If a online magazine wants to publish my photo, should I just say yes?

[fitshaced]

You implied that amateurs are stealing revenues from pros. I argue it's about the photos: if the photo is great, it does not matter whether the photographer took the picture for his/her own pleasure or to make money. The OP has taken a picture and a magazine is asking him whether they can use it. I don't see how this is different from non-professionals who take pictures for the sheer pleasure of it and who exhibit their work in art galleries and such.

I absolutely did not say that. Anyone can sell their pictures and they're free to sell them for whatever they want. I said (and this is getting boring now) they should consider the knock on affect the price they set has on the going rate of pictures for everyone.

Try not to misquote people, its not clever.

 

[fitshaced]

If you can sell milk of the same quality to the supermarkets at a lower price than your competitors, and still make a profit, is that not an example of good business? What if a new breed of cow or new type of feed was developed that could produce 10 times as much milk as before for the same cost? Should you still charge the same rate? If I sell my car, am I obligated to raise my selling price to match that of the used car dealer, in order to make sure that his offerings remain competitive in the marketplace? Should Ford start raising the prices of their cars, in order to make sure that Rolls Royce's offerings don't seem overpriced?

The fact of the matter is, progressing technology has made it such that the barrier to entry for creating photography is lower than ever, with high quality cameras available at very reasonable prices, and an incredible wealth of freely available knowledge out there for those who are willing to learn. This, however, does not mean that anyone who buys "professional" (or any) gear should start charging professional prices. The value of photography should come from the skill required to produce it, and if a pro is comeptent at his craft, he should posess considerable skill and be easily able to sell his work at a fair rate, regardless of what (or at what rates) others are selling.

I want to clarify the point I'm trying to make. I agree the OP should charge, and should charge a good amount. Probably more than he initially thought. But like OreoCookie says, the value of the photograph should come from the photograph itself, and the skill of the photographer who took it, not whether or not it came from a "pro" or an "amateur". The OP has no responsibility to subsidize the incomes of working pros, nor does he have a responsibility to maintain the industry in its current state. This is the job of professional photographers, who must sell the value of themselves and their work.

If you enter the professional photography business expecting to be deserved a certain rate or value for your work because you're a "pro" and "you make your living at it", you are destined to fail. Further, you are being more disrespectful of your fellow professional photographers who spent many years of hard work honing their craft to justify the prices they charge by implying that anyone who sells photographs should automatically deserve those high rates. Similarly, charging substantially less than your product or service is worth is not inherently damaging to the photography industry in particular, it's just poor business practice in general.

And again, I'm being misquoted. A pro is someone who makes money from their work. I never said they were entitled to more money because they are pros. Please see my post above.

Your example of selling your car at the same price as a used car dealer is really silly. A used car dealer will give a warranty and probably have it serviced before he sells it. Therefore, he's entitled to more money for it.

In a free for all world, I dont expect people to consider the income of random others that they never met. But, they should consider their own income and potential income should they choose to go down the road of selling their work. That way, everyone wins.

 

[Kebabselector]

Tell them to sod off, no fee - no use.

 

[snberk103]

If they have no money, and they are a non-profit, and if you support the cause.... then license them the image for a photo credit, and then figure out how you want to do online sales. You may find that their readers have money and want the image enough to purchase it. Make sure you tell the purchasers that they only have the right to use the image for personal use.... though that doesn't really mean anything anymore.

 

[Macky-Mac]

......fwiw this is a hobby for me, not like some of you talented people.
I have no website, I'm not sure at all....

you're a hobbyist having fun; do you want your photo on an online magazine?

sure you do!

go for it. just say yes and then have the pleasure of pointing your friends to their site.

 

[mtbdudex]

you're a hobbyist having fun; do you want your photo on an online magazine?

sure you do!

go for it. just say yes and then have the pleasure of pointing your friends to their site.

In the end, your statement rings true to my heart.....I am a hobbyist having fun, so having this there will be "cool".
Honestly, if I had set-up the shot with intent of getting $$'s then I would have approached my online pict posting with different manner also.

Thx people for your bandwidth, I had more emails with Jean-Luc this morning, asked 5 q's, see his response below.

