[STOCKPHOTO] Promoting stock via Creative Commons?
roycebair
images (any creative works), but can it be use to promote your
stock photography as well? Read on....
(I'm not sure if this has been discussed before on the group, but
here goes....)
This organization....
http://creativecommons.org/
....allows your Web site to become part of their database of
artists that offer "Some Rights Reserved" (rather than "All Rights
Reserved") to their images, designes, and etc.
Here's a slide show that explains what they do:
http://creativecommons.org/about/licenses/comics1
Creative Commons allows you to offer a "Spectrum of Rights"
(up to 11 different license combinations) to your creative work(s).
You may ask, why would any professional stock photographer, in
their right mind, ever want to offer free use of their images?!
There are usually two reasons: 1) To give back to society and 2)
for self-promotion. The Creative Commons system requires
users to give you credit (although I don't think that's enough --
I'd require the users to also give you a Web link and the image
file number, so others who have a commercial need can more
easily find the image).
Anyway, if you're interested, this is where you choose your
license and become part of their database:
http://creativecommons.org/license/
However, you might first search their Google-enabled search
engine and see how others are using this (many are using their
blog site and most are not professional photographers):
http://creativecommons.org/find/
Suggestion: Search on "sports stock photos"
Although the "Sponsored" links are the same as a normal
Google search, the true, non-paid links are not your normal
commercial Web sites like Corbis, iStockphoto, GettyImage, etc.
Instead, you'll see site like....
Free Stock Photos | Darren Barefoot
http://www.darrenbarefoot.com/archives/2004/11/free-stock-phot
os.html
Scoll to the bottom of this page and you'll see the Creative
Commons logo (click on it and you'll see the license notice).
Darren Barefoot is a writer and graphic designer, but his
photography is marginal (in my opinion), and I never saw any
"sports" related photos (but because the word "sports" was in
the "Categories" list on the left side, and because he did a blog
about "stock photos", Google and Creative Commons listed his
site in their search results)! Here is his photography portfolio:
http://www.darrenbarefoot.com/images/albums/
All in all, Creative Commons has a nice idea, but do you think it
is really useful for the professional stock photographer who
wants to promote his/her images, and give something back to
the community, or is it just a waste of time, and it's licenses too
broad so as to lose control of one's images?
Royce Bair
The Stock Solution
http://www.tssphoto.com/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Courtesy of The STOCKPHOTO Network - http://www.stockphoto.net/
Posting Rules - http://www.stockphoto.net/Subscriptions.php#rules
STOCKPHOTO Archives - http://www.stockphoto.net/Archives.php
STOCKPHOTO Bookstore - http://www.stockphoto.net/bookstore/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/STOCKPHOTO/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
STOCKPHOTO-...@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Bob Croxford
It is a thoroughly stupid and lousy idea. It creates in the minds of
a lot of people that IP has no value. That creative people should do
it for fun.
Why should professional photographers give anything back by giving
away their work. Do property developers do it? Utility companies?
What I prefer is that I get paid in hard cash and then I decide where
and how I'll give something back.
Bob Croxford
On 20 Feb 2006, at 14:02, roycebair wrote:
> All in all, Creative Commons has a nice idea, but do you think it
> is really useful for the professional stock photographer who
> wants to promote his/her images, and give something back to
> the community, or is it just a waste of time, and it's licenses too
> broad so as to lose control of one's images?
>
> Royce Bair
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Andrew Wiard
>
>You may ask, why would any professional stock photographer, in
>their right mind, ever want to offer free use of their images?!
>There are usually two reasons: 1) To give back to society and 2)
>for self-promotion. The Creative Commons system requires
>users to give you credit
And what's the penalty for forgetting? Double the original fee?
Andrew Wiard
Ken Barber
> (I'm not sure if this has been discussed before on the group, but
> here goes....)
It hasn't been discussed since I joined the group in September, because I've
been watching for it. I've always been curious how the folks here would
react to the Creative Commons philosophy.
> This organization....
> http://creativecommons.org/
> ....allows your Web site to become part of their database of
> artists that offer "Some Rights Reserved"
Unlike my photography, I am an author of some success, and I release as many
of my written works under the Creative Commons (CC) licenses as is reasonably
possible.
However, I have never released any of my photos under CC (with the possible
exception noted below), and I'll explain why in a moment.
Creative Commons is an outgrowth of the Open Source movement, which is almost
universally misunderstood by those who are not a part of it. Unfortunately,
in order to understand Creative Commons, I will need to veer off-topic here
for a while and explain Open Source.
Open Source is a method of developing computer software that grew out of the
early traditions of Unix, which at the time was popular in university
computing centers. Bright programmers would create some new useful tool or
other, and then freely share the "source code" for that utility with the rest
of the Unix world -- meaning that anyone could copy it, recompile it for a
different system, and use it. After a couple of decades, there was a
prodigious code base of useful utilities that 1) no one had to pay a royalty
to use; and 2) anyone was free to modify and improve.
As Microsoft's threat of world domination through monopoly power became more
distinct in the mid-1990's, the old Unix gurus began coalescing around one
particular Open Source project known as Linux. Linux has enjoyed phenomenal
growth (much to Microsoft's dismay) precisely because a) anyone is free to
modify and improve it; and b) no one is permitted to charge royalties for the
use of said modifications and improvements.
This has led, in a few short years, to an operating system that is vastly
superior to Microsoft's products in every way, but particularly in the areas
of security (Linux is virtually immune to viruses and other malware) and
reliability (with few exceptions, Linux never crashes. I mean NEVER).
The Free/Libre/Open Source Software (FLOSS) movement has now grown and matured
into a subculture with its own well-defined philosophy and values.
Understanding all of this would fill a book, which there is no need to do
here because Eric S. Raymond has already written it. It's named "The
Cathedral and the Bazaar" and, true to Open Source values, you can either buy
the book or read it for free online.
So, the Open Source model works well for computer software because it allows
thousands of really bright people all over the world to continually improve
the code base through their contributions. These days, most of these people
are not working for free: they are employed by a company who has something
else (usually either hardware or support contracts) to sell, and they get a
paycheck for their contributions.
If you think this doesn't make any economic sense, it's all explained in "The
Cathedral and the Bazaar". Or just consider this: IBM invested a billion
dollars into Linux a few years ago, and got their billion dollars back (in
increased hardware sales) in less than a year.
The Open Source model also works well for books, articles and documents of a
technical nature. Again, someone usually gets paid to write it in the first
place, and the publisher recoups the author's wages in some way. However,
anyone is free to improve / update that author's work and re-release it --
but s/he cannot charge a royalty for it without negotiating with the original
author.
