Looking at the date of my last post, I have been incredibly remiss about this blog. I've been much better about the one you'll find on the link list to the right, but that one's not for legal issues (usually.) There's actually been some interesting developments in the law over the past couple of month and I will try to get to them here.
First off, though, I want to commend "A Fair(y) Use Tale" as a primer on copyright law before the Walt Disney Company does something to get it off line. I'm pretty sure that the creator of the video has a good argument for the fair use of the Disney material (it takes only as much as necessary to make its point, it doesn't interfere with the market for the original, it's transformative, it's educational, commentary AND parody.) That doesn't mean that he or she will avoid the wrath of the Mouse House because, as we learned from the Air Pirates case long ago, you don't f@#% with the Mouse. This video will teach you the basics of copyright law in about 10 minutes.
Friday, May 25, 2007
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
Viacom Takes on YouTube and the DMCA
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), one of the worst ideas every pushed through Congress, was passed in 1998 and has been the shield behind which ISPs have clustered when copyright holders seek restitution for blatant infringement of registered material. The DMCA has succeeded in protecting not only ISPs, but the individuals who actually post the material, often because ISPs refuse to cooperate with providing information which will lead to the actual infringers and ISPs often go out of their ways to avoid knowledge on the individual infringers true identitites. ISPs usually will take down the material which is identified under the formulaic "notice and take-down" provisions, but will do nothing to pro-actively prevent repeated infringements of the same material. The ISPs, hiding behind the formality of notice and take-down, require the demands be sent again and again rather than recognizing what is happening and setting up systems which can police repeated infringements.
Google and YouTube were sued by Viacom for massive copyright infringement recently, and finally some attention is being paid to the burden the DMCA notice and take down provisions place on a copyright holder when the same material is continually being reposted to the same web site. At what point is an ISP or other web entity going to be held accountable under the legal concept of constructive knowledge?
As Harlan Ellison's first attorney in his case against Internet infringement, I have first-hand knowledge of the difficulty of policing the Internet for infringement. You need to track down the infringement, track down the infringer, track down the ISP, find the agent for notice of infringement (and hope that the information on the Copyright Office web site is accurate--which AOL's was not), send the notice, make sure it is followed, and keep an eye out for a repeat posting of the material which was taken down, so the whole process can start over again. In Harlan's case, the same initial scans of his works are the ones which have been re-posted all over the world--the metadata gives it away every time.
The Ninth Circuit did address constructive knowledge in Harlan's case because a number of writers attempted to notify AOL, through its various technical support numbers, of what was posted on the alt.binaries.e-books newsgroups. Even though the individuals were not the writers of the actual books posted (and, consequently, had no standing to send a notice and take-down demand as outlined by the DMCA) my reading of the decision is that those phone calls gave AOL constructive notice of the infringement of copyrighted works on a newsgroup it chose to provide to its subscribers. That constructive knowledge is a benefit to a copyright holder trying to pursue damages under the DMCA.
In my perfect world (and, I suspect, that of Viacom) Google (which owns the service where you are reading this blog) and YouTube should find themselves liable where they have received notice at least once of material owned by the Plaintiffs. Google and YouTube may be even more culpable, since they have attempted to arrange licensing for the materials at issue and were not able to come to an agreement. Copyright law does not give a print-publisher the right to take material when an author says "no" and this same right should exist in the cyber world as well. If it doesn't, what is the incentive to actually register material under the U.S. copyright formalities. Frankly, what is the incentive to create if there is inadequate compensation for creating.
I have often said I'd be perfectly fine living under a patron system where I could make the photographs I want to and someone would pay me a nice stipend to cover the lifestyle I'd like to live. Unless my husband finally is compensated for creating Wolverine, I doubt that will happen in this lifetime. I earn my money for the photographs I take by licensing their reproduction and I have a small body of registered work which has earned me a nice income over the past 20 years, even if I don't pick up a camera much anymore. My work is infringed on the Internet and sometimes I have no idea how it has happened. Usually I do. The most common way is when the material has been copied from the Grolier's CD-ROM Visual Encyclopedia of Science Fiction, which was published in the early 1990s. I licensed over 100 portraits to that work and I occasionally run into them if I do a search on my name or the name of one of the subjects. My license to Grolier's was not a license for anyone else to copy, distribute, display, or otherwise use my photographs. Every such use without permission and payment is an infringement.