My next one to him will be "green light", just give credit to me for the image.
If they do decide to publish it, then some $$ would come my way.

> 1) If I grant you "ok" to publish my image on just your website, then others can download that image and even print it for personal use but not commercial use?
> 2) Are images on your site locked in some html code so downloading is not possible?

Dowloading is possible, as the version you have put on APOD website. But
for this reason we don't put a hight definition picture on the web site.
And if you want we can put a tag in the botom corner of the picture.
That is what we do most of the tiem let see an exemple :
http://www.cieletespace.fr/node/7605
And if someone steal the image in france even for a web site, our photo
editor his here to ask him some rights for you or sue them. In an
foreing country he can try but it's of course more difficult.

> 3) How long do people typically grant Ciel et Espace rights to publish their image? 1 year? 6 months?

We never deal this kind of things. But it is just negociated for one
use, here on the website for on picture of the day. If for exemple we
need it to print in the magazine we ask to the athor, and we pay for it
if the author want a fee.

> 4) Is there some std license for me to review& agree upon to proceed?

Yes the french right. In the french right that is 100% favorable to the
author, whatever you do or negociate, the athor is owner of his picture
for all his life. So we don't especialy negociate for a kind licence,
the french right is enought. Here it's very different thant in the US
for exemple. You don't give us the picture, this notion doesn't exist
here. You just allow us to show it on our website with the conditions
that you decide.

> 5) If either party decides to terminate the agreement early prior to agreed timeframe, then the image is pulled from data storage and deleted?

For the same reason than the previous point, It's obvious that if at any
moment you whant the picture to be put of the website their is no problem.

>
> I've not made my own website, but have thought about it.
> Over 2 years of photography I probably have 30+ images that I feel people would consider to purchase.

If you have a lot of pictures like this one may be you should sibmite
them to my colleague Franck xxxxxx(name changed), because we have a photo agency.

> This conversation we are having may be the tipping point where I make a website for that purpose,

Of course you should

regards
Jean-Luc .

>
> regards,
> Mike R
>
>
> below is copy/paste from your website:
> Legal
> Sky& Space magazine published by the French Association for Astronomy

 

[compuwar]

You come off as far less professional than you think when you do that.

Unless he's a cat, in which case it'd come off as purr se!

Paul

 

[mtbdudex]

I'm kinda over my head with this...
If I made some beginner mistakes, so be it I can learn from that quickly.

I have taken many-many star trail shots before this, and that took lots of time to learn/perfect the techniques.

I've only authorized the APOD posting and the web version of the french magazine (if they want print version then lic fees).

I've no idea how to market or make some $ from this image....and now have 8-10 emails from "major" people asking for it.....but nobody want to offer any $.
Some stock photo agency is best route?
so far here is the only one "offering" some %

Hi Mike,

I'm a journalist at Solent News Agency, in England, and have just seen your fantastic summer night's dream photograph here: http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap110805.html

I'd really like to write about it and wondered if they had been published in any national newspapers before?
If not, we can talk about getting the photographs in newspapers around the world. As the photographer you would receive 50 per cent of all profits.
Please drop me a line if you are interested. In order to put something together we would need a high resolution version of the photo and also a few questions answered via email.
Here are two examples of our work:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...p-Eurasia-North-American-tectonic-plates.html
and
www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/article-...bioluminescence-makes-swimmers-glow-dark.html

Please let me know if you have any questions.
Many thanks and kind regards,
--
Reporter
Solent News and Photo Agency

Southampton, UK

Here is my response back to him:

I am intrested.
Where I live, Hartland MI, the local webmagazine Hartland Patch may re-post the APOD image there.

I'm open for Solent News Agency using this image provided I am compensated via a fair market licensing fee with agreed terms.
As you have done this before, please propose your fair market licensing fee with agreed terms.
We can take this conversation quickly into more depth.

I appreciate the bandwidth helping me, sincerly.

 

[acearchie]

I'm kinda over my head with this...
If I made some beginner mistakes, so be it I can learn from that quickly.

I have taken many-many star trail shots before this, and that took lots of time to learn/perfect the techniques.

I've only authorized the APOD posting and the web version of the french magazine (if they want print version then lic fees).

