PKR
Veteran
An excellent assessment of, the public's attitude regarding most anything found on the web.
davidnewtonguitars
Family Snaps
Use the "Free App with Ads" model. I don't know how to do this, but wouldn't it be great to imbed advertising (that you sold) in the images that you put on the web, and if someone downloaded them to use, the advertising is activated.
benlees
Well-known
Volunteers do tremendous work for free. Is that work without value? Some people like to share. Does that mean their work has no value? No one ever said life was without risk or there aren't people that cheat or steal out there. The internet didn't create that, did it? Why would that stop you from doing something you wanted to do?
Huss
Veteran
I agree with the statement about doing work for free. It's the scam content users use "can't pay you now but will on the next job" which never shows up because they use the same line on the next sucker.
But I disagree with the statement about placing your work on the internet would make a judge assume you are giving it away. There are lots and lots of pros out there who have sites.:
http://stevemccurry.com/fine-art-prints
You think a judge will say Steve Mccurry has valued his work at $0? No.
Just because we have bad actors here we should call them on it, not enable it with explanations.
FujiLove
Well-known
Why not post small images online instead of nothing at all? Or post thumbnails and link to slightly bigger watermarked images, just like almost every stock library out there? No person or company of any worth (i.e. one who would actually pay you for photography) is going to use a 400 pixel wide image to advertise their product.
One of the most ridiculous things about 'image theft' is the way people argue they have 'lost' a thousand sales because their image was used elsewhere a thousand times. The fact is, most of the time they will have lost absolutely nothing, as they wouldn't have made a single sale from any of the people who have used their image. Does that mean it's okay to just take someone's work and claim it as your own? No. Does it make it okay to use any image for any purpose you fancy? No. But it's also not okay to sue someone for thousands of pounds in damages just because they used one image inappropriately and removed it straight away when it was pointed out it was copyrighted work. Why not simply notify them and offer them a sensible price to use the image? Or if it's a site with a lot of traffic, offer it for free with a photo credit and link back to your own web site? Why is the first response always the take down notice, lawyer and p*ssed off attitude? How about being flattered that your image was chosen from the billions available? How about seeing it as a great opportunity to work with that company and source more images for them?
In my opinion, many 'artists' (not all by any means) are shooting themselves in the foot by desperately trying to stop their images being disseminated online, when, if they put a little bit more thought and work into it, they could benefit enormously from what they currently consider to be 'theft'.
Look at someone like Johnny Patience (http://www.johnnypatience.com). He posts hundreds of his photos online in low to medium quality. He seems to be getting plenty of work and I've never heard him stressing and moaning about image theft.
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
Because there is no benefit to working with someone who stole your work to begin with. They'll gladly source more images from you, for free. By letting them get away with the initial theft, you've shown them you're too stupid to charge for your work. I've been doing this for 20 years, including time as a photographer for two local magazines. The editors at these publications had ZERO respect for people who let them use work for 'exposure.' None, Zero. They openly mocked them as fools and chumps.
FujiLove
Well-known
But I didn't say give them the work for free. I said you should ask them for a sensible fee for the image. This would show you are a reasonable, 'can do' sort of person, who in my experience are exactly who most businesses want to work with. You would then have a great opportunity to show the company your portfolio and discuss their media requirements. Basically, you have a great 'in' to work with the company.
It boils down to choosing who you want to be:
Photographer A: keeps tight control of their work, doesn't share any images online for fear they may be stolen, enforces copyright at every opportunity and sues every business and individual that steals their work. They have almost no images stolen, but few people see their work. They sell one licence per week and spend a significant amount of time and money on chasing 'image thefts' and paying lawyers.
Photographer B: shares all their work online and doesn't spend any time worrying about image theft. They're happy for anyone to use the images they post online for whatever they like. They have thousands of images 'stolen', and millions of people see their work. They sell ten licences per week and spend a significant amount of time and money on exotic holidays, nice cars and the latest camera gear.
As far as I can tell, most people on this forum think it's a good idea to be Photographer A.
FujiLove
Well-known
When I first started out in web development over twenty years ago, I did LOADS of work for free or almost free. I did tons of small jobs and favours for tons of local businesses, and a significant amount of work for non-profits and a local hospice. The experience honed my skills and built my portfolio. One of the jobs lead to a local company getting in touch and my first big freelance e-commerce project. That lead to a full time job with the same company. That small job in a small, crappy northern town lead to being head-hunted by a big dot com, a move to London, working with teams of fantastic programmers in Silicon Valley on projects that I could only have previously dreamed about, and my career moving into high gear.
