Has Web Publishing hurt Hard Copy?

[firecracker]

Why should you or I have fewer rights to do this than say, Popular Photography?

No, not that. I meant (and thought) perhaps web-publishing or (publishing in general) would involve some (extra) precedures like having to pay fees (perhaps commission fees?) to whoever own the rights to their products...

Because what bothers me is the logos of the products, that in a way, if I were to web-publish something about the cameras I own with the photos I provide myself, I would end up not only showing, promoting, and advertising them to the public. (By the way I have no intention of doing it but curious about how it would turn out if someone like me did.)

That is a commercial business whether it is to generate profits or not from them, as most of us are not the reps of certain companies of camera products.

 

[jstraw]

No, not that. I meant (and thought) perhaps web-publishing or (publishing in general) would involve some (extra) precedures like having to pay fees (perhaps commission fees?) to whoever own the rights to their products...

Because what bothers me is the logos of the products, that in a way, if I were to web-publish something about the cameras I own with the photos I provide myself, I would end up not only showing, promoting, and advertising them to the public. (By the way I have no intention of doing it but curious about how it would turn out if someone like me did.)

That is a commercial business whether it is to generate profits or not from them, as most of us are not the reps of certain companies of camera products.

I'm not following you. Do you think magazines that review products pay the manufacturers for the privilege of displaying images of them? They don't. Manufacturers do everything short of paying the magazines to review their products and sometimes they cross that line.

 

[firecracker]

Manufacturers do everything short of paying the magazines to review their products and sometimes they cross that line.

When the line between the manufacturers/dealers/sellers and the consumers seems blurry, I just wonder. Or what do you exactly mean "they cross the line"?

In the case of Japan, it seems (IT ONLY SEEMS) that sometimes used camera shops and some "promiment" classic camera reviewers(professional critics) team up and write articles about certain products, mostly "classic" products on a well-known publication (such as Amsahi Camera, equivalent of Popular Photography) to create a trend, and this is sort of beyond the mere reviews but more of the pushing and selling of particualr goods, then the next thing we know is the prices of these products are going up, unreasonably. The real irony is that on Asahi Camera, the same topics appear at least once a year, so it's a tiring process for the readers to follow(and I don't subscribe it any more because of it).

However, Asahi Camera does put their independent reviews on the new products, and they are pretty keen on them by examining every techinical aspect of them with data, and that's pretty good. But for the "classic" stuff, they seem to have a different agenda to sell or not sell certain products...

 

[firecracker]

I'm not following you. Do you think magazines that review products pay the manufacturers for the privilege of displaying images of them? They don't.

For obtaining the use of their (manufacturers') properties, I thought the magazines and/or any professional (meaning commercial-business) reviewers out there had to... I got confused (and pretty much still am) because I thought I heard, in some "copyright" issue, photographers have a risk of being sued violating the right when they sell their photo images, even street snaps taken in 100 percent pubic, that show some companies' logos, names of businesses. Or at least the photographers may be asked to stop or remove the logos and names, etc. And that logic seems to apply for almost any photographying and publishing without obtaining permission, consensus, or agreement, etc.

 

[jstraw]

Firecracker, I'll address your two posts at once.

What I mean is that occasionally manufacturors do directly or indirectly bribe reviewers and or publishers for coverage, with either favors, cash, or advertising buys.

As for the the question of images, logos, copyright...

Perhaps it's very different in Japan but here, there is something called "fair use," an exception to copyright expressly for use in reviews, criticism and commentary. And the only time you see a logo obscured is because the publisher isn't being paid to display it, not because the publisher hasn't paid to.

 

[firecracker]

Firecracker, I'll address your two posts at once.

What I mean is that occasionally manufacturors do directly or indirectly bribe reviewers and or publishers for coverage, with either favors, cash, or advertising buys.

As for the the question of images, logos, copyright...

Perhaps it's very different in Japan but here, there is something called "fair use," an exception to copyright expressly for use in reviews, criticism and commentary. And the only time you see a logo obscured is because the publisher isn't being paid to display it, not because the publisher hasn't paid to.

Thanks for your help. I'm getting more clear on these issues now.

But actually Japan is sort of very behind all the legal things that we discuss here. It's sort of shockingly lawless in many aspects, and that's even more confusing sometimes.