My previous tongue-in-cheek post on this topic was an attempt to highlight the ´innocent´ casual use of other peoples ideas to express an opinion.
And attempt to difuse some of the heat building in this issue...
Now I´ll explain, in 'mostly' my own words, my opinion:
One time in Copenhagen, at a tourism fair, the 'Georgia stand' used one of my photographs from their country in a brochure, without my prior knowledge. Another time, I was in Amman Jordan, and a guy I had known for all of two days was showing me his new website; he'd used one my photgraphs from Burma, on his main banner, without my prior knowledge. In both situations they were extremely embarrased, and in both situations I explained, it was no problem.
This brought to my mind, the common use of other peoples pictures on the net; and I can only ponder as to how many other people have used pictures from mine and others travelblogs.
When people have asked me to use my pictures or text I have always agreed, and as a result my pictures have appeared on more than one book cover. Various organisations have requested the use of photos and text for various causes and I have never requested payment.
In one instance 'intellectual property' has hindered the use of my photos in a cause. Earlier this year when Israel murdered over 1500 people, against all international law, in Gaza. Some on the internet were attempting to use some of my photos to highlight the attrocities perpetuated in the occupied territories on a daily basis. But apparantely, I hadn't 'released the rights', protagonists said. Luckily someone contacted me via wikipedia and after legally releasing them they could be used.
The reason I have never requested payment is because I believe a blog (including the pictures) is something I produce for friends, family and the travelblog community for free. By selling any of this 'work' I believe it moves from the sacred to the profane - One is located in the temple, the other in the market (Latin:
profanus, 'before or outside the temple').
Adam Smith distinguished between a natural value and a market value (which veering from the natural, is by implication 'unnatural' and hence inauthentic'). Marx believed, that once labour is objectified through the rhetoric of the market, workers are estranged from the objects produced with this labour.
This alienation is a direct result of a commodity exchange, since without such exchange a given commodity would be fully utilized by its producers, presumably for a fixed purpose. So for example within the 'travelblog community' (a free service, that doesn't pays its contributors) community producers are not alienated from their labour because the objects they produce with this labour are held and used in common rather than exchanged as individual forms of private property.
The main issue for me, is whether the blogs I produce are used for propoganda purposes (all writers are propagandists) in unethical or evil ways (my text has appeared on both far-right and far-left websites). But of course, this can happen whether or not the material is 'stolen', or sold to the highest bidder.
Think of all the philisophical, biological, historical and biological arguments that have been distorted and perverted to justify Nazism, Stalinism, Maoism etal... Or indeed the 'news' produced by the capitalist media on a daily basis.
As a final note on the issue of intellectual property, In the US (and other countires) it is possible to be imprisoned for 'stealing' music and from the internet ( “He that is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone...” ). But in China, in an effort to increase its market market share, Google allows its Chinese users to download music from its website for free (99 percent of all music files distributed in China are pirated)
"Lee Kai-Fu, president of Google in greater China, said one reason Google lagged in the mainland search market was because it did not offer music downloads, the missing piece to its strategy in a market where it trails leader Baidu.com."
Reply to this