As the popularity creative commons licenses grows an increasing number of photographers have become dissatisfied with the Creative Commons system.
I am a big believer in the idea behind creative commons but I feel it is a little flawed.
My main issue is with commercial use and identifying who really benefits in the long term. In effect commercial companies can and are really benefiting from these ‘free’ photographs. Before CC, a corporation or ad agency that wanted to use your photo would have to contact you or your photo agency for permission to use it. You could negotiate a price based on the particular use, making sure you got a fair deal.
Through CC, hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of photographers have thrown this right away forever. As we know, CC says that once you choose a license for your work, it’s irrevocable. Photographers are generally doing this with good intentions or for idealistic reasons. But the end result is that you are building a system enabling commercial buyers to use your images without paying for them.
How would you like to see your Facebook display picture on a billboard advertising Herpes medicine? Imagine the money a Herpes medicine company is going to save now they can just pick a face off Flickr and not have to pay the person a phenomenal amount to ruin their sex life.
I’m sure CC’s defence would be the ‘non-commercial use’ license. A few of the many flaws with this license include; A) you are informed enough to choose the right license and B) You and the rest of the world can actually agree on what 'non-commercial use' actually means.
I have hundreds of CC licensed photo’s online, until I sat down and had a think about it I was fine with that but I don’t want to be the face of Herpes and so, I be’ Hatin’ too.
Tuesday, 21 August 2012
Tuesday, 14 August 2012
You should check your emails more often, I fired you three weeks ago..
This week really got me thinking about the concept of global networks and the effects that technological inventions have had on the idea of 'community'. From the days of Egypt’s Human messengers and Chinas messenger relay stations it is hard to fathom just how far we have come in the world of communications. Long gone are the days where it was common place to receive a hand written letter complete with the stains and wrinkles of its travels. If you ask me this is a blessing as my handwriting is horrendous, but many disagree. The debates on the quality and quantity of the new communication corridors are wide and heated (see the articles in Wellman and Haythornthwaite 2002)
Personally, I believe that communities started changing from groups to networks well before the advent of the Internet. To begin with i think people feared that industrialization and bureaucratization would dissolve community groups and only isolated, alienated individuals would remain. Then people actually took a step back and discovered that communities continued, but more as sparsely-knit, spatially dispersed social networks rather than as densely-knit, village-like local groups. It is easy to say that the internet just isolates people from face-to-face interactions but the fact is we are just being given new opportunities to discover far-flung communities of shared interest.
After a few joyous hours of reading I have found three key sides to this debate. Some say the internet weakens community (Kraut et al. 1998; Nie and Hillygus 2002), others believe it enhances community (Wellman and Quan-Haase 2002), and others believe the internet transforms community (Barlow, 1995; Wellman 2001), believing that internet is simply changing the way people communicate rather than damaging or improving it. Networked societies are themselves changing in character. As discussed in the lecture it seems each person is now a switchboard, between ties and networks. People remain connected, but as individuals, rather than being stuck in the confines of home or work. Each person operates a separate personal community network and switches rapidly among multiple sub-networks. In effect, the Internet and other new communication technology are helping individuals to personalize their own communities. This is neither a a positive or a negative, but rather a complex, fundamental transformation in the nature of community.
Resources-
Wellman, B. and Haythornthwaite, C. (eds.) 2002. The Internet in Everyday Life. Oxford:Blackwell. In press
Kraut, R., Patterson, M., Lundmark, V., Kiesler, S., Mukopadhyay, T., and Scherlis, W. 1998. Internet Paradox: A Social Technology that Reduces Social Involvement and Psychological Well-being? American Psychologist. 53(9), p. 1017-1031.
Nie, N., Hillygus, D. S., and Erbring, L. 2002. Internet Use, Interpersonal Relations and Sociability: A Time-diary Study. In B. Wellman and C.
Haythornthwaite (eds.), The Internet in Everyday Life. Oxford:Blackwell. In press
Barlow, J. P., Birkets, S., Kelly, K., and Slouka, M. 1995. What Are We Doing On-Line?, Harper's, 291, p. 35–46.
Wellman, B. 2001. Physical Place and Cyber-Place: Changing Portals and the Rise of Networked Individualism, International Journal for Urban and Regional Research, 25(2), p. 227-252.
Wellman, B. and Haythornthwaite, C. (eds.) 2002. The Internet in Everyday Life. Oxford:Blackwell. In press
Kraut, R., Patterson, M., Lundmark, V., Kiesler, S., Mukopadhyay, T., and Scherlis, W. 1998. Internet Paradox: A Social Technology that Reduces Social Involvement and Psychological Well-being? American Psychologist. 53(9), p. 1017-1031.
Nie, N., Hillygus, D. S., and Erbring, L. 2002. Internet Use, Interpersonal Relations and Sociability: A Time-diary Study. In B. Wellman and C.
Haythornthwaite (eds.), The Internet in Everyday Life. Oxford:Blackwell. In press
Barlow, J. P., Birkets, S., Kelly, K., and Slouka, M. 1995. What Are We Doing On-Line?, Harper's, 291, p. 35–46.
Wellman, B. 2001. Physical Place and Cyber-Place: Changing Portals and the Rise of Networked Individualism, International Journal for Urban and Regional Research, 25(2), p. 227-252.
