| This often controversial policy stems from a number of concerns both
for animals and people.
We will and do share
The copyright does not imply that we don't share materials with other
groups, the media, and individuals. Rather the copyright allows us to
control the manner in which the materials are used and represented to
the public. Materials are shared on a case-by-case basis and becomes more liberal as a good two-way relationship is developed. We
encourage joint-ventures where we can work together in gathering
compelling evidence.
Questionable fund raising tactics
We don't want to see the animals who suffered in our pictures used as
a mechanism for fundraising when the funds being solicited have nothing
to do with the diligent evidence gathering that took place. It is also
very disturbing to have some groups raise money using other peoples work
merely to pay themselves a salary to avoid working themselves. This is
further exacerbated by the fact that all DFA investigators maintain
full-time jobs and pay their own expenses.
Credit where credit is due
It has always been a strong ethic in journalism to give credit where
credit is due. Each group needs to stand on their own merits and
strengths when making representations to the public. If material from
another group strengthens a campaign then the material should be
shared...but only if due credit is given and it is made clear that it is
not their own work. We are taking a strong stand with our copyright that
only ethical behavior from the non-profit sector will be tolerated. Some investigations
take many months and hundreds of hours of grueling, thankless, dirty,
and sometimes dangerous work. It is not too much to ask that proper
credit be clearly given to the investigator.
Context, facts, and embellishment
A video clip or a few pictures can tell many different stories
depending on the storyteller. DFA strongly believes that animal abuse is
horrific enough on its own merit without embellishing, exaggerating, or
omitting circumstantial facts. We see far too often, either
directly or implied, that a specific example or horrific abuse is
typical of an industry. This greatly undermines credibility with further
investigations. We documented the abuse so we think we have the
obligation to the abused animal to ensure the facts are portrayed
accurately and completely. Again, our copyright allows us to insist that
groups who wish to use our materials are not misrepresenting what actually
took place.
Final thought...
Lastly we want to encourage all groups to take the steps of
getting out in the field, getting dirty, and uncovering local and timely
examples of animal abuse. The public is riveted by examples in their own
community of these animal atrocities ... more so than "stock footage"
from "somewhere else." And, your group will have the distinct added
benefit of knowing all the facts of the abuse first hand. |
