Internet Photos vs. Internet Videos

Before you read any further, stop and think of all the real (they get paid to be published) photographers you know. I'll give you a minute.

Ready? Great. I came up with three. David LaChapelle, Kevin Carter, and my sister. And if try real hard I come up with...three. And that's only because LaChapelle is so off the fokken wall

No Idea what's happening

Kevin Carter was actually in the news, because his pictures of starvation were so haunting

And my sister, because I love watermeleon

                                                          

So who cares? Now please, stop and think of every YouTube star or collective you can name.

Done? Awesome. In 30 seconds I came up with Chocolate Rain, Tron Guy, Light Saber Kid, Mega 64, Epic Meal Time, Numa Numa Guy, and Rebecca Black

I

And if I think just a bit longer...YTAS, Jenna Marbles, Leslie Hall, WOW freakout kid, Lana Del Ray, Grimes, and AutoTune the News.

Stole

If you gave me a search engine I could fill up a whole (terrible) coffee table book brimming with (awful) internet nostalgia. Moreover, I've only see about 2/3 of those I listed, the rest I knew through word of mouth or Tosh.0.

So why do we care? This extreme dichotomy of notoriety and medium is probably most interesting in terms of dollars.

Now that YouTube has started its process of monetization, if your video is popular enough you get money. Sucks to be Chocolate Rain.

Compare that to the tens of thousands of photographers and kids with cameras seeking cash or just simply recognition. They get dick.

But even worse, they loose the chance for receive a cent, the second their photos hit the web. My computer filled with photos I have no right to. The three images above all Google search provided. 

All

These

Photographers are almost aggressively ignorant at keeping claim to their work. I've found very few sites that offer any protection at all. If you go on Disney to look online at photos there are two big diagonal lines you only get removed by paying. Other websites have programs that don't allow the right click Save Image As.. to even happen. Look at my sister's photo above, she put up no protection, but in exchange for all the free exchange taken play on her hard work, she gets free publicity by throwing her name on.

The amount of people trying to get into the photography world is staggering and the number of dumb ones even more so. If someone can steal your work with a right click why even hire you? Look at memes. No one cares who took the original of ANY of those photos, but they all belong the collective internet now.

For Free

The same goes to artists who publish on the internet without protecting yourself or throwing your name somewhere on the thing itself. That's simply foolish.

Now let's discuss ownership.

As I said before, once your photo hits the web, it's gone and you've lost ownership. So slap on a name or no one will remember the works creator.

Videos, since 2007 are almost universally uploaded through YouTube.

So what? This gives the uploader/user recognition and control, which the photographers are so desperately seeking. Moreover a user can choose to take down their video whenever they feel like. After the universal hatred aimed at Rebecca Black after Friday was released, she took the video down (not that stopped anyone). So for a while, you couldn't find it through the most instantaneous method. She put it back up now with ads to make money btw.

In summation, photographers and artist make it so that stealing your work isn't an instantaneous process and maybe people will stop.

30% off books from Robinson Street Books at AbeBooks