This is what Creative Commons is all about. Its obvious best-fit use is in
technical works that need constant updating as technology changes -- such as
textbooks and comprehensive how-to manuals. The O'Reilly company is making
good money from this model with their series of computer books (O'Reilly is
the publisher of the dead-tree version of The Cathedral and the Bazaar).
Creative Commons licenses also make sense for certain genres of music, since
it allows remixing and making new sounds -- all of which exposes hip
consumers to new artists that they would never have heard on the monotonous
airwaves of commercial radio.
However, I'm not sure that CC licenses would have much use for stock
photographers who live and die by their royalty sales. Certainly, there may
be merit in releasing select photos for free use to non-commercial users
(free wallpaper/screensavers that include a prominent URL come to mind) --
and I think I remember licensing some of my photos under a CC license on a
long-forgotten personal Web site many years ago, before I had any idea of
trying to make money from my images. But I don't see a broad application of
Creative Commons licensing making any sense to the majority of the folk on
this list.
However, a few weeks ago I did design a few bumper stickers with my own
political philosophy and released them under a CC license. Yeah, big deal.
They took me all of maybe a half-hour to create, and there aren't enough
people in this country who agree with my political views for me ever to make
any money from selling them. So I released them on one of those
make-your-own-bumper-sticker websites under a CC license. No one else can
make any money from them without my permission, but anyone is free to copy
and/or modify for their own car's bumper.
And all of my major Open Source-related written works are released under
either a Creative Commons or GPL license, including my lectures and lab
exercises from the college course I once taught. Professors anywhere else in
the world are free to copy, translate, or update them, as long as they don't
make any money from publishing them. Poor students can download, read, and
study them and even teach themselves (one friend of mine actually did that!)
if they wish. But if someone wants to turn them into a textbook, I get
royalties.
But will I release, under a CC license, my 1968 shot of (former U.S. Senator)
Bob Packwood shaking hands with a voter on a campaign stop? Not in your
dreams!
Ken Barber
Modestly successful writer, unsuccessful (so far) photographer
Steve Lovegrove
funding from government sources whose aim is to undermine the copyright
of photographers. They have been involved in lobbying the Canadian
government(for example) to prevent any changes to their copyright laws
which would give Canadian photographers the same level of copyright
that photographers in many other countries have.
Steve Lovegrove
Ken Barber
> Creative Commons is a dangerous organisation run by academics with
> funding from government sources whose aim is to undermine the copyright
> of photographers.
That sounds suspiciously like propaganda. Care to back it up with any facts?
Ken Barber
Andrew Wiard
>On Monday 20 February 2006 13:13, Steve Lovegrove wrote:
>> Creative Commons is a dangerous organisation run by academics with
>> funding from government sources whose aim is to undermine the copyright
>> of photographers.
>
>That sounds suspiciously like propaganda. Care to back it up with any facts?
>
Just Google it - this surprised me tonight, so I had to look. Quickly
found proposal to grant consumers ownership of the photographs they
commission in defiance of planned legislative reform.
Am not yet clear if if any common creatives are trying to extend this
reactionary nonsense to other commissioned photography as well, but
this is bad enough.
In the UK the proposed copyright reform - giving photographers the
same rights as other authors - was enacted in the Copyright Designs
and Patents Act of 1988. The rights of those commissioning work of a
private nature was simply dealt with - photographers retain
copyright, but require the subject's permission before selling to
third parties.
It's about time Canadian photographers had the same rights as the
rest of us, and it's clear that Creative Commons wants to stop that.
Andrew Wiard
Steve Lovegrove
I have done one of the objectives of Creative Commons is to lobby
governments around the world to allow the use of creative content on
the web by anyone, and to significantly weaken the IP rights of
creators.
If you take this as propaganda, then so be it, I stand by my personal
view that this is a dangerous organisation, I certainly can see no
benefit in the concept.
"The Australian branch of the Creative Commons is taking shape with the
Queensland University of Technology being the lead agency, according to
Professor Brian Fitzgerald, head of the university's law school.
In February this year, QUT became the Australian institutional
affiliate for the project and over the last few months it has worked
closely with the legal firm Blake Dawson Waldron to set up the platform
for the project in Australia.
The University is holding a conference in January next year on Open
content licensing, and has invited Stanford University Law Professor
Lawrence Lessig, one of the directors of the Creative Commons, as its
keynote speaker."
See full article:
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/11/09/1099781367734.html
Steve Lovegrove
Ken Barber
> Sorry Ken, still looking for the info I had on file, but in the reading
> I have done one of the objectives of Creative Commons is to lobby
> governments around the world to allow the use of creative content on
> the web by anyone, and to significantly weaken the IP rights of
> creators.
>
> If you take this as propaganda,
Yes, it is propaganda. Not only is the phrase "weaken the IP rights of
creators" a straw man, it is blatantly false.
As you look for the info you have, follow the money. Somewhere behind your
sources, you'll find one or more of the usual suspects: Microsoft
Corporation, the movie industry, or the record industry. All three have a
long history of distorting the facts and impugning the integrity of people
(such as the Creative Commons project) who are working to preserve the
traditional rights that (until recently) have always been part of copyright
law. This is, of course, against the monopolistic interests of those who
would take away those rights.
The Creative Commons project is not a threat to anyone in the stock photo
business (hell, it isn't even RELEVANT to anyone in the stock photo
business). Anyone who thinks otherwise is working from information that has
been fed to him or her, and such a person would do well to examine the facts
closely.
Ken Barber
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Courtesy of The STOCKPHOTO Network - http://www.stockphoto.net/
Posting Rules - http://www.stockphoto.net/Subscriptions.php#rules
STOCKPHOTO Archives - http://www.stockphoto.net/Archives.php
STOCKPHOTO Bookstore - http://www.stockphoto.net/bookstore/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
Stockphoto Seller
Carl May/BPS
Andrew Wiard <and...@reportphotos.com> wrote:
>You may ask, why would any professional stock photographer, in
>their right mind, ever want to offer free use of their images?!
>There are usually two reasons: 1) To give back to society and 2)
>for self-promotion. The Creative Commons system requires
>users to give you credit
And what's the penalty for forgetting? Double the original fee?
Andrew Wiard
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Courtesy of The STOCKPHOTO Network - http://www.stockphoto.net/
Posting Rules - http://www.stockphoto.net/Subscriptions.php#rules
STOCKPHOTO Archives - http://www.stockphoto.net/Archives.php
STOCKPHOTO Bookstore - http://www.stockphoto.net/bookstore/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Stockphoto Seller
What has love got to do with it? Well, Steve is obviously forgetting all the feel-good aspects of being part of a "community"--even a community of idiots.