I've no idea how to market or make some $ from this image....and now have 8-10 emails from "major" people asking for it.....but nobody want to offer any $.
Some stock photo agency is best route?
so far here is the only one "offering" some %



Here is my response back to him:


I appreciate the bandwidth helping me, sincerly.

Just wanted to chime in that it's an interesting read for a thread and well done on getting some decent exposure.

Just to add that the Daily Mail is really big here in the UK and you would definitely get some serious boasting points off having a photo on their site or in their paper if not a few calls about whether you have any other photos!

 

[emorydunn]

Looks like you're making it across the web. You just showed up on Gizmodo. Hopefully this will have magazines (online and not) trying to publish your photos.

http://gizmodo.com/5828280/how-to-take-a-gorgeous-photo-like-this-on-a-perfect-summer-night

 

[mtbdudex]

Looks like you're making it across the web. You just showed up on Gizmodo. Hopefully this will have magazines (online and not) trying to publish your photos.

http://gizmodo.com/5828280/how-to-take-a-gorgeous-photo-like-this-on-a-perfect-summer-night

Thx for posting that.
Only 2 online places have I authorized to use my photo, Jean-Luc Dauvergne, the "sky & space" described already here, a non-profit site.
english translated version:
http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&sl=fr&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cieletespace.fr%2Fnode%2F7614.
original french version: http://www.cieletespace.fr/node/7614

and the local web magazine "Hartland Patch", I know the editor from other endeavors.
http://hartland.patch.com/articles/nasa-picks-hartland-man-nighttime-shot-for-its-astronomy-picture-of-the-day#photo-7274441

In NASA they clearly give me copyright and their webpage states:
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/lib/about_apod.html#srapply

About image permissions:

All the images on the APOD page are credited to the owner or institution where they originated. Some of the images are copyrighted and to use these pictures publicly or commercially one must write to the owners for permission. For the copyrighted images, the copyright owner is identified in the APOD credit line (please see the caption under the image), along with a hyperlink to the owner's location. NASA images are in the public domain, official guidelines for their use can be found here. For images credited to other owners/institutions, please contact them directly for copyright and permissions questions.

Neither NASA nor APOD can grant permission to use copyrighted images. For use of these images, please write to the copyright owners.

so, for other sites using the image w/o permission, what is best thing to do?
Simply, if they benefit $ wise I'd like a % of that.
My email is semi-flooded, WSJ and others have emailed/asked, so far I've been too busy yesterday to answer.

I've been reading the US Govt copyright website, http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/ ,but there is a lotta stuff there.

 

[gnd]

Only 2 online places have I authorized to use my photo ...

Make that 3 places, you authorized NASA when you submitted it to them ...

BTW, Alamy, one of the biggest stock photo agencies, is also offering their images for low resolution web use.

 

[Phrasikleia]

And did you authorize these additional uses?

http://tinyurl.com/yjhzkr2

http://naturalismus.soup.io/

http://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showthread.php?p=5692861

http://anothersideofchris.tumblr.com/


This is the problem with letting the cat out of the bag for free like that. Tough to get it back in. I think it's best not to start out by giving away your photos. Just join up with a stock agency/library (not hard to do, by the way) and let them license out your images. Yes, these people are making money off of you. Bloggers are mostly looking for traffic to their sites, usually because they're signed up to make money as an "ad farm" through outlets like AdSense. The more traffic they bring to their sites, the more money they make. Some are just looking for ways to promote themselves and profit indirectly, but either way, they're taking advantage of you.

 

[mtbdudex]

Examples of some emails:

Rebecca;
As a hobbyist I'd love to say yes, are you willing to help me - a fellow photog - offset some of my photo gear by paying me a small nominal fee of $75?
There was my time involved in taking the shot, set-up, processing 370+ images, etc.

I'd answer Q's in a email interview.