There are several things in the way of me effectively combating the war on my copyright: Under the DMCA, the deepest pockets are effectively protected. It is almost impossible to find out the real name and location of a specific infringer without an expensive fight against the ISP because the subpoena which was supposed to be available under it is ineffective (and, when I started Harlan's case, pretty much unavailable; the Clerk of the Court of the Central District of California had no idea what I was talking about and when rules were finally put into place the following year, the cost for one was the same as actually filing a law suit--not the intent of the law.) Once a work has been put up on the Internet, it is almost impossible (or beyond my ability to pay) to track every place it has been copied. Even if I can locate the infringers, many are in foreign countries and pursuit would cost more than I would be likely to recover. There are still foreign countries which don't recognize copyright rights. Life is too short to spend it all at war when the law is supposed to protect me.
In the U.S. there seems to be this perception that copyrights are all owned by big, greedy corporations so who could possibly care if they get ripped off. That was certainly the reaction about Napster when the music companies started going after the individuals who used Napster and its progeny to steal music. That's the reaction when the motion picture industry goes after the people who are "trading" digital copies of films.
The truth is that there are many, many individuals who are harmed by unfettered copyright infringement: writers, photographers, and illustrators who have no collective bargaining agreements and who rely on royalties or licensing fees to supplement their income after their initial compensation for a work and screen writers, actors, and directors who are subject to collective bargaining agreements which give them a (tiny) share of the revenue stream of television and motion picture productions.
I did a spit-take when I read the complaint against Google and YouTube because the studio invoked the "little people" who are harmed by the infringements. They won't give the writers, actors, or directors a percentage based on all revenues, only 20% of revenues, but, boy, those are the folks really harmed and why the suit is being filed. HAH! It reminded me of being in the Supreme Court for arguments in C.C.N.V. v. Reid and hearing the C.C.N.V. lawyers talk about how the homeless would be harmed if James Reid was the owner of the copyright of "No Room at the Inn" and not C.C.N.V. Sandra Day O'Connor, bless her, pointed out the big businesses (the computer industry and big publishing) which had come in on C.C.N.V.'s side because a narrow reading of the work for hire provisions as they applied to freelancers would cost their industries big time.
Despite my sarcasm about the complaint, I stand firmly with the plaintiffs in this case. Google's motto may be "Don't be evil," but there is a clear disconnect between what they are doing and the reality that it is evil to allow individuals to steal on a massive scale and to do nothing more than follow the letter of the law. If the court in this case recognizes the importance of constructive knowledge, there's a change that Google will have to acknowledge the spirit of the law as well.
All this being said, I like Google and YouTube as products and I wouldn't mind working for Google (which is said to be one of the best companies to work for in America) if it starts paying for the content upon which it is built (that includes the absurd scanning project where they expect copyright owners to have to opt-out rather than being asked for permission.) Google is awash in money, and some of it should go to the copyright owners. If a copyright owner doesn't want its material used, Google should graciously find other content. There's plenty out there for the right price.
Google and YouTube were sued by Viacom for massive copyright infringement recently, and finally some attention is being paid to the burden the DMCA notice and take down provisions place on a copyright holder when the same material is continually being reposted to the same web site. At what point is an ISP or other web entity going to be held accountable under the legal concept of constructive knowledge?
As Harlan Ellison's first attorney in his case against Internet infringement, I have first-hand knowledge of the difficulty of policing the Internet for infringement. You need to track down the infringement, track down the infringer, track down the ISP, find the agent for notice of infringement (and hope that the information on the Copyright Office web site is accurate--which AOL's was not), send the notice, make sure it is followed, and keep an eye out for a repeat posting of the material which was taken down, so the whole process can start over again. In Harlan's case, the same initial scans of his works are the ones which have been re-posted all over the world--the metadata gives it away every time.
The Ninth Circuit did address constructive knowledge in Harlan's case because a number of writers attempted to notify AOL, through its various technical support numbers, of what was posted on the alt.binaries.e-books newsgroups. Even though the individuals were not the writers of the actual books posted (and, consequently, had no standing to send a notice and take-down demand as outlined by the DMCA) my reading of the decision is that those phone calls gave AOL constructive notice of the infringement of copyrighted works on a newsgroup it chose to provide to its subscribers. That constructive knowledge is a benefit to a copyright holder trying to pursue damages under the DMCA.