Carl May/BPS
Steve Lovegrove <st...@lovegrovelea.com.au> wrote:
Sorry Ken, still looking for the info I had on file, but in the reading
I have done one of the objectives of Creative Commons is to lobby
governments around the world to allow the use of creative content on
the web by anyone, and to significantly weaken the IP rights of
creators.
If you take this as propaganda, then so be it, I stand by my personal
view that this is a dangerous organisation, I certainly can see no
benefit in the concept.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ken Barber
> Mon, 20 Feb 2006 14:09:17 -0800 Ken Barber wrote:
> >That sounds suspiciously like propaganda. Care to back it up with any
> > facts?
>
> Just Google it
Google didn't turn up anything negative about CC. Care to share your search
term(s) with me?
Ken
David Barr
>The University is holding a conference in January next year on Open
>content licensing, and has invited Stanford University Law Professor
>Lawrence Lessig, one of the directors of the Creative Commons, as its
>keynote speaker."
If you're academical or have some other paid position this might seem
like a good idea but from the perspective of people that make their
living by licensing their copyright work it is stupid.
David Barr
--
Photobar Agricultural Stock Photography
Simplify your Search http://www.photobar.com
http://www.photobar.com On line catalogue
http://www.stockartists.com SAA member
http://www.cama.org/ CAMA member
http://www.nama.org/ NAMA member
Stockphoto Seller
Carl May/BPS
David Barr <phot...@PHOTOBAR.COM> wrote:
>
>The University is holding a conference in January next year on Open
>content licensing, and has invited Stanford University Law Professor
>Lawrence Lessig, one of the directors of the Creative Commons, as its
>keynote speaker."
If you're academical or have some other paid position this might seem
like a good idea but from the perspective of people that make their
living by licensing their copyright work it is stupid.
David Barr
--
Photobar Agricultural Stock Photography
Simplify your Search http://www.photobar.com
http://www.photobar.com On line catalogue
http://www.stockartists.com SAA member
http://www.cama.org/ CAMA member
http://www.nama.org/ NAMA member
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Courtesy of The STOCKPHOTO Network - http://www.stockphoto.net/
Posting Rules - http://www.stockphoto.net/Subscriptions.php#rules
STOCKPHOTO Archives - http://www.stockphoto.net/Archives.php
STOCKPHOTO Bookstore - http://www.stockphoto.net/bookstore/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
David Barr
>
> Carl May/BPS
>
First guess has to be Stanford but I believe it has changed a lot in
the intervening years.:-)
We won't hold it against you.
David
--
Photobar Agricultural Stock Photography
Simplify your Search http://www.photobar.com
http://www.photobar.com On line catalogue
http://www.stockartists.com SAA member
http://www.cama.org/ CAMA member
http://www.nama.org/ NAMA member
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Courtesy of The STOCKPHOTO Network - http://www.stockphoto.net/
Posting Rules - http://www.stockphoto.net/Subscriptions.php#rules
STOCKPHOTO Archives - http://www.stockphoto.net/Archives.php
STOCKPHOTO Bookstore - http://www.stockphoto.net/bookstore/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
Bob Croxford
On 20 Feb 2006, at 20:55, Ken Barber wrote:
> However, I'm not sure that CC licenses would have much use for stock
> photographers who live and die by their royalty sales. Certainly,
> there may
> be merit in releasing select photos for free use to non-commercial
> users
> (free wallpaper/screensavers that include a prominent URL come to
> mind) --
> and I think I remember licensing some of my photos under a CC
> license on a
> long-forgotten personal Web site many years ago, before I had any
> idea of
> trying to make money from my images. But I don't see a broad
> application of
> Creative Commons licensing making any sense to the majority of the
> folk on
> this list.
>
> Ken Barber
> Modestly successful writer, unsuccessful (so far) photographer
Dear Ken
Without wishing to be rude your last sentence says it all.
I am very close to retirement age and have worked in photography
since I was 16. I have had ups and downs but the ups far outweigh the
downs. From my experience professional photography is a business
first and last. Academics and computer geeks might believe in 'cock-a-
looney' ideas like CC but professionals just have to have a different
mindset.
IP is Property created by hard work and sweat. If I were to buy a
plot of land and self-build my own house on it there is no way a
bunch of academics like Lessing would dream of suggesting I give it
away for free. Because I decide to invest my sweat in IP he has plans
via the Orphan Rights Act to steal it too, in some cases.
Its a very dangerous development.
Bob Croxford
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Steve Lovegrove
> IP is Property created by hard work and sweat. If I were to buy a
> plot of land and self-build my own house on it there is no way a
> bunch of academics like Lessing would dream of suggesting I give it
> away for free. Because I decide to invest my sweat in IP he has plans
> via the Orphan Rights Act to steal it too, in some cases.
>
> Its a very dangerous development.
Here, here!
Steve Lovegrove
Board Member ACMP
The Society of Australian Commercial and Magazine Photographers
Andrew Wiard
>On Monday 20 February 2006 15:30, Andrew Wiard wrote:
>> Mon, 20 Feb 2006 14:09:17 -0800 Ken Barber wrote:
>> >That sounds suspiciously like propaganda. Care to back it up with any
>> > facts?
>>
>> Just Google it
>
>Google didn't turn up anything negative about CC. Care to share your search
>term(s) with me?
>
>Ken
I just went "creative commons canada photography copyright law". Bit
primitive, I know, but it produced immediate results. Now I have to
admit I didn't get the statement " A spokesman for Creative Commons
said...., but the movement is clearly in very close proximity to all
the individuals trying to neuter Canadian photographic copyright law
reform.
If I were a CIA operative I might detect a shadowy worldwide
organisation with tentacles everywhere...but even an ordinary police
officer should be able to find the fingerprints, and the DNA, at the
scene of the crime.
Creative Commons is the spirit that inspires the actors on the public
stage. Actually, even I can find the links.
1) - from Creative Commons Canada:
"Creative Commons Canada is affiliated with the Canadian Internet
Policy and Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC) at the University of
Ottawa's Faculty of Law. CIPPIC's mandate is to fill voids in public
policy debates on technology law issues, ensure balance in policy and
law-making processes......."
2) ""This is not a happy day for Canadians," states Philippa Lawson,
Executive Director of CIPPIC, the Canadian Internet Policy and Public
Interest Clinic. "The Bill calls for a massive transfer of rights
and entitlements out of the hands of the Canadian public, and into
the hands of copyright holders. Foreign content industries should be
very, very happy with the government's draft legislation - they are
the big winners here. Losers, unfortunately, include Canadian
consumers, educators, students, Canada's security research community,
Canada's public domain and Canadian innovators and creators, whose
interests have been sacrificed to the wishes of collectives and
multinational entertainment companies." "
3) From the same document quoted immediately above ,the reforms
CIPPIC is targeting include:
" * Expanding photographers' rights at the expense of the rights of
those - including consumers - who commission photographs; and "
- I know which side I'm on.
