It's the Archives, Folks

A story in Folio tells how National Geographic continues the argument that it can publish a software-enhanced CD version of the magazine without paying photographers additionally. The legal battle is going on 11 years, now. I won't recap the history; that's available at the link. However, I will note a specific paragraph:

“It’s the archive that’s at stake,” Angelo Grima, senior vice president and deputy general counsel for the National Geographic Society, said during a panel on digital rights at the Magazine Publishers of America’s Magazines 24/7 conference at the Hearst Tower Thursday. “We’ll go to the Supreme Court if we have to, because our archive is that important to us.”

Of course, this isn't just about photography. It's about "content." The real economic value of images or stories or graphics or video or audio is not the immediate market value of any single piece. No, it's having the collection - the entire collection - that is at issue. It is the collection that allows companies to sell rights to databases, to get advertising, to charge institutions for subscriptions. And every bit helps add to that value. That means the story you consider unimportant in the long run because it is timely, or short, or so specialized, has lasting value. Just because you don't grasp the value of a piece of antique furniture doesn't mean that you should toss the Louis XIV chair. No, you find out the value, and then figure out what you want to do with that value.

I know this probably seems like an old and tired argument to most of you, but it's vital and we have to remember it again and again. What we create has value. People want it because it does have value, both on its own and in a given context. When businesses want you to give up lots of rights, even non-exclusively, it is because they want to make money off what you have done. Don't you think it's only reasonable that you also make money from it?