Personally, I believe that communities started changing from groups to networks well before the advent of the Internet. To begin with i think people feared that industrialization and bureaucratization would dissolve community groups and only isolated, alienated individuals would remain. Then people actually took a step back and discovered that communities continued, but more as sparsely-knit, spatially dispersed social networks rather than as densely-knit, village-like local groups. It is easy to say that the internet just isolates people from face-to-face interactions but the fact is we are just being given new opportunities to discover far-flung communities of shared interest.
After a few joyous hours of reading I have found three key sides to this debate. Some say the internet weakens community (Kraut et al. 1998; Nie and Hillygus 2002), others believe it enhances community (Wellman and Quan-Haase 2002), and others believe the internet transforms community (Barlow, 1995; Wellman 2001), believing that internet is simply changing the way people communicate rather than damaging or improving it. Networked societies are themselves changing in character. As discussed in the lecture it seems each person is now a switchboard, between ties and networks. People remain connected, but as individuals, rather than being stuck in the confines of home or work. Each person operates a separate personal community network and switches rapidly among multiple sub-networks. In effect, the Internet and other new communication technology are helping individuals to personalize their own communities. This is neither a a positive or a negative, but rather a complex, fundamental transformation in the nature of community.
Resources-
Wellman, B. and Haythornthwaite, C. (eds.) 2002. The Internet in Everyday Life. Oxford:Blackwell. In press
Kraut, R., Patterson, M., Lundmark, V., Kiesler, S., Mukopadhyay, T., and Scherlis, W. 1998. Internet Paradox: A Social Technology that Reduces Social Involvement and Psychological Well-being? American Psychologist. 53(9), p. 1017-1031.
Nie, N., Hillygus, D. S., and Erbring, L. 2002. Internet Use, Interpersonal Relations and Sociability: A Time-diary Study. In B. Wellman and C.
Haythornthwaite (eds.), The Internet in Everyday Life. Oxford:Blackwell. In press
Barlow, J. P., Birkets, S., Kelly, K., and Slouka, M. 1995. What Are We Doing On-Line?, Harper's, 291, p. 35–46.
Wellman, B. 2001. Physical Place and Cyber-Place: Changing Portals and the Rise of Networked Individualism, International Journal for Urban and Regional Research, 25(2), p. 227-252.
Wellman, B. and Haythornthwaite, C. (eds.) 2002. The Internet in Everyday Life. Oxford:Blackwell. In press
Kraut, R., Patterson, M., Lundmark, V., Kiesler, S., Mukopadhyay, T., and Scherlis, W. 1998. Internet Paradox: A Social Technology that Reduces Social Involvement and Psychological Well-being? American Psychologist. 53(9), p. 1017-1031.
Nie, N., Hillygus, D. S., and Erbring, L. 2002. Internet Use, Interpersonal Relations and Sociability: A Time-diary Study. In B. Wellman and C.
Haythornthwaite (eds.), The Internet in Everyday Life. Oxford:Blackwell. In press
Barlow, J. P., Birkets, S., Kelly, K., and Slouka, M. 1995. What Are We Doing On-Line?, Harper's, 291, p. 35–46.
Wellman, B. 2001. Physical Place and Cyber-Place: Changing Portals and the Rise of Networked Individualism, International Journal for Urban and Regional Research, 25(2), p. 227-252.
Tuesday, 7 August 2012
DIY projects to put the finishing touches to your bedroom.
So
I am currently in the process of changing bedrooms. My housemate has moved out
which leaves the bigger and by far- better bedroom up for grabs. Since I got in
quick, the bedroom is now ours !
So
I am venturing on a couple of DIY projects. The first a jewellery tree; I have
this magnificent tree in the backyard, which twists and turns above my garden.
Leafless due to winter, the trees branches are ideal to hold my jewellery. So I
got up this morning and created this !
What you will need:
·
3 or 4 decent sized twigs
·
a bottle, or vase, small or large.
·
Jewellery, preferably delicate, the
thicker/chunkier types need thicker branches.
Thursday, 2 August 2012
Oh, Nha Trang
As many of you know, I
have just returned from the beautiful Vietnam. The country was full of new
aromas, smiling faces, and risky roads. Our itinerary originally gave us two
nights in Nha Trang but as soon as we arrived at the breath taking Mia Resort, we
decided to change our flights.
The pool was
stunning ! At night they would light the water features ablaze which sprinkled little
flaming reflections across the surface of the pool. The website really does not
do this place justice. It is only a year old and the architectural and interior
design is well thought out and expertly executed. Because the resort is still
new and there is some work still continuing, the prices are well under what
they should be. We hired a motorbike for three days (not a good idea when you
don’t have a map), mainly because Mia Resort is about 15 mins out from the city
centre and taxis start to hurt the pocket.
One day trip
we really enjoyed was the mud baths. We jumped on the bike and followed the
main roads (and the tour busses) until we reached Nha Trangs Thap Ba Springs.
The springs are famous for the healing and therapeutic powers of its mud and
mineral baths. Claims that the baths cure ailments ranging from chronic joint
disease to leprosy bring in a large number of daily visitors. But even if you
don’t have leprosy, you can still have a very relaxing day at Thap Ba. After we
were well and truly mineralled, we headed back to the bike, feeling very
relaxed and lethargic. What I was no expecting was for my skin to actually feel
different. It is difficult to explain, but the best way to put it is I just
felt unbelievably clean.
Nha Trang is
said to be the Gold Coast of Vietnam and that is certainly the feel it has. The
beaches, the bars, the people, the activities, are all a must see and do.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)