Andrew Wiard
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
David Kilpatrick
>Guess where I went to college, David. This is embarrassing!
>
> Carl May/BPS
>
>David Barr <phot...@PHOTOBAR.COM> wrote:
> >
>
>
>>The University is holding a conference in January next year on Open
>>content licensing, and has invited Stanford University Law Professor
>>Lawrence Lessig, one of the directors of the Creative Commons, as its
>>keynote speaker."
>>
>>
>
>
>If you're academical or have some other paid position this might seem
>like a good idea but from the perspective of people that make their
>living by licensing their copyright work it is stupid.
>
>David Barr
>
>
It may be embarrassing but the purpose of Creative Commons licensing is
not to remove copyrights, as I understand it. I've placed over 80 of my
sound recordings under CC licensing (Soundclick.com) with a specific ban
on modifications, commercial use or resale. CC licensing permits
personal use, personal redistribution (someone can copy and send my work
to a third party for no personal gain, intact). It's ideal for study,
personal websites.
Amonst the CC music I have produced has been instrumental material
forwedding and portrait photographers to use as background tracks when
showing proofs (digitally, projection). Many photographers are willing
to pay £65 a year in the UK for a licence to use commercial recorded
music when doing viewings. It costs a little more to be allowed to have
music in your studio when shooting - about £200 a year depending on the
type of studio, for a busy photographer. This is about the same as fee
you have to pay to have a radio station playing in a workplace, or a
radio/TV switched on in a pub or restaurant. You are not, of course,
allowed to have any music playing in your offices open to the public
without paying a fee but you are free to play music or listen to the
radio in your own personal workspace.
Much the same applies in the USA and worldwide, and I sincerely hope
that everyone who takes a firm position on photo copyright is paying all
the music performance and licencing fees in full.
When this came up in the UK, I wrote a short piece just for wedding and
portrait viewings, and again, it's made freely available to
photographers but protected by Creative Commons licencing. I don't mind
use on private proof DVDs and CDs, which is normally very expensive (it
can cost hundreds to put commercially popular music on a wedding DVD -
and you are liable for the fees even if it's the church organist playing
a bit of Elton John or the band at the reception doing covers and you
video/record the sound).
See:
http://www.soundclick.com/pro/view/01/default.cfm?bandid=2395&content=lyrics&songid=3030103
I have received some response from musicians in the UK and we will, at
some point, issue a CD containing original music (mainly by professional
musicians who accept wedding, conference and similar 'potted plant' work
- harp, guitar, piano etc) which will be entirely free for use by
photographers including on DVDs, conditional on credit lines and
weblinks. We shall probably use CC licencing as the basis for this,
because it protects the author's rights while removing restrictions,
without doing an 'RF' job.
The downside of all this is that you are stuck with original
improvisations or composition and eejits like me are quite capable of
accidentally 'repeating' some well-known melody when noodling away, and
then getting Messrs Sony and Universal claiming large sums of money on
behalf of the 'original writer'. You just wait until Mr Getty wants
money off you for including 1/3rd sky, 2/3rds ground and a row of
footprints in the sand - didn't you know that composition is already
copyright?
*
David
*
--
f2photo: articles, news and reviews - www.f2photo.co.uk
roycebair
<ken.barber@...> wrote:
> However, I'm not sure that CC licenses would have much use
> for stock photographers who live and die by their royalty sales.
Ken, Thanks for taking the time to explain the Open Source
concept and how it relates to Creative Commons. Fascinating!
After "attending" <grin> your great lecture, I agree that CC
licenses may not have much application for us in the stock photo
industry.
Royce Bair
The Stock Solution
http://www.tssphoto.com/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
roycebair
Ken has said sums it up best:
"The Creative Commons project is not a threat to anyone in the
stock photo business (hell, it isn't even RELEVANT to anyone in
the stock photo business)."
I believe open source has been very benefical to the world in
many aspects, but I'm not sure it is as relative in the stock photo
industry. Thanks to everyone for sharing your opinions and
insights.
Royce Bair
The Stock Solution
http://www.tssphoto.com/
--- In STOCK...@yahoogroups.com, Ken Barber
<ken.barber@...> wrote:
>
Ken Barber
> I just went "creative commons canada photography copyright law". Bit
> primitive, I know, but it produced immediate results. Now I have to
> admit I didn't get the statement " A spokesman for Creative Commons
> said...., but
Exactly. So everything you said below this is a Red Herring. Forget the
"but" because everything after it is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
> the movement is clearly in very close proximity to all
> the individuals trying to neuter Canadian photographic copyright law
> reform.
>
> If I were a CIA operative I might detect a shadowy worldwide
> organisation with tentacles everywhere...
And if you were trained in logic and Critical Thinking you would know that
this is a logical fallacy. We're not discussing individuals and movements
here, and we're not discussing shadowy conspiracies. We're discussing a
particular legal instrument.
I would love to talk about the effort by movie studios and record companies to
lock away our rights that have always existed (endangering, by the way,
national security in the process) -- and the effort to stop them -- but it's
off-topic here.
> but even an ordinary police
> officer should be able to find the fingerprints, and the DNA, at the
> scene of the crime.
>
> Creative Commons is the spirit that inspires the actors on the public
> stage. Actually, even I can find the links.
Guilt by Association. Another type of Red Herring argument. You're also
assuming, without evidence, that Creative Commons is the driving force behind
the rest of the players in this scene, rather than just another one of the
players. Yet another logical fallacy.
> 3) From the same document quoted immediately above ,the reforms
> CIPPIC is targeting include:
>
> " * Expanding photographers' rights at the expense of the rights of
> those - including consumers - who commission photographs; and "
Yes, and this is the CIPPIC, not creative commons. If you disagree with this,
then start another thread (it is one that I'd like to discuss).
Now, I don't know whether you actually READ the entire document, or just
picked out the one part that you didn't like. But there is a lot more to
that document than that one part.
To throw away the entire document and pass personal judgment on its authors
(and everyone with whom they associate), just because you disagree with one
small part of the document, is yet another logical fallacy.
But all of this is off-topic. We're not discussing the CIPPIC; we're
discussing whether Creative Commons licences/licenses have any merit for
stock photographers. I think we've already settled that question.
> - I know which side I'm on.
There is no need to choose "sides". It should be possible to rationally
analyze the IDEAS at hand without impugning ulterior motives on the part of
certain people, whom one happens not to like, that hold those ideas.
I hope this is the end of this discussion.
Ken Barber
Glenn Zumwalt
Commons." There are only those that are either too lazy or too inept
to use their minds and education to create anything themselves and
feel that they should be able to take form others who can create.