In my perfect world (and, I suspect, that of Viacom) Google (which owns the service where you are reading this blog) and YouTube should find themselves liable where they have received notice at least once of material owned by the Plaintiffs. Google and YouTube may be even more culpable, since they have attempted to arrange licensing for the materials at issue and were not able to come to an agreement. Copyright law does not give a print-publisher the right to take material when an author says "no" and this same right should exist in the cyber world as well. If it doesn't, what is the incentive to actually register material under the U.S. copyright formalities. Frankly, what is the incentive to create if there is inadequate compensation for creating.
I have often said I'd be perfectly fine living under a patron system where I could make the photographs I want to and someone would pay me a nice stipend to cover the lifestyle I'd like to live. Unless my husband finally is compensated for creating Wolverine, I doubt that will happen in this lifetime. I earn my money for the photographs I take by licensing their reproduction and I have a small body of registered work which has earned me a nice income over the past 20 years, even if I don't pick up a camera much anymore. My work is infringed on the Internet and sometimes I have no idea how it has happened. Usually I do. The most common way is when the material has been copied from the Grolier's CD-ROM Visual Encyclopedia of Science Fiction, which was published in the early 1990s. I licensed over 100 portraits to that work and I occasionally run into them if I do a search on my name or the name of one of the subjects. My license to Grolier's was not a license for anyone else to copy, distribute, display, or otherwise use my photographs. Every such use without permission and payment is an infringement.
There are several things in the way of me effectively combating the war on my copyright: Under the DMCA, the deepest pockets are effectively protected. It is almost impossible to find out the real name and location of a specific infringer without an expensive fight against the ISP because the subpoena which was supposed to be available under it is ineffective (and, when I started Harlan's case, pretty much unavailable; the Clerk of the Court of the Central District of California had no idea what I was talking about and when rules were finally put into place the following year, the cost for one was the same as actually filing a law suit--not the intent of the law.) Once a work has been put up on the Internet, it is almost impossible (or beyond my ability to pay) to track every place it has been copied. Even if I can locate the infringers, many are in foreign countries and pursuit would cost more than I would be likely to recover. There are still foreign countries which don't recognize copyright rights. Life is too short to spend it all at war when the law is supposed to protect me.
In the U.S. there seems to be this perception that copyrights are all owned by big, greedy corporations so who could possibly care if they get ripped off. That was certainly the reaction about Napster when the music companies started going after the individuals who used Napster and its progeny to steal music. That's the reaction when the motion picture industry goes after the people who are "trading" digital copies of films.
The truth is that there are many, many individuals who are harmed by unfettered copyright infringement: writers, photographers, and illustrators who have no collective bargaining agreements and who rely on royalties or licensing fees to supplement their income after their initial compensation for a work and screen writers, actors, and directors who are subject to collective bargaining agreements which give them a (tiny) share of the revenue stream of television and motion picture productions.
I did a spit-take when I read the complaint against Google and YouTube because the studio invoked the "little people" who are harmed by the infringements. They won't give the writers, actors, or directors a percentage based on all revenues, only 20% of revenues, but, boy, those are the folks really harmed and why the suit is being filed. HAH! It reminded me of being in the Supreme Court for arguments in C.C.N.V. v. Reid and hearing the C.C.N.V. lawyers talk about how the homeless would be harmed if James Reid was the owner of the copyright of "No Room at the Inn" and not C.C.N.V. Sandra Day O'Connor, bless her, pointed out the big businesses (the computer industry and big publishing) which had come in on C.C.N.V.'s side because a narrow reading of the work for hire provisions as they applied to freelancers would cost their industries big time.
Despite my sarcasm about the complaint, I stand firmly with the plaintiffs in this case. Google's motto may be "Don't be evil," but there is a clear disconnect between what they are doing and the reality that it is evil to allow individuals to steal on a massive scale and to do nothing more than follow the letter of the law. If the court in this case recognizes the importance of constructive knowledge, there's a change that Google will have to acknowledge the spirit of the law as well.
All this being said, I like Google and YouTube as products and I wouldn't mind working for Google (which is said to be one of the best companies to work for in America) if it starts paying for the content upon which it is built (that includes the absurd scanning project where they expect copyright owners to have to opt-out rather than being asked for permission.) Google is awash in money, and some of it should go to the copyright owners. If a copyright owner doesn't want its material used, Google should graciously find other content. There's plenty out there for the right price.