Without slogging my way through the free jobs, I wouldn't have had any experience or a portfolio, and nobody would have hired me without them. I certainly wouldn't have expected them to.
So I may be a sucker who has been scammed, but you know what? It feels really good
css9450
Veteran
Not everyone cares if people see their work.
Dogman
Veteran
benlees---this is outside the context of my original remark that was describing the attitude of others about images on the internet.
leicapixie
Well-known
A really sad reflection of 'rights".
WE want to believe in justice and decent behavior.
Sadly justice is about "laws" not correctness.
Using othe folks images as one's own is theft.
WE want to believe in justice and decent behavior.
Sadly justice is about "laws" not correctness.
Using othe folks images as one's own is theft.
FujiLove
Well-known
That misses the point, which is the more exposure a photographer has, the more work they are likely to sell.
Of course, if you don't mind making any money, then you don't need to worry about exposure.
css9450
Veteran
How much "exposure" does one get when one's photos appear uncredited on some company's website?
FujiLove
Well-known
Infinitely more than when they're not on any websites.
Also, see my earlier posts regarding how 'ownership etiquette' could be managed with a little more effort, and being open-minded to different ideas.
Huss
Veteran
You really think things are the same now as 20 years ago?
You do know you a portfolio built on paid work is waaaaay more impressive than unpaid? Because it shows your work was valued by someone so much so that they paid you.
"I love your photos! They are so good I will give you nothing for them."
"Wow, thanks! I'll put that in my portfolio that I got zero for this work".
"Think about all the experience you got!"
"Yes, it is great that I experienced getting paid nothing!"
FujiLove
Well-known
Nonsense. Do you not value the Mona Lisa because it probably wasn't commissioned?
Why should I care what someone was paid for a piece of work? If someone can show they interpret briefs with creativity, flair, originality, passion, and deliver fantastic pieces of work, I couldn't give the tiniest sh*t whether they were paid a million bags of gold or absolutely nothing for them. It's completely irrelevant to me if I'm hiring a creative or buying their work. It's as irrelevant as the colour of their skin, their accent or height. I'm interested in the work they produce, full stop. If fact, if I found out they weren't paid for them and had instead been slogging their guts out for months on the breadline to put a portfolio together, I'd be even more likely to hire them. I'd see that as someone who was dedicated to their craft and determined to succeed. Someone who would perhaps put their heart into my project and not just see it as 'this months rent'.
If your hypothesis was true, there would be no need to review a photographer's portfolio...only their pay cheques.
css9450
Veteran
Volunteering and doing small jobs and favors for free isn't exactly the same thing as having your work pirated without your knowledge or permission, now is it? Actually, its the polar opposite.
Especially if you aren't even aware its happening until many months later.
NY_Dan
Well-known
Here's a good way to look at the issue. Actors get residuals each time their performances are aired. So to should photographers receive compensation each time their photos are reproduced - unless there is a negotiated agreement to the contrary - such as a buyout, or licensing fee for specified usage.
It's sad that there's so much in-fighting among photographers.
If a photographer chooses to work on spec or pro-bono - well than that is a negotiation between the photographer and the photo user. In such cases the photographer agree to this arrangement in the belief that some benefit will accrue to them. Whether it be the potential of a new revenue stream, exposure, or access to portfolio-worthy photo opps - whatever it is - the photographer is being compensated - and most importantly they are not being dictated to.
It's sad that there's so much in-fighting among photographers.
If a photographer chooses to work on spec or pro-bono - well than that is a negotiation between the photographer and the photo user. In such cases the photographer agree to this arrangement in the belief that some benefit will accrue to them. Whether it be the potential of a new revenue stream, exposure, or access to portfolio-worthy photo opps - whatever it is - the photographer is being compensated - and most importantly they are not being dictated to.
FujiLove
Well-known
I assume you only class people as 'bad actors' when they are using 'stolen' copyrighted images for commercial purposes and making money from the use of those images? Or do you object to all copyrighted material being shared on the web, whatever the reason?
I'm asking because you've shared a still from the movie Kong Skull Island on your Flickr stream. You haven't transformed it, or commented about the movie on that Flickr page, so a judge may well find you in breach of copyright unless you've received written permission from Warner Brothers to share it on Flickr.
Seems ridiculous, I know. But hey, not my rules!
Brie Larson by desmolicious, on Flickr
FujiLove
Well-known
If you read the thread, you'll see my comment was in response to Huss's comment where he said, "I agree with the statement about doing work for free. It's the scam content users use "can't pay you now but will on the next job" which never shows up because they use the same line on the next sucker."
I was pointing out that doing free work is sometimes a necessary evil, particularly for people starting out who have little experience or portfolio.