You told me on the phone that you did not want to negotiate. At least that's how I remember hearing it. Sorry if I heard wrong. You told me specifically that PodTech was not in position to negotiate.
The problem is I'm getting in between you and John Furrier. John's mom died this week which is causing problems figuring out where things are. I'll get him to answer you. Regarding photo prices, I talked with photographers who work for Associated Press, Business Week and other magazines. I agree that we dropped the ball. No excuses there, but I wasn't involved back then and am trying to clean up a mess and having trouble getting it cleaned up because of John's mom's death. Robert Scoble ### From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lan Bui Sent: Friday, June 29, 2007 10:51 PM To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com Subject: [videoblogging] Re: Hey PodTech - What's up with Lan's image? Robert, thank you for finally coming out and saying something for PodTech to the community. First, I must say that your statement: "He believes his work is worth that and believes that there isn't room for negotiation on this issue." Is a lie. One of the points in my blog post was that I wanted, at minimum, to be contacted to negotiate. In the last couple days I did negotiate down a lot less than $3000 and even sent an updated invoice for it. So how is this not negotiating on the issue? Remember we talked about this on the phone, so I'm not sure why you left that out. PodTech had the chance to ask to purchase a license to use the photograph before it was used, at which time they would be able to set the terms. That didn't happen. Now that they have used the photograph already, who should set the terms? I gave PodTech over a month to respond to my terms and they didn't. When it was just me that was involved PodTech didn't care. When others started to blog about it and it was giving them a bad name, then PodTech started to care. Remember, that blog post was up for about a month before others started take notice to it. So PodTech showed to me they don't care about me, they only care about their image in the public eye. Next, I am not Thomas Hawk. Wait... Thomas Hawk? I will be the professional and not discuss the prices that PodTech pays him. Remember Robert, you told me how much PodTech pays him and that reinforced my price even more! You also said: "It was easy to see how a mistake was made since usually people in the community who, when invited to an event we held usually give us photos that were snapped at our events for free" I was not contacted... so how could there be a mistake regarding permission? I also never gave (if you meant sent in to PodTech) any photographs that this one could be mistaken for. You also said: "it's easy to miss the copyright on Flickr" Come on, that argument is weak. Putting something in the same place on every page on flickr makes it very easy to not miss. You said: "I asked several professional photographers, the average fee was $300." and "3x what most professionals in the marketplace charge for this kind of work" Please don't lie again. The $300 price point is for stock photography. I even asked John where you guys got $300 from and he said "that is standard for a stock photograph". If there is a photograph with Casey McKinnon holding Vloggies in a stock photography book somewhere I would love to see it. The photograph that was chosen was chosen because it had great value. It is not stock photography and I am not a stock photographer. Ok, lastly. Lets say I accepted $1000. Wow that sounds like a lot of money to many people that aren't making money from their creative work. Well this issue is not about me making money. It is about setting a precedent. If we allow companies to steal work and only pay a standard small fee when they are discovered, what is the incentive for them not steal again? Is that what other companies should learn from this? Just take now and deal with it later if it ever comes up. And don't worry, it still won't cost more than if we paid up front. To anyone else reading this: I hope this clarifies and corrects Roberts post. -Lan www.LanBui.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com <mailto:videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com> , "Robert Scoble" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Here's what happened. > > > > An employee made a mistake. We recognize that a mistake was made. It was > easy to see how a mistake was made since usually people in the community > who, when invited to an event we held usually give us photos that were > snapped at our events for free and it's easy to miss the copyright on > Flickr. Thomas Hawk, for instance, takes lots of photos at our events and > gives them to us for free since he's appreciative for the community work we > do. > > > > We asked around what a photo like the one that we used by Lan Bui was worth. > I asked several professional photographers, the average fee was $300. Lan > was not commissioned to take photos and an employee made a mistake by using > a photo and not making sure we had the rights to use it before using it. > > > > But Lan wants $3,000. > > > > We have offered Lan something between those two prices which we feel is fair > ($1,000 is the price I saw offered by PodTech CEO John Furrier, which is > more than 3x what most professionals in the marketplace charge for this kind > of work). > > > > Lan wants $3,000. He believes his work is worth that and believes that there > isn't room for negotiation on this issue. > > > > So we're at an impass. > > > > I'm personally sorry for the whole way this thing has been handled, though, > and still would like to find a way to get the two parties to reach closure > on this problem. > > > > I do want to make sure Lan gets compensated properly for his intellectual > property, but we want to reach a fair price and one that's based on what > professionals expect. > > > > Robert Scoble > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