That would allow you to post it on your website for viewing/comments, which has ad revenue and sponsors.
(I retain all copyright privileges - and mentioned, no download ability/etc)

I'm asking the same of others who have emailed me.
I don't have a blog/other webpage.
Mike Rosinski

On Aug 5, 2011, at 11:51 AM, , Rebecca wrote:

Hello Mike,
I came across your stunning image today on APOD. Congrats!
I'd like to get permission from you and a short quote from you about making the photo, and how you did it, to post on the XXX Photo Journal blog. Here is an example of one of my recent posts there: http://xxxxxxxxxx/

I can't pay for images we use online, but I can link to your website if you like.
Please advise.
Cheers,

Rebecca

Photo Editor

Sherry;

As a hobbyist I'd love to say yes, are you willing to help me - a fellow photog - offset some of my photo gear by paying me a small nominal fee of $75?

That would allow you to print it - but NOT share it.
(I retain all copyright privileges - and mentioned, no download ability/etc)

I'm asking the same of others who have emailed me.
I don't have a blog/other webpage.

Mike Rosinski

On Aug 5, 2011, at 1:31 PM, Sherry (Finance) wrote:

Mike,

I get the Astronomy Pic of the Day and your time exposure of the meteor shower cum fireflies is amazing!

Is there any way I can save a copy of your picture so I can print & keep a hard copy?

Sherry
Dept of Finance, Div of Accounting
xxx bank - Training

Michael;

As a hobbyist I'd love to say yes, are you willing to help me - a fellow photog - offset some of my photo gear by paying me a small nominal fee of $75?

That would allow you to post it on your website for viewing/comments, which has ad revenue and sponsors.
(I retain all copyright privileges - and mentioned, no download ability/etc)

I'm asking the same of others who have emailed me.
I don't have a blog/other webpage.

Mike Rosinski

On Aug 5, 2011, at 3:22 PM, Michael Z wrote:

Hey Mike,

Can we have permission to share your star trails photo with our readers on Petaxxxxx.com?

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap110805.html

Sincerely,

Michael z
Editor, Petaxxxxxx

Now this person just wants for free the "hi-resolution"...

D Miranda;

As a hobbyist I'd love to say yes, are you willing to help me - a fellow photog - offset some of my photo gear by paying me a small nominal fee of $75?

That would allow you to print it - but NOT share it.
(I retain all copyright privileges - and mentioned, no download ability/etc)

I'm asking the same of others who have emailed me.
I don't have a blog/other webpage.

Mike Rosinski


On Aug 5, 2011, at 5:48 PM, D Miranda wrote:

Hi,

I just saw your picture that you had taken "A summer nights' dream",
and i must say its very impressive. Actually, that's probably an
understatement.

In any case, i'm a self thought photographer just getting into the
whole D-SLR scene and i was wondering if you would share this image
(in high resolution either JPEG/PNG or RAW) so i can print it out on a
canvas for my small living room. Credit will certainly be given to you
and its for my personal use in my single story house.

Would you be willing to send me the image?


Please let me know when you have a chance,

Thanks,

 

[mtbdudex]

And did you authorize these additional uses?

http://tinyurl.com/yjhzkr2

http://naturalismus.soup.io/

http://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showthread.php?p=5692861

http://anothersideofchris.tumblr.com/


This is the problem with letting the cat out of the bag for free like that. Tough to get it back in. I think it's best not to start out by giving away your photos. Just join up with a stock agency/library (not hard to do, by the way) and let them license out your images. Yes, these people are making money off of you. Bloggers are mostly looking for traffic to their sites, usually because they're signed up to make money as an "ad farm" through outlets like AdSense. The more traffic they bring to their sites, the more money they make. Some are just looking for ways to promote themselves and profit indirectly, but either way, they're taking advantage of you.

I must appear so gullible to savvy people.....but now that I've said that what to do from here??

 

[mtbdudex]

Make that 3 places, you authorized NASA when you submitted it to them ...

BTW, Alamy, one of the biggest stock photo agencies, is also offering their images for low resolution web use.

My mistake when sending NASA my pict was I thought they got a "low res" 800 pix or 1024 pix, I sent them a 2048 pix in the email (the default size, which I usually re-size down), which they linked into their pict database.

 

[snberk103]

At this point, as others have said, the digital version is now out of the bag. I'm thinking that at this point your best bet for getting paid is print up some large copies (11x14 or bigger) and sell them at local framing shops and coffee-shops. You can add "As seen on TV" or "As seen on the Internetz".... but locally you probably have enough fame you could sell a few.