Tuesday, February 6, 2007
A Bite of the Apple
The big news is that Apple and Apple Corps have settled their on-going litigations (going back 20 years) over trademark rights. This is why I pratice copyright law.
First of all, I've never confused the computer company with the music company and god knows their logos look nothing alike. I don't think that the two logos have any likelihood of confusion at all. I was looking at the granny smith this morning and I have to ask: didn't the Beatles' Apple used to show the cut inside of the Apple on its vinal labels and wasn't there something actually risque about the look? Nevertheless, that's a far cry from the rainbow-striped bitten logo of the computer company.
Back when the issue was that the computer company agreed it wouldn't go into the music business, I confess I saw trouble ahead. I mean, how could Apple not believe it would someday be involved with music. So, I was a bit surprised by the recent court rulings (and certainly by its reasoning) that Apple Corps lost.
I think both companies are better off with a settlement now rather than after dragging this through the appeal process. Apple makes money, Apple Corps makes money, and possibly the world of iPod users (or which I am not one) gets to hear the Beatles through itty-bitty head phones. Me, I'm trying to locate a new turntable and stylus so I can listen to my original Beatles (yes, purchased 1964-1970), some in the original mono.
First of all, I've never confused the computer company with the music company and god knows their logos look nothing alike. I don't think that the two logos have any likelihood of confusion at all. I was looking at the granny smith this morning and I have to ask: didn't the Beatles' Apple used to show the cut inside of the Apple on its vinal labels and wasn't there something actually risque about the look? Nevertheless, that's a far cry from the rainbow-striped bitten logo of the computer company.
Back when the issue was that the computer company agreed it wouldn't go into the music business, I confess I saw trouble ahead. I mean, how could Apple not believe it would someday be involved with music. So, I was a bit surprised by the recent court rulings (and certainly by its reasoning) that Apple Corps lost.
I think both companies are better off with a settlement now rather than after dragging this through the appeal process. Apple makes money, Apple Corps makes money, and possibly the world of iPod users (or which I am not one) gets to hear the Beatles through itty-bitty head phones. Me, I'm trying to locate a new turntable and stylus so I can listen to my original Beatles (yes, purchased 1964-1970), some in the original mono.
Sunday, January 28, 2007
Why Register?
I was having dinner with a friend who's been representing a photographer who sued Court TV for using a photograph of his after he refused to license the photograph to him. The case settled after my friend beat out the summary judgement motion of the other side. The case took a lot out of him, and since it was a settlement, he couldn't talk about it. I hope he saw compensation for the work he did, because he took it on a contingency and I didn't think the facts were going to let him get statutory damages or attorneys fees.
From the papers I read as it was going on, one of the arguments the other side made was that it was fair use to use the photograph because it was a newsworthy event. In fact, the photo was a wedding picture and the wife was convicted of murdering (or having had murdered) her husband. (It's been a while since I read over the papers.) I worry every time I hear the argument that some news organization thinks it should be able to use photographs without compensating the photographer because of "news." I know there are judges out there who believe that or who simply don't grasp the importance of licensing photographs to a photographer's business health. They just don't get it.
Back when the 1909 Copyright Act was working its way through Congress, the big newspaper men of the day tried to get a news exception for the use of photographs, meaning any photograph they deemed "newsworthy" could be published without permissiosn of or compensation to a non-employee photographer. In those long ago days, a small group of photographers managed to convince Congress to reject this move. I was amazed when I discovered this when reading through the legislative history of the 1909 Act, because photographers were far less involved with shaping the Copyright Act of 1976. Fortunately, ASMP and other organizations have been far more active in Washington on behalf of photographers during the past 20 years than they were during the middle of the 20th century.
Back to the question of "why register?" Because excellent lawyers like my friend can't afford to take on contingency cases without the likelihood of recovering their fees and the best insurance that will happen is when a photographer has a registration which was made before an infringement takes place. That registration will most likely avoid litigation of any kind, or at least stop it at the summary judgement stage--early in the proceedings.
Today at the workshop, Seth Resnick addressed the registration matter as part of the work-flow process. Every time he processes his digital files, he's automatically making the low resolution jpegs which will be sent off to the Copyright Office on a cd. I expect that when he covers this a little more tomorrow, he'll let the class know how often he sends material to Washington. I spent some time advising a couple of photographers to do it on a 60 day cycle, to make sure the registrations take place during that 90 day window after first publication. I advise they be done within 60 days of creation. It's cheap and easy to register unpublished images, but so few images are really unpublished anymore, with photographers uploading to web galleries. Make no mistake--that's a publication..
