PBase

On a few occasions I've asked a fellow PBaser if I might copy an image offering compensation. I'm always pleasantly amazed when given permission with just a simple, "sure", or "no problem". Only once was I given an outright refusal, but I was appreciative of at least getting a response. On the few occasions I've been asked, I've also give a simple "feel free for personal use". I'm wondering if any of you have ever been asked for the right to use an image for commercial purposes, or for the right to make additional images, and how you handled that request?

I'm not that good of a photographer, but I have a few photos, mostly birds, that folks may be interested in for one reason or another. I provide any of my images free for personal use, pretty much as they are posted already in a gallery. I occasionally get a request from a Not For Profit organization, e.g zoos, nature publications, etc. and I'll usually provide 1-2 photos processed to their specifications at no cost. I charge a license fee for the requests I get from commercial, for profit organizations. These are few in number, I think I've charged for 5 photos so far this year.

I have been asked many times for such a thing. One was for a local newspaper, another for an childrens rights organisation in Brazil and one for his own master thesis. Some of the got published but for some i have no idea.
I gave them the photos without demanding money or something similar....cause they are my close friends. I just asked them if it would be possible for them just to publish my name beside the photo as a small "thank you"

I have been asked a few times. I am a professional and I generally as for a small fee for the usage of the image. Let's face it, they are getting the use of an image for a pittance and some other photographer is not getting the work. If we give away what we create I do not think we are doing anyone a favor. It's not good for the industry in general and for photographers in particular.

I am one that feels that giving away a photo for any reason is killing our industry and if we still only used film this would not be as bad as it is today. I love digital but it is killing the industry and tons of publications are getting images for free but they have to give the photographer a by line. Has anyone ever purchased or hired a photographer after seeing the name attached to the image???

I'm sorry to be so blunt but please don't give your images away.

Something that I have pondered, and I have been accused of thinking way outside the box on occasion, is that if something is killing the industry, perhaps it is time for the industry to die? Much like scribes, who used to write for people who were illiterate, there are not many left.

Just food for thought.

Brian

I've read some things that certainly softened me on feeling that I had to protect my photos like Ft. Knox.

This article in particular made a compelling argument about damages you can retrieve if someone uses your photo without permission:

http://danheller.blogspot.com/2007/06/making-money-from-your-stolen-images.html

Here's the original article about copyrighting photos I thought was interesting which lead me to the article above:

http://www.statesman.com/life/content/life/stories/other/08/10/0810photos.html

This is a great thread. And maybe some of you can offer some insight and vice versa. I recently had my first professional photo gig for a wakeboarding company near where I live (http://www.othersideboardsports.com) about three weeks ago. I did the job for pennies because a) it was my first 'real' gig and b) its tough to market yourself as a professional photographer with a relatively shallow professional portfolio. In any case, long story short the main agreement in shooting with them was that any submissions to the media would be exclusively credited to my business for obvious advertising reasons. Well, a local paper picked up and ran my photo on the front page. The board sports company did everything I asked and submitted the photo which was already tagged with my business name however the paper ran it a total of five times (two in print, three online) only after cropping the name out of the photo without so much as a byline or acknowlegement. I had the good fortune of talking to a lawyer for advice (free advice from a lawyer is amazing enough) and he confirmed that its clearly a copyright violation and suggested that I write a leter requesting both payment for the full commercial value (which I would assume would be the normal cost of shooting the entire event not just five dollars for one out of hundreds of photos) and a reprint with credit. Anyway, I've written and sent a letter off to the editor of said paper stating ownership of the photo, addressing the copyright violation and requesting compensation and credit for the photo. I guess the reason Im being so long winded in telling this story is to ask if anyone has come across a similar issue. I dont want to be blacklisted from the local news media but I also feel angry about having a picture used against my consent that should otherwise have been a great marketing tool for a new business. Has anyone run across this problem either in a personal or a business sense and if so could you relate your success or lack of in dealing with the copyright violator? Thanks in advance!

K. Brand

PS. Brian (moffetb), I see what you're saying about the death of an industry however, I respectfully disagree. Couldn't that same logic also be applied to the near downfall of the music industry several years ago? With everyone downloading music for free one could have argued that it was the industries time to die. However the artists and judicial system fought back and won. They didn't give up the right to be compensated for their art. They didnt give it away for free. They clung to the idea that their creations are worth something just as I feel a photographers art is worth something. Its tough to compare the business of art with the business of being a scribe. I agree with what skcphotography was trying to express and I think mnoble said it best. "...they are getting the use of an image for a pittance and some other photographer is not getting the work. If we give away what we create I do not think we are doing anyone a favor." Giving away, or allowing people to take our work for free is essentially shooting ourselves in the foot by creating a general feeling of disrespect towards an artists ownership of their product.

On a side note, sorry for being so long winded. I had a lot of 'rant' built up

brandproductions wrote:Couldn't that same logic also be applied to the near downfall of the music industry several years ago? With everyone downloading music for free one could have argued that it was the industries time to die. However the artists and judicial system fought back and won. They didn't give up the right to be compensated for their art. They didnt give it away for free. They clung to the idea that their creations are worth something just as I feel a photographers art is worth something. Its tough to compare the business of art with the business of being a scribe. I agree with what skcphotography was trying to express and I think mnoble said it best. "...they are getting the use of an image for a pittance and some other photographer is not getting the work. If we give away what we create I do not think we are doing anyone a favor." Giving away, or allowing people to take our work for free is essentially shooting ourselves in the foot by creating a general feeling of disrespect towards an artists ownership of their product.

Actually, I was referring more to people wanting to give away their work for free or almost cheap rather than copyright theft. If someone uses your work, you are rightfully entitled to be paid for it. I have always been a strong proponent of that. However, someone earlier complained that there seemed to be no more market for their work because people were flooding the field with much cheaper work. (or actually even free). See the message right before mine from skcphotography. If there is a lack of market for photos because there is a lot of free or really cheap work out there, perhaps it's time for that market to die.

There will always be the outstanding photographers who get top dollar for their work, Frans Lanting, Kennan Ward, just to name two that live in my area (or former area, I moved.) I do not have the talent, skill, or drive to compete against them. However, for most photographers who do birds, nature, or even airshow work, that market is dead because there is too much out there that is a whole lot cheaper, and in my case probably better than what I produce.

In your music example, the proper example would be if there were something out there that allowed anyone to produce music that was comparable to 80 percent of the pop charts. And those people producing that music were willing to give it away for free because they liked having their music on the air. That would cause the market to collapse, and probably die. What you seem to be asking for is a favor of sorts. You don't want people to give away their art so that you can make money off of yours. If an artists work isn't worth the asking price anymore, why should anyone help them out?

Brian

As an aside, I take photos for myself. I don't sell them. If someone were to ask for publishing rights for cheap, it would have to be an organization I really believe in, and I would consider it a tax-deductible donation.