A Funny Thing Happened to two Photos of mine

[newsgrunt]

re:licensing. GET PAID. research intended useage first. If they're smart enough to ask for permission, then they most likely have a budget for this. Do not give photos away. Please

 

[Roger Hicks]

re:licensing. GET PAID. research intended useage first. If they're smart enough to ask for permission, then they most likely have a budget for this. No not give photos away. Please

Oh, I dunno. I did recently, for an academic text on late mediaeval Portugal with a VERY short print run. Well, actually, I swapped it for a copy of the (very expensive) book. As a general rule, though, I'd agree.

Cheers,

R.

 

[dogbunny]

Fair use is VERY narrowly defined in the USA and this is not a case where it applies. It ONLY applies:

1) Where the image is used academically in certain situations (a student can use it in a class project, or a professor can use it in a class presentation but it cannot be published in a textbook).

2) As part of criticism of the work itself. So a newspaper writing about the artist's work can publish a reproduction of it.

That is IT. Nothing else. Just because its non-commercial does NOT, repeat NOT mean you can use it without permission.

Not to be argumentative, but that is not really true. Fair use can apply to:

1) criticism or comment
2) news reporting
3) research and scholarship
4) non-profit educational uses (for example a website that teaches about photography)
5) Parody (you would have to get permission from someone to parody them? Unlikely)

Of course, it's lame that someone would take and use a photo without asking permission or giving credit, and a simple email with a request could have prevented any ill will.

 

[SolaresLarrave]

Sorry, but I think you're wrong in both cases. In the first case you think you're doing the professional community any kind of favor by pestering an unknown non-commercial blogger who would hardly ever be any photographer's client. And then in the second case you go ahead and undermine the market by offering your work for free to clients who would actually pay for it. How does that help anyone? The photography industry is in such a dire state not because people are lifting copyrighted images left and right but because people are voluntarily giving images away for free in exchange for 'exposure'.

You are right, both decisions seem contradictory but the contexts are different. I would have allowed use (and have done so in the past) as long as the photograph is credited to me.

In the second case, before granting permission, I have asked the person who contacted me about the nature of the site. If it's an informational thing, I may grant the use. If it's a sale-oriented site, I'll have to think about it. Also, I may decide NOT to upload photos at all. Gone are the times when I wanted exposure. I take photographs for my own pleasure now.

Again, thanks for your remarks and reactions! And a very merry Christmas to you all! 🙂

 

[SolaresLarrave]

Most respectfully, Roger, do as you please. Laws and rights are not that relative, at least in my view, and my reaction, which would be different if I didn't have many photographer friends, is based precisely in the consequences they would face, not mine.

Sure, there must have been instances like this that I never learned (after all, it must be relatively easy to pinch a photograph from Flickr, for instance). But in this case, I found out and I didn't quite like it.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Most respectfully, Roger, do as you please. Laws and rights are not that relative, at least in my view, and my reaction, which would be different if I didn't have many photographer friends, is based precisely in the consequences they would face, not mine.

Sure, there must have been instances like this that I never learned (after all, it must be relatively easy to pinch a photograph from Flickr, for instance). But in this case, I found out and I didn't quite like it.

No, no, I'm not saying I'm right. If anything, the opposite: just that there are times when I'm too lazy to do the 'right' thing, or judge it inappropriate for some other reason.

Bear in mind that my income, not just that of my friends, does derive from copyrights, and there are times when if there's no loss, I'll write it off to good will or to de minimis. Or indeed to advertising.

Cheers,

R.

 

[SolaresLarrave]

No, no, I'm not saying I'm right. If anything, the opposite: just that there are times when I'm too lazy to do the 'right' thing, or judge it inappropriate for some other reason.

Bear in mind that my income, not just that of my friends, does derive from copyrights, and there are times when if there's no loss, I'll write it off to good will or to de minimis. Or indeed to advertising.

Cheers,

R.

You're right. I misread you. I'll try not to do it again, especially today. Have a very nice day!