In 165 seconds of (funny, clever) video, Lane Hartwell's (copyrighted) photo of blogger Owen Thomas flashed by in just under 1 second (at 1:25). Is that allowed under the "fair use" exception to copyright law? I think not; though in any case it's a gray area of law (read the comments too).

Either way, using a DMCA takedown notice to have YouTube and others remove the video was way over the top. That "punishment" far exceeded the uncertain "crime" and justifiably brought plenty of ridicule (and some support) across the blogosphere.

With the first chapter done, what next? Having made her point, I think Hartwell should have backed off gracefully and allowed the original video to be posted with a new set of credits. The incident still serves as a warning, and she could claim some high ground: "if they had asked permission in advance, I would have allowed it". Alas, those are my words not hers.

The Richter Scales posted a new video on YouTube, with a link to a long list of credits.

And Hartwell chose to shoot her profession in the foot.

I will be sending the band an invoice for their use of my image in the first version of the video.

Reality check: the Richter Scales are not raking in the dough:

in the week Version 1.0 was up, we sold only eight CDs of previously recorded music. That's one CD sold per 125,000 viewers of the video. If this rate holds, the "profits" from CD sales will equal the $355 we spent making the video when Version 1.1 gets its 3.5 millionth view. (Mommas, don't let your babies grow up to be a cappella singers.)

I think there are two issues that Hartwell and many other copyright holders don't understand.

First, copyright was never intended to allow absolute control. It's always been a balance between the creators and the public.

Second, the details of that balance change over time. With cheap digital cameras, "computers" of every shape and size (including the latest mobile phones), and this Internet thing, the supply of "content" (words, pictures, music, video) continues to explode. The value of a single photograph goes down.

Hartwell argues:

I continue to maintain that individuals must be fairly compensated for their work.

That's true to an extent, but "fairly compensated" doesn't mean "I can get paid the same way and amount that photographers used to get paid". Are newspapers "fairly compensated" for classified ads? Ask CraigsList.

In many industries, market power is moving from business to individuals. Guess what? As a professional photographer, Hartwell is on the "business" side here. Photography will only survive as a profession if it can adapt to a changing world.

Hint #1: instead of sending a takedown notice, bring your case to the court of public opinion. Thanks to the blogosphere, that reaches farther than ever before.

Hint #2: instead of dismissing everyone who disagrees, listen to them. Among other details: a snapshot of a person taken at a public event is a very poor place to draw a line in the sand.

Hint #3: once you figured out that the video wasn't a money-maker, post a sincere apology for overreacting (even if you stand by the basic principle). Words matter -- which is one reason photographers are upset when they don't get credit.

Hint #4: don't send an invoice. The likely reaction: "if professional photographers are so greedy, who needs them?"