be permitted to pursue claims against PayPal on an individual basis, not as a plaintiff or class member in any class or representative action or proceeding and (2) you will only be permitted to seek relief (including monetary, injunctive, and declaratory relief) on an individual basis.

There is just all sorts of bad there. You are giving up two very important rights: the right to a trial (you are agreeing to arbitration which is not even close to the same thing!) and the right to participate in a class action suit.

Don’t give up your rights!

Okay, so you want to opt out, how do you do that? Well, after digging through the information in the notice on the Paypal site, I finally found out what you have to do. Here is the scoop:

You must mail the Opt-Out Notice to PayPal, Inc., Attn: Litigation Department, 2211 North First Street, San Jose, CA 95131.

The Opt-Out Notice must state that you do not agree to this Agreement to Arbitrate and must include your name, address, phone number, and the email address(es) used to log in to the PayPal account(s) to which the opt-out applies. You must sign the Opt-Out Notice for it to be effective. This procedure is the only way you can opt out of the Agreement to Arbitrate. If you opt out of the Agreement to Arbitrate, all other parts of the User Agreement, including all other provisions of Section 14 (Disputes with PayPal), will continue to apply.  Opting out of this Agreement to Arbitrate has no effect on any previous, other, or future arbitration agreements that you may have with us.

I love how they bury this and how they require that you do this via snailmail. What bullshit, but hey, don’t let ’em win. Take the time to print out a letter with all the required information, make it clear that you reject the entire Section 14.3 Agreement to Arbitrate, and mail it to the address provided above.

And share this info with everyone you know who uses Paypal. This is a big deal. Don’t give up your rights.

**UPDATE** Someone anonymously tried to comment asking “is there a link to the opt out form?” As I do not usually approve anonymous comments I’ll not be approving that one, but I did want to reply: there is no form. That’s the point of this post–PayPal is trying to make it as hard as possible for you to opt out so you won’t bother to do it. You will have to do it yourself and PAY ATTENTION to the details! Make sure to include everything they require so they have no reason to reject your notice. I would even put across the top of your letter “OPT OUT NOTICE to the AGREEMENT TO ARBITRATION” to make it clear.

The other day a friend of mine sent me a link to YouTube to see a part of a performance of Ricky Gervaise. He said it was hilarious and I had to see it.Thing is, I’m 99% sure the video posted was infringing. I wanted to see it, I wanted to share in the laughter, but if I clicked on that video and watched it, I’d be a hypocrite.

But no one would know. I live alone except for my cat and Benito wouldn’t tell. And my friend is ignorant about these matters so he really wouldn’t get it (trust me, I’ve tried to teach him).

Instead of watching the video on YouTube, I fired up HBOGO and, since I am a paying subscriber to HBO, accessed the legitimate video via that service. It was hilarious, he was right.

More importantly, though, I did the right thing. It took more time and effort, but if I’m not willing to take the, what, maybe 3 minutes it took to launch, log in, and find that show, then I shouldn’t be doing what I’m doing.

I do this whenever someone sends me a YouTube link now. If it is not clearly an approved video (posted by the artist or the studio or music company, etc.) I do not watch it. I either find the legitimate source or I simply “miss out.”

It is my way of supporting the IP rights of others.

I suggest that if you make your living off IP, you need to do the same.

I’ve been saying for a loooong time that the Terms of Service for so many of the so-called services photographers and other creatives are using are pretty bad. Many of these (ahem) services have wicked rights-grabs of some sort and often you essentially lose control of your work once it is posted.

As if you needed another reason NOT to post your work on sites like Facebook, we have this blogger’s post, claiming that Facebook is now making it so that your business page is essentially unseen unless you pay for reach. Now, I don’t know how accurate this post is (and really I don’t have the time to research it today), but suffice it to say that I wouldn’t be surprised if it was totally accurate.

So, what are you getting out of using Facebook now?

Bupkis.

Instead of posting to Twitter, Facebook, Pinterest (heavens forbid!), and all these other sites, put your work in one place like your very own blog on your very own server. If you want to post links on all those other services to your blog post, that’s great, but keep your actual work off them.

It’s just not worth it.

I got this link from the Copyright Alliance today and I totally agree with the post’s author. The video referenced is crap and scary crap at that. But I feel like we keep missing a fundamental part of why it is crap.

Here’s what I don’t get about these arguments of abundance in creativity and the pricing model: there is no abundance of good creative work. Sure, there is an abundance of photography and music and writing and art, but most of it is, frankly, shit.