From the papers I read as it was going on, one of the arguments the other side made was that it was fair use to use the photograph because it was a newsworthy event. In fact, the photo was a wedding picture and the wife was convicted of murdering (or having had murdered) her husband. (It's been a while since I read over the papers.) I worry every time I hear the argument that some news organization thinks it should be able to use photographs without compensating the photographer because of "news." I know there are judges out there who believe that or who simply don't grasp the importance of licensing photographs to a photographer's business health. They just don't get it.
Back when the 1909 Copyright Act was working its way through Congress, the big newspaper men of the day tried to get a news exception for the use of photographs, meaning any photograph they deemed "newsworthy" could be published without permissiosn of or compensation to a non-employee photographer. In those long ago days, a small group of photographers managed to convince Congress to reject this move. I was amazed when I discovered this when reading through the legislative history of the 1909 Act, because photographers were far less involved with shaping the Copyright Act of 1976. Fortunately, ASMP and other organizations have been far more active in Washington on behalf of photographers during the past 20 years than they were during the middle of the 20th century.
Back to the question of "why register?" Because excellent lawyers like my friend can't afford to take on contingency cases without the likelihood of recovering their fees and the best insurance that will happen is when a photographer has a registration which was made before an infringement takes place. That registration will most likely avoid litigation of any kind, or at least stop it at the summary judgement stage--early in the proceedings.
Today at the workshop, Seth Resnick addressed the registration matter as part of the work-flow process. Every time he processes his digital files, he's automatically making the low resolution jpegs which will be sent off to the Copyright Office on a cd. I expect that when he covers this a little more tomorrow, he'll let the class know how often he sends material to Washington. I spent some time advising a couple of photographers to do it on a 60 day cycle, to make sure the registrations take place during that 90 day window after first publication. I advise they be done within 60 days of creation. It's cheap and easy to register unpublished images, but so few images are really unpublished anymore, with photographers uploading to web galleries. Make no mistake--that's a publication..
Saturday, January 27, 2007
DAM!
DAM means digital asset management. I'm speding four days in a workshop taught by Seth Resnick and Jamie Spritzer of D-65 working our way through digital shooting and work flow. It should really prepare me for teaching the first digital Photo 10 class I'll be doing this spring. I've already realized that the six instructors made a couple of bad decisions about standardizing the beginning class and I'm going to have to talk to our department chair before classes start on February 5.
I've got a lot of work to do to set up my own work-flow, but that was the reason for taking the workshop. I'm also getting used to working with the new MacBookPro. I need to find out how to increase the size of my display text. It's just too small for me to read comfortably.
I've got a lot of work to do to set up my own work-flow, but that was the reason for taking the workshop. I'm also getting used to working with the new MacBookPro. I need to find out how to increase the size of my display text. It's just too small for me to read comfortably.
Friday, January 19, 2007
Passings
Art Buchwald died yesterday. He was one of those individuals whose paths crossed mine because of my camera. I have a memory of one of his columns which must have appeared in the 1960s about the U.S. Revolutionary War. I don't remember the particulars, but I do remember it stuck with me for a long time and when I saw it reprinted I knew I had read it before. I very much enjoyed his wry take on life inside the Beltway.
Mr. Buchwald lived very near Ethel Kennedy, which is why I got a chance to photograph him wearing a top hat and tails as he emceed Mrs. Kennedy's charity pet show at Hickory Hill one year. The Washington Post sent me out to photograph the event (which was annual for some time) and I also photographed Kathleen Kennedy's oldest daughter decked out as Little Bo Peep and British dog trainer Barbara Woodhouse (I think that was her name) who was among the celebrities in attendance. Lots of Kennedy children and cousins were there (including ones who are no longer with us.) I think I was about 6 months pregnant at the time, and hiking around Hickory Hill with a heavy camera bag was a bit tiring.
Mr. Buchwald was every bit as funny in person as he was on paper. I'm glad he outlived his doctors' prognosis and I would have enjoyed being a fly on the wall of the "salon" his hospice room became. The world is a poorer place because of his passing.