_____________________
Glenn Zumwalt Fotografy
age, Alamy, SAA, EP
Stockphoto Seller
The loosening and stealing of rights to music has been a disaster for many workaday musicians--since music has been brought up here. One of my few best friends is a professional jazz musician, and nowadays he puts out CD's primarily to help him (plus his quintet and his assorted other associates) get live, paying gigs. He feels good if CD sales are large enough to pay for the costs of making them. Huge numbers of performers, including some of the most famous, are treating their recorded music the same way--the buzz among them--those that reflect on it--is that the producers and distributors are the only ones making any money from sales of recorded music. Live performances, from international concert tours down to one-night stands in clubs, constitute the remaining refuge for making a buck.
The parallel with photography should be obvious. Stock becomes primarily a way to get assignments. Anyone who can't build a demand for enough assignments to support them must learn to live on love alone. You know, nourishment from those good vibes you feel when you see one of your pictures used.
The threat of Creative Commons points up the genesis and rationale behind one of the cardinal rules of modern professional stock photography: control your images!
Carl May/BPS
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Bob Croxford
>
> As I've followed all the threads on this subject, I tend to feel what
> Ken has said sums it up best:
>
> "The Creative Commons project is not a threat to anyone in the
> stock photo business (hell, it isn't even RELEVANT to anyone in
> the stock photo business)."
Dear Royce
I admire your naivety. Any erosion of copyrights is damaging to all IP creators and owners.
Have you studied what this same bunch of pie-in-the-sky academics propose for 'Orphan
Rights'? They are using the thin end of a wedge to blast a hole in our ability to be properly
compensated for our work.
And if you think that 'Orphan Rights' only concerns dead poets, think again. Every single
digital file you send out can become an orphan ten minutes later. The 'Academics'
proposed that if they couldn't find a copyright owner within 36 hours they, AND
COMMERCIAL USERS, should be allowed to use a photograph, in anyway they saw fit free of
charge.* Fortunately the draft proposals from the Copyright Committee fall short of that.
Rest assured however that they will be back in further attempts to get their way.
*That means even if you have a moral objection to the use.
Bob Croxford
David Kilpatrick
>Folks,
>
> The loosening and stealing of rights to music has been a disaster for many workaday musicians--since music has been brought up here. One of my few best friends is a professional jazz musician, and nowadays he puts out CD's primarily to help him (plus his quintet and his assorted other associates) get live, paying gigs. He feels good if CD sales are large enough to pay for the costs of making them. Huge numbers of performers, including some of the most famous, are treating their recorded music the same way--the buzz among them--those that reflect on it--is that the producers and distributors are the only ones making any money from sales of recorded music. Live performances, from international concert tours down to one-night stands in clubs, constitute the remaining refuge for making a buck.
>
> The parallel with photography should be obvious. Stock becomes primarily a way to get assignments. Anyone who can't build a demand for enough assignments to support them must learn to live on love alone. You know, nourishment from those good vibes you feel when you see one of your pictures used.
>
> The threat of Creative Commons points up the genesis and rationale behind one of the cardinal rules of modern professional stock photography: control your images!
>
>
>
In fairness, Carl, books are treated the same way by photographers - and
so are exhibitions. Not stock photo work though. It's very difficult to
get an art-photo book to pay well, the publishers no doubt make a fair
margin but very little eventually reaches the photographer unless it's a
massive seller (I am sure Salgado makes a bit from books, when he's not
donating the proceeds to a cause). Many photographers, at all levels
from beginning to the best in the biz, use gallery space and the printed
page as a zero income loss leader to create reputations and secure
commission work.
The do not use 'giving away stock photography' to do this.
Stock photography is more like session music and music library work, and
there certainly has been a shift. We used to buy and license music at
great cost for presentations, often more than the photography, and it
wasn't original commissioned - it was bought from music libraries (De
Wolfe, and KLM). Today it would be more usual to buy a royalty-free
loops and samples CD (the direct equivalent of an RF 'objects' type
photo CD) or license from an internet site directly, from an independent
non-label musician.
At the moment, independent photographers don't see Getty or Corbis the
same way that independent musicians see Sony or Universal. Most of my
friends are either photographers or musicians, as these are the two
environments I work in. Musician attitudes to the global multi-national
corporate control of copyrights 'on their behalf' are rather different
from photographer attitudes to the same level of marketing and control
of their copyright work, but this is because the music industry has
screwed them, cheated them, created a payola-fed star system, devalued
small live venue music, etc etc.
Generally, the photo library business has been pretty fair and honest
and it's the big newspapers and publishing groups with the squeeze on
prices, their exclusive buying arrangements, dismissal of staff
photographers and rights-grabbing of freelance work which most resemble
the music biz ogres. I'm not sure how Creative Commons contracts might
impact on any of this, and I am a little disturbed by the idea that
Creative Commons might be trying to force its model on to any kind of
legislation. I've always seen as a voluntarily, ethical alternative to
'putting material in the public domain' (which amounts to giving it
away) and one which places restrictions on the user, including 'no
modification' and 'no commercial use'. But, if the driving forces behind
CC are planning to remove all such inbuilt safeguards, I will stop
supporting CC as a concept and will advise the (hundreds) of musos I
know who do use it to cease using it.
David
Stockphoto Seller
Educators are legendary for their ignorance of financial realities and hypocrisy--not all, by any stretch of the imagination, but enough to give the teaching profession a rep for being a bunch of tolerated sub-adolescents. The same can be said of anyone with a secure income who suggests others should be able to live on nothing, thus making it okay to suggest taking away the income of others.
Ever notice how these "open" types, who think the work and creative property of others should be free, do not start at home and suggest that what they are doing should be free? It is always easier to suggest giving away the property or service of another rather than one's own. When Lessig--to use an example--shows that he has given up his office, salary, home, and personal possessions and is leading a good life among the community of homeless in downtown Palo Alto or under the highway crossings of local creeks, I'll find him more worthy of being taken seriously.
Look at what is implied in a business with almost-free photography like iShutterstock: it is fine to build a company that can be sold for $50 million, presumably with a fat profit in that amount, and simultaneously just as fine for its photographers to be financial losers because they have the less tangible benefits of community and the joy of seeing their work reproduced in the real world with which they are so clearly out of touch.
Carl May/BPS
Glenn Zumwalt <glenn....@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
As far as I can tell, there are no "Creatives" in the "Creative
Commons." There are only those that are either too lazy or too inept
to use their minds and education to create anything themselves and
feel that they should be able to take form others who can create.