In my opinion, there is abundance in the creative industries in the same way there is abundance in people who drive–there are billions of car drivers and just about anyone can do it–but how many people do it particularly well? I don’t just mean I drive better than you do, Mr. I-go-55-in-the-fast-lane-man (and there seem to be a lot of his crappy driving bretheren out there). No, I mean, how many professional race car drivers are there? Not very many…and they are highly valued.

Real creative professionals (in whatever discipline) are race car drivers. They can do things very few others can. Their skills are extremely specialized and what they do is, simply put, not of the same quality as what regular people do.

The media, the tech companies which control the discourse on this subject within the media, have convinced us that your creative work is the same as anyone who tries to make something of the same media. Your photography is the same as mine (I am NOT a photographer but I take pictures). That’s like me saying I’m just like Mario Andretti or Michael Schumacher because I know how to drive a stick-shift and don’t completely suck at it.

Bullshit.

You let them define you as less than you are every time you let them call you a “content provider” rather than by your proper title. You are a Photographer or an Illustrator or an Artist or a Writer (etc.). You CREATE. There are damn few people on this planet who actually create and create well. How dare you accept their belittling bullshit about who you are and the “abundance” of what you do.

You, creative professional, are scarce and of high value. You are a race car driver. Don’t let them bully you into thinking otherwise.

Could one of you tell me what magic set of words will get you to register your copyrights in your creative work (photos, illustrations, etc.)? Or do I need to do back-flips? Juggle? Tell me, and if I can do it, I will.

See, I’ve had to tell more than a couple of artists lately that although their work had likely been infringed, it wouldn’t be worth pursuing because they really wouldn’t get much for it because it wasn’t registered before the infringement took place. Sigh. That sucks.

Remember, if you register your copyright before an infringement, you may elect to receive statutory damages instead of actual damages in court. Oh, and you might collect attorneys’ fees too.

But no timely registration means, at best, you’ll get actual damages and you will have to prove those in court. You can’t just say “I would license this for $5000” and get it; no, you’d have to prove that would be a reasonable license fee for that use. That can get costly to prove and, well, poof, by the time you’re done with court your legal fees and expenses will be more than that $5K.

Think of this example: a major company uses your photo on its Facebook page. How much would you expect to get as a license fee for that? Now how much could you collect if you could get statutory damages and attorneys’ fees?

Which position would you like to be in to negotiate a settlement?
I can tell you which position an attorney would prefer.

Register. It’s the best “insurance” you can buy.

GAH! I just had to tell a massively talented and creative photographer that the second-rate knockoff guy who is totally copying his style is not infringing. Style is not protected or protectable. There is nothing you can do to keep the copying bastards from trying to make work just like yours, unless they actually copy your individual image(s).

This totally sucks.

It sucks for the photographer who gets the creative inspiration and manifests it and puts it out into the world. But I also think it must suck for the copier. I mean, why be a photographer if all you do is someone else’s work?

I don’t know how any of you sleep if you are not doing your own work. It’s a hard damn business and if you aren’t at least getting the creative rush from making the work that comes from inside you, what is the point? You must really hate yourselves, you copiers.

If you think you are going to get rich by making work like that other guy, you are completely wrong. You won’t. The buyers with the big budgets will (gasp!) hire the guy with the original vision–not Mr. (or Ms.) Knockoff. You might get some low-end work, maybe, or maybe you might get a few RF stock sales, but the good work is going to go to the real creative photographer.

You will always be the wannabe, the copier, the guy (woman) who didn’t have the stones to make his/her own work. Sure, occasionally you’ll get a few sales from a few desperate buyers. But those buyers will be just like the people who buy clothes at Walmart when they have no money: they’ll never brag about how great those clothes are and, when they have the cash, they’ll go to the higher-end stores to get the real names–and tell everyone how they’re wearing a designer now.

 

I just read a tweet from another photo consultant who used the word freeconomy. She wrote something about “in our online freeconomy” and I was struck but the linguistic fallacy of the word.

What freeconomy? Seriously… what is free in our economy except the content that creatives are giving away because they are buying into the mythology of free somehow generating revenue? Free can’t get you anything in the real world or even online, legally.

Except creative content, and that’s because artists keep giving it away.

Can you pay your rent or mortgage with attributions, likes, or +1s? Buy groceries? Gas? Pay your bills? Feed your kids/pets/self?
No.