The other way to get paid to do some talks, and to do TV talk shows. Online sites may not have any money - but I think TV shows still do. You could combine both the "how to" aspect with the "how everybody wants it, but nobody wants to pay for it"....

Good Luck...

Update I should add that is partly tongue in cheek.... and a sad observation that a talented and dedicated photographer might only get paid to talk about the photo, instead of the actual photo itself.

 

[mackmgg]

At this point, as others have said, the digital version is now out of the bag. I'm thinking that at this point your best bet for getting paid is print up some large copies (11x14 or bigger) and sell them at local framing shops and coffee-shops. You can add "As seen on TV" or "As seen on the Internetz".... but locally you probably have enough fame you could sell a few.

The other way to get paid to do some talks, and to do TV talk shows. Online sites may not have any money - but I think TV shows still do. You could combine both the "how to" aspect with the "how everybody wants it, but nobody wants to pay for it"....

Good Luck...

Just because they have the file doesn't mean they can use it though. Any company big enough to pay for photos would never publish something they don't have the copyright to. They would always contact the owner prior to publishing the photo. They generally don't like to get mixed up in a copyright infringement suit

 

[snberk103]

Just because they have the file doesn't mean they can use it though. Any company big enough to pay for photos would never publish something they don't have the copyright to. They would always contact the owner prior to publishing the photo. They generally don't like to get mixed up in a copyright infringement suit

I know that the image is not legally usable, and that any reputable company shouldn't touch it without paying.... but at some point the image gets so widely distributed (wrongfully distributed) that 90% of the individuals who want it will have "found" it already. And once it's that's widely distributed it's not longer "fresh" and the companies that would have paid for it will probably have moved on to newer images.

Not saying it's right ... and I suppose that I should add that my post was partly tongue in cheek as well.

 

[Phrasikleia]

I must appear so gullible to savvy people.....but now that I've said that what to do from here??

You could do something like this:

SAMPLE DMCA TAKE DOWN NOTICE

VIA Email at ISPHosting[at]isp.com

Re: Copyright Claim

To the ISP Hosting Company:

I am the copyright owner of the photographs being infringed at:

PROVIDE WEBSITE URL

Copies of the photographs being infringed are included to assist with their removal from the infringing Web sites.

This letter is official notification under the provisions of Section 512(c) of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”) to effect removal of the above-reported infringements. I request that you immediately issue a cancellation message as specified in RFC 1036 for the specified postings and prevent the infringer, who is identified by its Web address, from posting the infringing photographs to your servers in the future. Please be advised that law requires you, as a service provider, to “expeditiously remove or disable access to” the infringing photographs upon receiving this notice. Noncompliance may result in a loss of immunity for liability under the DMCA.

I have a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of here is not authorized by me, the copyright holder, or the law. The information provided here is accurate to the best of my knowledge. I swear under penalty of perjury that I am the copyright holder.

Should you wish to discuss this with me please contact me directly.

Sincerely,
/s/YOUR NAME
Address
City, State Zip
Phone
E-mail

You would obviously send this letter to the ISP. You might try emailing each blogger/site first, stating a licensing fee that they now owe you. Some googling ought to turn up plenty of sample letters for going that route. Good luck.

 

[arogge]

Don't be cheap

I once rejected a similar demand, although unintentionally, when a textbook publisher wanted to suck up one of my photos for free. I asked something like $100, which I thought was really cheap, and I never heard back from them.

You should get into the habit of charging a flat rate for your work. Unless you're getting something in return, never agree to give away your work for free. Others will see this and take advantage of it until you have no money left.

 

[Phrasikleia]

If you do a google image search on the fireflies photo, you'll find even more sites that have pinched the image now. Some are displaying the image without actually hosting it, which is still an infringement of your copyright, of course.

Then there is this one rather quaint homage to it:

I'd say that one is fair use as a "transformative" version.

 

[mtbdudex]

Phrasikleia and others - thx for your support....
(I like the image above actually...)
As you go thru life things happen, you react.

It will be interesting in 3-4 weeks where this little thing will be...
Something I'm keeping in mind.