_____________________
Glenn Zumwalt Fotografy
age, Alamy, SAA, EP
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Courtesy of The STOCKPHOTO Network - http://www.stockphoto.net/
Posting Rules - http://www.stockphoto.net/Subscriptions.php#rules
STOCKPHOTO Archives - http://www.stockphoto.net/Archives.php
STOCKPHOTO Bookstore - http://www.stockphoto.net/bookstore/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Andrew Wiard
>On Tuesday 21 February 2006 00:42, Andrew Wiard wrote:
>
>> I just went "creative commons canada photography copyright law". Bit
>> primitive, I know, but it produced immediate results. Now I have to
>> admit I didn't get the statement " A spokesman for Creative Commons
>> said...., but
>
>Exactly. So everything you said below this is a Red Herring.
No.They create a climate of opinion. They appear to be urging us to
share our intellectual property, but the message getting through is
"property is theft".
> We're not discussing individuals and movements
>here, and we're not discussing shadowy conspiracies. We're discussing a
>particular legal instrument.
Well I'm discussing both.
>
> >
>> Creative Commons is the spirit that inspires the actors on the public
>> stage. Actually, even I can find the links.
>
>Guilt by Association. Another type of Red Herring argument. You're also
>assuming, without evidence, that Creative Commons is the driving force behind
>the rest of the players in this scene,
Yep, I judge people by the company they keep. That would never stand
up in a court of law, but it works on the street.
>
>> 3) From the same document quoted immediately above ,the reforms
>> CIPPIC is targeting include:
>>
>> " * Expanding photographers' rights at the expense of the rights of
>> those - including consumers - who commission photographs; and "
>
>Yes, and this is the CIPPIC, not creative commons.
They are, again, the company Creative Commons Canada chooses to keep.
I repeat the quote:
"Creative Commons Canada is affiliated with the Canadian Internet
Policy and Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC) at the University of
Ottawa's Faculty of Law. CIPPIC's mandate is to fill voids in public
policy debates on technology law issues, ensure balance in policy and
law-making processes......."
>. We're not discussing the CIPPIC; we're
>discussing whether Creative Commons licences/licenses have any merit for
>stock photographers. I think we've already settled that question.
We have, but I think photographers in Canada will also be discussing
whether CIPPIC will block the reform granting them intellectual
property rights, and what Creative Commons is doing supporting them.
>
>There is no need to choose "sides".
I took sides on the reform of UK photographic copyright law. We won.
Canadian photographers will be taking sides over the long overdue
parallel reform in Canada. I hope they do.
> It should be possible to rationally
>analyze the IDEAS at hand without impugning ulterior motives on the part of
>certain people, whom one happens not to like, that hold those ideas.
I do not doubt that Creative Commons has good intentions. The road to
hell is paved with them.
>
>I hope this is the end of this discussion.
Me too. It's best pursued in Canada.
Andrew Wiard
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Acclaim Images
Fred Voetsch
Acclaim Images - Stock Photography
http://www.AcclaimImages.com/
Ian Murray
I am certainly no friend of the micros but you should know that there
are people claiming to be making $500-$2000 a month from relatively
few images. Read the iStcok forum to learn of those who either are or
are planning to become full time iStock exclusive freelance
photographers. This to me just makes the impact of the micros even
more unbearable and worth fighting. They are taking money from all of
us anbd this idea suggested by some that they ahve created a brand new
untapped market distinct from that of mainstream stock is rubbish or
at least wishful thinking. Treating these people as financial mugs
risks underestimating the threat.
Regards,
Ian Murray
> Look at what is implied in a business with almost-free photography
like iShutterstock: it is fine to build a company that can be sold for
$50 million, presumably with a fat profit in that amount, and
simultaneously just as fine for its photographers to be financial
losers because they have the less tangible benefits of community and
the joy of seeing their work reproduced in the real world with which
they are so clearly out of touch.
>
> Carl May/BPS
Sonia Wasco
I agree with you. iStock had a phrase on their trade show booth at
Photo Plus that said "350,000 reasons why you should leave your current
stock photo provider"
Sonia Wasco
Richardson Peter Wm.
You are standing in front of the incoming tide and commanding it to
retreat if you think, for a heartbeat, that we or anyone else will be
able to stop Micro Stock sites. They have, in a very short time,
become an established and very viable business model. They reap huge
profits for their owners and they have and will continue to have a
never ending source of suppliers. There are far,far too many amongst
us, who have no intention of playing by our rules and even less reason
to try. Let us be brutally honest here, we represent a very tiny
percentage of photographers. If you were to take all the photographers
in all the professional organizations and forums combined and take
into account no discount for crossover membership, you would not
represent 25% of the total number of us out there. Now add in all the
thousands of amateurs who think that any money at all for their hobby
is fine and you will just begin to see the tip of the iceberg.
Remember also, that photo schools are still cranking out thousands of
graduates, many of whom are undercutting the industry even while they
are still in school! We can not possibly hope to stem this tide and to
waste time thinking we can is ludicrous. Micro sites are here to stay
and we had better realize that and accept it or we face even more
erosion of our industry. We can rant and rave all we want about the
injustice of it all and about how we must educate all these ignorant
masses, but in the end it is only words and of little, if any
consequence. As long as the Getty's of this world are willing to pay
millions of dollars to own such sites and continue their relentless
march towards market domination, there are going to be not only more
micros, but other, even more evasive business models.
We have to stop kidding ourselves about the industry suddenly
generating a spine and standing up for it's rights with one voice. It
will never happen! There are far far too many of "us" who look at any
of these sites as just another way to make a quick buck. Only
recently, we saw a young photographer in Quebec and an established
advertising shooter in the US south, Atlanta I think, but don't quote
me, who both were active supporters and advocates of micro stock and
RF in general. Believe me when I tell you, they are NOT the minority.
If we are to salvage some form of the stock photography industry, it
will be by innovative thinking on our part and perhaps even the
formulation of the next "new idea" in stock marketing, not by railing
against the tide. We are not going to educate the rest of us and we
are not going to somehow reverse the trend towards the quick buck,
especially not amongst the new entries and the amateurs.
To give you a relevant example of what I mean, look at the travel
writing/photography industry. Here is a field, which by the way I try
to function in, that is virtually over run with retirees and amateurs
who are willing to sell a story and/or photographs for the great
privilege of being published. They also operate blogs which feature
all manner of destinations and stories and recommendations, all for
free. Here in Canada, the average fee for a destination piece in a
newspaper, is $150 or less, yet there are no end of pieces being
published. For years, I have been trying to convince people that they
are hurting me and the industry and ultimately themselves, by
continuing these practices, all to no avail. Most of them tell me that
they would go to these places anyway, so why not get an extra bit of
spending money for what they would do anyway, "where's the harm"? I
have yet to get one person to change their mind, especially when they
learn that if they are getting published, they can get local and
regional tourist authorities to underwrite part or all of the trip as
well as set them up with fine meals and accomodations! I have had
magazines offer me assignments, hundreds of miles from home and days
or weeks in duration and expect me to do them for an all in fee of
$500-750. And if I will not, there are plenty of others who will and
believe me there are and I know a lot of them personally. There are
ways to make these sort of situations work, but that shouldn't be how
it is done.