Mr. Buchwald lived very near Ethel Kennedy, which is why I got a chance to photograph him wearing a top hat and tails as he emceed Mrs. Kennedy's charity pet show at Hickory Hill one year. The Washington Post sent me out to photograph the event (which was annual for some time) and I also photographed Kathleen Kennedy's oldest daughter decked out as Little Bo Peep and British dog trainer Barbara Woodhouse (I think that was her name) who was among the celebrities in attendance. Lots of Kennedy children and cousins were there (including ones who are no longer with us.) I think I was about 6 months pregnant at the time, and hiking around Hickory Hill with a heavy camera bag was a bit tiring.
Mr. Buchwald was every bit as funny in person as he was on paper. I'm glad he outlived his doctors' prognosis and I would have enjoyed being a fly on the wall of the "salon" his hospice room became. The world is a poorer place because of his passing.
Catch-up is a Bitch
I spent the last two days attending Peter Krogh's excellent workshop on Digital Asset Management (DAM, as he likes to put it.) Wow. Do I feel like I've been under a rock for the last 15 years. I left the program yesterday and dragged myself home, feeling like I went through a wringer. Today, I've got all kinds of great ideas about how I'm going to implement this in my digital workflow and, eventually, will be able to manage my most valuable photographic files. One of the best points Peter made was start from this point forward and work on the old stuff later on. That is an emancipating suggestion.
Wednesday night, Peter did a 4-hour lecture over-view of his system (you can get The DAM Book on Amazon) and Thursday was 8 hours of hands-on work with Adobe Bridge, DNG Converter, a little PhotoShop and LightRoom, and an intense introduction to iView Media Pro 3. The last program is amazingly powerful and I wish I had enough time left in my life to get my 30+ years of images processed and indexed, but the amount of time that it would take to digitize 30 years of film means it simply will not ever happen.
I made the leap to buy an Apple MacBook Pro just before going to the program. I am very glad I did (even though I won't get the new computer until at least tomorrow) because some of programs work better on Mac than on PC. As I looked around the room, I was one of about 5 photographers working on a PC laptop. We were the ones who couldn't do some of the steps because they weren't supported in our software. This morning, I was busy buying CS2 and iView Pro for the new laptop. Since I teach at a community college, I was able to take advantage of deep discounts offered to educators for the software and slighter ones for the computer.
I'm going to the four day D-65 Workshop next week where I will be using the new computer and software along with the digital camera. I can't imagine how tired I'll be after that!
iView Media Pro can also be used to track MP3s, movies, documents, tiffs, jpgs and other files as well as DNGs. I'm willing to bet I will find really good ways to use it for my legal files and documents as well as for my photographs. It would be a good way to keep all files related to one client or one case together (although I can also do that in a program I own called TimeMatters which is not quite so robust.)
Later, I'll be off to Fry Electronics looking for this weekend's sales on storage devices.
Wednesday night, Peter did a 4-hour lecture over-view of his system (you can get The DAM Book on Amazon) and Thursday was 8 hours of hands-on work with Adobe Bridge, DNG Converter, a little PhotoShop and LightRoom, and an intense introduction to iView Media Pro 3. The last program is amazingly powerful and I wish I had enough time left in my life to get my 30+ years of images processed and indexed, but the amount of time that it would take to digitize 30 years of film means it simply will not ever happen.
I made the leap to buy an Apple MacBook Pro just before going to the program. I am very glad I did (even though I won't get the new computer until at least tomorrow) because some of programs work better on Mac than on PC. As I looked around the room, I was one of about 5 photographers working on a PC laptop. We were the ones who couldn't do some of the steps because they weren't supported in our software. This morning, I was busy buying CS2 and iView Pro for the new laptop. Since I teach at a community college, I was able to take advantage of deep discounts offered to educators for the software and slighter ones for the computer.
I'm going to the four day D-65 Workshop next week where I will be using the new computer and software along with the digital camera. I can't imagine how tired I'll be after that!
iView Media Pro can also be used to track MP3s, movies, documents, tiffs, jpgs and other files as well as DNGs. I'm willing to bet I will find really good ways to use it for my legal files and documents as well as for my photographs. It would be a good way to keep all files related to one client or one case together (although I can also do that in a program I own called TimeMatters which is not quite so robust.)
Later, I'll be off to Fry Electronics looking for this weekend's sales on storage devices.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