Will your doctor, dentist, mechanic, plumber, hair stylist, or any other service provider perform her/his service in exchange for you liking him/her?
No.

Can you buy stock in Google for free, for +1ing it?
No.

How about products on Amazon or iTunes? Can likes gets you a novel or a song?
No.

So just what is this freeconomy?
It’s the illusion that is being sold to creatives that in order to have the world value their work they themselves have to devalue it completely by letting others use it for free. An illusion created by those who exploit the work made by creatives, so that those users can make more money by decreasing their costs. If they don’t have to pay you for your work they use, they get higher profit margins for the stuff they sell. For real money. Like real businesses have and will do. Forever.

Stop being suckers! There is no freeconomy–the world works on money and unless you are making it by selling your work (selling licenses, whatever), your business will fail.

Chris Ruen used to be an infringer. He believed in the cult of free… until he saw how incredibly talented musicians were not able to make livings creating. Starting from that realization, he has written a book about how the cult of free is killing creativity. It’s available for pre-order now and I encourage all of you to buy it.

Now, I haven’t read any of it and maybe I’ll disagree with some of his proposals, but I suspect it will be a thoughtful work worthy of the read anyway.

I have been violating one of my own rules: not keeping up with my blog. I apologize.

I find that not only does my work-work (especially the legal stuff) get in the way, the ease of posting quick blurbs on Facebook or Twitter make me much less likely to “bother” to post something longer here.

I’m bothered by that.

I’ve noticed that it is also much more difficult lately to read longer form text, too. For me, that is a real tragedy. I’ve always been a reader. Even before law school, I read books voraciously. Now, I read a lot, but most of it is shorter form.

I’m bothered by that, too.

I think this is reflective of our culture but I also think that it is something that, particularly as creatives, must be fought. Creation takes time. Exploring and appreciating the creative work of others should also take time. What did Miracle Max say in The Princess Bride? When you rush a miracle man, you get rotten miracles.
And really, all artists are miracle (wo)men.

Do you find yourself more mentally fragmented than you used to be? Forget about whether or not you may be AD(H)D–is it harder for you on your own scale to focus for significant periods of time in order to read, watch a movie, look at work, make work, whatever? I’m not saying 20 minutes… I’m saying can you sit and focus for, say, 2 minutes? Time yourself. You’ll see just how long that feels and I bet you’ll find it’s harder than it used to be.

You can’t make your best work that way. We need to take longer to make our work, to process all the information that zips through our grey cells to produce the creative spark that becomes our best work, and to execute it to the best of our abilities. We need to learn to slow down, to disconnect from distractions, to (sorry for the bad photo allusion) focus.

I encourage everyone to start practicing mindfulness in some form so as to (re)learn to focus. It doesn’t have to be traditional meditation or some sort of hippy-dippy stuff–maybe just disconnecting from the electronic “masters” and taking a walk, riding a bike, going to a museum… something slow and deliberate.

I suspect that if we all start making the effort to be more mindful, to slow down, our work will improve. For me, that will (hopefully) mean writing more here and less of the quick hits on the other tools.

Last night I attended an event put on by the Copyright Alliance for the TPP delegates meeting here in San Diego. If you think everyone is against us in the copyright fight, you should have been in that room. These people are working for you.

The room was filled with people who were working to improve trade for their countries and their people, including working to protect IP in the Pacific. They were eager and sincere. They understood the importance of IP in promoting growth and creativity. As more than one person put it, IP protection is spun as somehow corporate and Big Brother-ish, but the reality it is all about the 99%. It’s how the little guy/gal, the artist, the inventor, the creator, can make a living using his/her skills.

We were also entertained by David Lowery (of Cracker, Camper Van Beethoven and, now, UGA and the Trichordist) and other songwriters who briefly talked about the need to protect IP before playing short (fabulous!) sets.

Afterwards, I spent some time talking with Mr. Lowery and Jack Tempchin (he wrote some of the Eagles’ biggest hits) about copyright and business. We spoke with some of the  delegates as well. Overwhelmingly the sentiment was clear that the groups working against the interests of artists are exactly those I have called out against for years here: CC/Lessig (and all his minions like the Berkman Center), Public Knowledge, EFF, and of course Google (who helps fund them all).

It’s still a fight. I think we may be turning the tide of public sentiment about copyright to our point of view, but it’s still a fight. And after talking with these people, I feel even more it is one we can win.

I was honored to have been invited to last night’s event and want to publicly thank the Copyright Alliance for their efforts.