I am as dead set against RF and Micros and all the rest as any of you
are but I can see the writing on the wall. Just like assignment work,
stock as we know it is undergoing massive reconstructive surgery and
the results will look nothing like what we were used to. I believe
that there is a way to make something of this for those of us with
traditional values concerning fair playing fields and remuneration for
work done, but I am not smart enough or perhaps prescient enough to
see how to do. However, I am more than willing to work with anyone or
any group who can. Only through ideas can we hope to gain the higher
ground once again.
Cheers,
Peter
Steve Skjold
Interesting how 50 million legitimizes what we all dread.
Steve Skjold
Ian Murray
What does it legitimise?
Ian Murray
Ian Murray
Thanks for this considered, detailed and thoughtful response. I
apologise straight away for not being able to match it in the quality
of my reply. I do think that 'we' have been rather too tolerant on
micro photographers. Many of them seem to aspire to one day joining
a 'proper' image outlet whilst simultaneous doing their best, even if
unconsciously, to destroy the very thing that they aspire to.
Actually, this may be less true given the confidence boost and
validation given by Getty's involvement both in a sense of a financial
and moral lift to micro shooters.
One option that strikes me would be for traditional ( macro price )
outlets to offer a new specific licence to compete for the new market
that has obvioulsy emerged. Community groups, small businesses,
charities, individuals, and the new designers that seek their custom
to create web sites, leaflets etc do clearly need a source of
inexpensive images often for low print runs and for web sites. The
evolution of the micros owes a lot to this and it is a need still not
by the higher priced agencies. Getty isn't even interested in
mainstream editorial because although there is demand there is not, in
their judgement, sufficiently large profits to make compared with
focusing on commercial imagery. Clearly Getty with their acquisition
of iStock recognises the vlaue of the micro sector but doesn't itself
want to get its hands dirty. It wants to keep the business at arms
length. But what about other agencies and distributors? Alamy, for
example could quite easily create a micro licence, perhaps a one-use
licence from its entire catalogue, or from photographers that chose to
opt in rather like the current world distibutor scheme. I have no idea
how this would be managed but the technology could surely be easily
tweaked to allow this. Let's say they offered such a licence for $10-
$40 depending on rights required ( for both RF and RM images) and
specified exactly what could and could not be done with the file.
Would the evolution of 'micro use licences' open up this new market
for the benefit of all photographers. Alamy has 4.5 million imagesp
wouldn't that help blow away the likes of Suckerstock? I'd guess that
most micro site users recognise that $1 for an image is just crazy and
would be prepared to pay a reasonable price, as for every other
business cost, for imagery. A fairer split of revenues as in the 65%
offered by Alamy would tempt photographers away from the 20% given at
micros.
I'm not necessarily expecting any of this to happen. But I am
suggesting that, even though the tide may well be coming in, with a
little thought and clever engineering the waters could be directed in
a more beneficial way, or at least down a less harmful channel, rather
than simply being allowed to wash the village away whilst we sit
drowning our sorrows in the pub!
Regards,
Ian Murray
>
> Ian and the Group:
> You are standing in front of the incoming tide and commanding it to
> retreat if you think, for a heartbeat, that we or anyone else will be
> able to stop Micro Stock sites. They have, in a very short time,
> become an established and very viable business model.
David Barr
> I do think that 'we' have been rather too tolerant on
micro photographers.<
Ian I don't think they need or want anyones approval.
David
--
Photobar Agricultural Stock Photography
Simplify your Search http://www.photobar.com
http://www.photobar.com On line catalogue
http://www.stockartists.com SAA member
http://www.cama.org/ CAMA member
http://www.nama.org/ NAMA member
Steve Skjold
Was wondering what you thought of Peter's statement.
I am pretty much in agreement with him.
I have a few publishers that use my photos on a subscription basis.
Today I emailed three more to see if they were interested.
I am going to continue with this setting a rate that would interest
publishers.
I think we have had a good run at Alamy, but as Peter suggested the
Micros are having their way.
So, maybe legitimize should be substituted for "gives respect to".
Steve Skjold
>Steve,
>
>What does it legitimise?
>
>Ian Murray
>
>
>>Ian and Peter
>>Interesting how 50 million legitimizes what we all dread.
>>Steve Skjold
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Courtesy of The STOCKPHOTO Network - http://www.stockphoto.net/
> Posting Rules - http://www.stockphoto.net/Subscriptions.php#rules
> STOCKPHOTO Archives - http://www.stockphoto.net/Archives.php
> STOCKPHOTO Bookstore - http://www.stockphoto.net/bookstore/
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
David Kilpatrick
>I have no idea
>how this would be managed but the technology could surely be easily
>tweaked to allow this. Let's say they offered such a licence for $10-
>$40 depending on rights required ( for both RF and RM images) and
>specified exactly what could and could not be done with the file.
>
>I'm not necessarily expecting any of this to happen. But I am
>suggesting that, even though the tide may well be coming in, with a
>little thought and clever engineering the waters could be directed in
>a more beneficial way, or at least down a less harmful channel, rather
>than simply being allowed to wash the village away whilst we sit
>drowning our sorrows in the pub!
>
>
>
There's been no shortage of such material from Corbis and, also, I think
on the basis of emails I receive, from Getty. The entire Corbis
'BizPresenter' library was based on this kind of pricing - $14.99 per
shot. I keep getting circulars from libraries which are mentioned here -
Jupiter I think was the latest - offering such promotional deals, or
special services aimed at low cost projects.
I'm surprised, generally, by what people will actually pay for my shots
on Alamy when the subjects are not unique and the conditions are not
stunning - really very routine imagery. You would have thought that
something more economical than a $180 or whatever image could have been
found to make a little 1/8th column-header shot.
But, as in social photography and many other fields, it's always the
client that determines the price. There are $180 clients, $1.80 clients
and $1800 clients. The $1800 clients don't buy $1.80 pictures, the same
way that a department manager on $100k a year doesn't hire a second in
command at Ł20k a year. They reckon they are worth an $80k second in
command. They day they hire a $20k guy, someone will think - hell, you
were overpaid all along, we'll have four more new guys instead of you.
It works for picture sales; how can your design be worth $30k when the
photo is 90 per cent of it and only cost $2000? They make sure the work
commissioned or bought is in proportion to the value of the their own
work. For this reason, there will always be high value sales even when
the 'product' is a similar photo.
