We have been having a little fight about copyright over here in the god forsaken north hemisphere. It is a new age plague that online media as well as other media go to the nearest browser search for an image and use the first one they find with out asking about license.

Young aspiring photographers had been complaining over and over again about how their images had been ripped from here and there and used with out asking.

In some cases they had worked for nothing for a good cause like the association of handicapped and then on came the media and ripped the images from their site and used it with out asking any one.

The result of it was that I wrote a open letter to Icelandic journalists asking them why on earth they wanted to be stamped as thieves when they could just as well pick up the phone or send an e-mail to get license for images. They where capable of doing just that to get news and confirm them. 

The result of that letter was the the day after two online media changed their look and now every image that was published had gotten a new field of caption and copyright information. That is good. In fact better result than I expected right away.

But why then the anger towards creative common. One of this media whent on and proofed my point of utterly stupidity of creative commons when it comes to photography. Yes they marked the image with copyright holders name. No they did not go out and buy an image but they went on line and found a mediocre image that had the stupid creative commons do what you like attached to it.

When I was starting out in photography. there where two license types. Copyright and license. You would control the license and only give the image away to some thing you considered a good cause. Others like media which is out there to make money could very well pay for the usage. I mean why on earth should I be working for free just so some media mogul could by him self a new bentley.

I am certain that most of those that give their images away just like that are not thinking this through. They though perhaps that they where giving other artists some freedom to use their image and further build up on it. No wonder they where led to believe so. Creative commons is the work of big companies once again fucking with peoples brains and sadly they are doing a hell of a job. I mean why else would they shovel tons of money into spreading the gospel. Who gets really to gain from this stupidity. Not the poor soul taking the picture, that is for sure.

To them I say. Would you buy a new car or a house and then give it to a stranger to use as he pleases for the rest of your life. No you would not. Then think once and think again. No one gains any thing from creative commons in photography, except the media and big corporations. Where did this creative commons in photography start? amongst photographers eagerly willing to give away their photographs???

If you think you ar so stupidly bad photographer that your images are worth absolutely nothing then give your camera to some one that might appreciate the medium and start knitting or carving or just any thing else but photography.