Hi, although not really set up to act as a slush fund to broker disputes between two parties within the community, I actually have established a fund for legal support for those independent media makers who find themselves in hot water, and I believe there is a tad over $3,000 in the account which will be overseen by the Free The Media Foundation which still needs to be established. But, yes, a legal fund for the collective good all of us is of crucial importance. When I was carted off to jail, I had no idea how I'd raise the funds for an appeal. Fortunately, my little pay-pal banner was rather productive and there was about $3,000 left-over to establish this fund for the next time such a situation strike.
Josh On Jun 30, 2007, at 8:30 AM, bordercollieaustralianshepherd wrote: > Make a mistake and own it? Priceless! > > My opinion and thoughts (for what that's worth) > > I missed a lot in this thread. Not likely I will be able to catch up > either. So if I am repeating someone else's input it is truly a case > of like minds thinking. > > Robert, you are a stand up guy. No doubt and big props to you. > > Lan, understand how you feel and do not find fault with your position. > > To quote Rodney King ... oh never mind. > > $300 is too low (considering this is after the fact) and $3000 is too > high considering the limited use of the image and it's purpose. > (Podtech may be a business, but we should lead by example too, we are > suppose to be in this boat together). > > Solution (and certainly not the only): vlogger legal defense fund! > > How to do this? Podtech ponies up $1000.00 total which pays Lan > $600.00 (double the lowest possible PRE use negotiated license fee) > and opens a legal defense fund for video bloggers using the remaining > $400 for the creation of this funds cost and a initial deposit. Lan > can (if he chooses) donate any amount he sees fit to this fund. > > Seems like a nice way to make nice. > > I know that this means that guidelines, rules and a bunch of other > stuff might need to be put into effect. Then again, this group seems > to me at least, to be capable of expressing opinion that can be used > to gauge under what circumstances funds would be disbursed. > > If a fund is set up, I would like to be the third person to > contribute. > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Scoble" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > 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" > > <robertscoble@> 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] > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
