That's a very encouraging sign for courts to rule in favor of content-creators over distributors. Nice to see the little guys win one, especially given how much it cost them to do it.
We need a lot less of the "we were here first, so we're going to lock up our employees and lock others out of getting into this industry" business model in this country. Encouraging companies to stay competitive in their field and continuing to find ways to improve their product (instead of just using their profits to legislate young competitors out of business) would make things better for both consumers and content-creators.
The example that springs to mind is all of the people that left places like IBM, Xerox, etc. and started their own companies and made names for themselves back in the old days. Today companies like Microsoft just buy their competition or sue them out of existence if they won't sell... and we lose out on good ideas and good products.
Re: CourtslightscameraFebruary 11 2008, 00:23:45 UTC
All of this is true.
It also has some very immediate real world implications for some of us. If you're not familiar with this already - there's some enlightening reading here: http://apneaticmedia.com/
I remembered some of the situation from when you posted about it before. It really sounds like SG felt they should basically own the models that worked for them (you see similar ridiculous non-competes required to work for big-name hair salons, including bans on working withit a 5-mile or more radius for X years, etc.).
When I worked for Cord Camera here in Columbus a few years back, the NCA I had to sign (presented to me days after I'd been hired, etc.) included that they owned "all intellectual property" that I produced, etc. Interesting for a company that didn't even produce content - and probably unenforceable - but even so I wouldn't have signed it and worked for them if I'd had other jobs available.
Even though the SG contracts were probably unenforceable in theory from the start, legal precedent making them definitively unenforceable will make models a lot more comfortable in pursuing work outside of SG, and photographers more able to work with them. That can only be good for the industry, and give more power to the models
( ... )
Comments 3
We need a lot less of the "we were here first, so we're going to lock up our employees and lock others out of getting into this industry" business model in this country. Encouraging companies to stay competitive in their field and continuing to find ways to improve their product (instead of just using their profits to legislate young competitors out of business) would make things better for both consumers and content-creators.
The example that springs to mind is all of the people that left places like IBM, Xerox, etc. and started their own companies and made names for themselves back in the old days. Today companies like Microsoft just buy their competition or sue them out of existence if they won't sell... and we lose out on good ideas and good products.
Reply
It also has some very immediate real world implications for some of us.
If you're not familiar with this already - there's some enlightening reading here: http://apneaticmedia.com/
Reply
When I worked for Cord Camera here in Columbus a few years back, the NCA I had to sign (presented to me days after I'd been hired, etc.) included that they owned "all intellectual property" that I produced, etc. Interesting for a company that didn't even produce content - and probably unenforceable - but even so I wouldn't have signed it and worked for them if I'd had other jobs available.
Even though the SG contracts were probably unenforceable in theory from the start, legal precedent making them definitively unenforceable will make models a lot more comfortable in pursuing work outside of SG, and photographers more able to work with them. That can only be good for the industry, and give more power to the models ( ... )
Reply
Leave a comment