Just FYI.
I just asked NASA (Aug 7, 10:40pm) to re-size the image on their servers to 1024 pix.
Once they do this it will be "proof" other's copied that onto their own server when their version(s) don't re-size...

 

[mtbdudex]

This is a good read:
http://www.longislandlawyerblog.com/two-simple-steps-to-protect-your-photos-from-being-stolen-on-the-internet

1. REGISTER your photos!

Register your photos with the United States Copyright Office every three months. It only costs $35 per collection to register, and you can upload your photos and finish your application within 10 minutes on line.

“But I thought my copyright exists in my photos as soon as I click the shutter. Why should I also pay to register my photos?”


Yes, you still hold the copyright to your image even if you don’t register (meaning, you still hold basic rights such as the right to reproduce your photo, prepare derivative works, distribute copies, transfer your copyright, etc.). However, registration ensures that you will be eligible to recover statutory damages and attorney’s fees against the person or company who misappropriated your photo. Meaning, you can go after them for big money.​

2. Watermark your Photos

Most photographers hate adding a watermark to their photos, as they feel it distracts from the artistic integrity of the image. However, there are several benefits to adding a subtle watermark. The obvious one being theft protection. It’s like lojack for your photos. Someone is less likely to steal your photo if they have to clone out a watermark, and hence, you’re less likely to become a victim of copyright infringement.

But another reason for adding copyright information or a watermark is to prove purposeful misappropriation when someone steals your photo and clones your watermark out. This type of purposeful misappropriation entitles you to financial recovery, even if your photos aren’t properly registered.

Under the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (“DMCA”), you are entitled to damages when someone misappropriates your photo on the internet and removes your watermark or copyright notice to hide the infringement.
- You do not have to register your photos with the U.S. Copyright Office to take advantage of the protections that the DMCA offers.

- If the infringer removes your copyright notice, watermark, or other “copyright management information” from your photo, you may be entitled to an award ranging from $2,500 to $25,000 for each violation. This is in addition to the statutory damages (up to $150,000) available to you if you properly registered your photo.
​

So the bottom line is this: If you take two important steps to protect your photos, you can recover up to $175,000 plus attorney’s fees every time you are a victim of copyright infringement. If you fail to take these steps, you can recover a couple of hundred dollars at best (and you will have to pay a lawyer several thousand dollars to even get that far).

Interesting, I know here we've discussed how "gaudy" watermark's can look, yet they instantly offer a layer of protection....

I'll always have watermarks on all my images in the future.

 

[mtbdudex]

Side bar - I took and posted this image of my dog Jedi online quite a while ago, actually Apr 5, 2010, 05:47 AM right here in our photography group "Fortnightly Challenge -- April 2 thru April 15 -- Topic: Eyes/Height ":
https://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=9575788#post9575788
My "bad" at uploading 1600pix wide image, even though just posted 800pix wide.
Image original date was Nov 28, 2009.

and using Google image search it's on a downloadable wallpaper site...
(yea, no watermark or copyright, I've since learned)

From the cool wallpapers info in the link below:
Submitted:2011-05-26 20:00:01; 64 downloads....and they unscaled it to 2560x1920
http://www.coolwallpapers.org/desktop/39695/dog-happy-wallpaper-1-wallpaper
Thumbnail Image off their server,

Should I:

1. send them a cease email?
2. try and get a few $ from the 64 un-authorized downloads? ($0.50/each, $32 total??)
3. Not worth time pursuing?

It's always has been and always will be about the almighty dollar.
In today's digital world that implies PROTECT your Intellectual property.

IMO, as a leading photography site, MacRumors should have a sticky:

"Why you need to watermark and copyright your photos before posting them online"

And, that mindset should spread to as many photography site's that will carry it.
The "free until caught" mindset has gotta change..

Note:
Quite a few of my images posted here and @ Canon POTN seem to be floating around the net, so I strongly urge everyone here:

watermark and copyright your photos before posting them online!!

I've seen some fantastic shots here from so many people, and can imagine they are getting passed around w/o the owners knowing/etc.

I challenge people who have posted their shots, that are a few months or even years posted, to use Google image search...you just might be shocked....

I should start a thread titled "look where I found my image on".....it will open your eyes.