David
--
f2photo: articles, news and reviews - www.f2photo.co.uk
Ian Murray
Acclaim, World of Stock and Photographers Direct make it clear that
they don't approve by having explicit policies against working with
photographers involved with micros. Toleration isn't the same as
approval.
Ian Murray
Ian Murray
I respect your opinion and decison but don't agree with you that
following the crowd is the best long term policy. Whatever Getty is
up to I don't know but to me it doesn't legitimize micros in
anything except that it confirms them as profit makers for their
owners.
Ian Murray
Ant Upton
First time poster, long time lurker.
Ant Upton, photographer based in London, UK, covering mainly sailing events.
I'm in the process of setting up an image library and am looking for a set
of T+C's which to give to suppliers and another set to users. I'm in the
process of joining BAPLA but the process seems to be taking forever!
Wondered if anybody can point me to either their own or another source to
look at, to check out what it should and shouldn't cover, just to start me
off.
Regards
Ant Upton
onEdition Photography
onEdition are the official photographers for:
Global Challenge 2004-2005
Flora London Marathon 2005
Playtex Moonwalk 2005
Aviva Challenge
London Boat Show 2006
Skandia Cowes Week 2006
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE AND LEGAL LIABILITY WAIVER: If you require hard copy
proof of the contents of this email or you wish to confirm whether the
statements and opinions contained in this email are endorsed by the
photographer or onEdition.com Ltd; please contact onEdition.com Ltd. on the
above telephone numbers and written confirmation will be provided.
The content of the email and any attachments are CONFIDENTIAL and may
contain privileged information.
If you are not the addressee it may be UNLAWFUL for you to read, copy,
distribute, disclose or otherwise use the information contained herein.
Ian Murray
Remember the 'designers' dirty little secret'? Buying a $1 image and
then charging the client regular stock photo prices. Most micro buyers
are middlemen, the image is pure raw material. That is why an image
charged at $30, $60 or $200 to the client is only worth 20 cnets to
the photographer. The craft, cleverness, creativity is in design and
as such they charge these prices for finding the right image.
Ian Murray
The $1800 clients don't buy $1.80 pictures, the same
> way that a department manager on $100k a year doesn't hire a second
in
> command at £20k a year.
David Kilpatrick
>David,
>
>Remember the 'designers' dirty little secret'? Buying a $1 image and
>then charging the client regular stock photo prices. Most micro buyers
>are middlemen, the image is pure raw material. That is why an image
>charged at $30, $60 or $200 to the client is only worth 20 cnets to
>the photographer. The craft, cleverness, creativity is in design and
>as such they charge these prices for finding the right image.
>
>
>
You must know a different set of designers. I do remember fighting a
long battle against one highly successful and mediocre design agency
which hired kids ex-school and relied on cut and paste artwork to do ads
(art books) but in my experience such examples are rare. Most designers
are like photographers, very involved in their work, proud of it and not
keen to devalue it.
Of course, iStock is populated by designers using cameras, which rather
destroys my argument here. Maybe times change and just change too much.
David
--
f2photo: articles, news and reviews - www.f2photo.co.uk
Stockphoto Seller
Some people get hit by lightning, some people win the lottery. But there is no way micropayment stock can cover the costs of a photography business.
It is a scheme that only needs to keep its legions of amateurs, dilettantes, and gamblers happy (feel the love, feel the community, have the thrill of seeing your images in print) while the aggregator builds its value. The only thing I'll admit is that it is a neat (and apparently easy) way to build a $50 million enterprise with images from the gullible and blissful.
Carl May
Ian Murray <idmu...@totalise.co.uk> wrote:
Carl,
I am certainly no friend of the micros but you should know that there
are people claiming to be making $500-$2000 a month from relatively
few images. Read the iStcok forum to learn of those who either are or
are planning to become full time iStock exclusive freelance
photographers. This to me just makes the impact of the micros even
more unbearable and worth fighting. They are taking money from all of
us anbd this idea suggested by some that they ahve created a brand new
untapped market distinct from that of mainstream stock is rubbish or
at least wishful thinking. Treating these people as financial mugs
risks underestimating the threat.
Regards,
Ian Murray
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Stockphoto Seller
Carl May/BPS
"Richardson Peter Wm." <pet...@journalist.com> wrote:
Ian and the Group:
You are standing in front of the incoming tide and commanding it to
retreat if you think, for a heartbeat, that we or anyone else will be
able to stop Micro Stock sites.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Stockphoto Seller
SuckerStock, which is currently growing too rapidly to keep up with the technology needed to launch it (and if you call it VaporStock, I'll dump sugar in your gas tank), leaves all payment models engaged in the race to the bottom mired in the depths. We, SuckerStock, are on the *rise,* the only business model in which photo sources pay the ones downloading images off the site. And at SuperSuckerStock the photo sources will pay photo users! Nothing in the wildest dreams of smiling, giddy, true-believing mouth-breathers going down with mini-payments can provide the exposure of one's images and name that SuckerStock will bring.
Carl May/BPS
Ian Murray <idmu...@totalise.co.uk> wrote:
Would the evolution of 'micro use licences' open up this new market
for the benefit of all photographers. Alamy has 4.5 million imagesp
wouldn't that help blow away the likes of Suckerstock?
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Stockphoto Seller
There are quite a few examples of what you seek on the websites of agencies and portals.
Another good source of samples for your standard agency forms and conditions is the ASMP's "Professional Business Practices in Photography." Check out, also, the SAA and the EP websites for position papers on some of the topics that concern photographers. If you can work with the language of the pro-photographer groups, modifying it to work for your particular business, you will avoid some possible future conflicts.
Carl May/BPS
Ant Upton <a...@onedition.com> wrote:
List
First time poster, long time lurker.
Ant Upton, photographer based in London, UK, covering mainly sailing events.
I'm in the process of setting up an image library and am looking for a set
of T+C's which to give to suppliers and another set to users. I'm in the
process of joining BAPLA but the process seems to be taking forever!
Wondered if anybody can point me to either their own or another source to
look at, to check out what it should and shouldn't cover, just to start me
off.
Regards
Ant Upton
onEdition Photography
onEdition are the official photographers for:
Global Challenge 2004-2005
Flora London Marathon 2005
Playtex Moonwalk 2005
Aviva Challenge
London Boat Show 2006
Skandia Cowes Week 2006
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE AND LEGAL LIABILITY WAIVER: If you require hard copy
proof of the contents of this email or you wish to confirm whether the
statements and opinions contained in this email are endorsed by the
photographer or onEdition.com Ltd; please contact onEdition.com Ltd. on the
above telephone numbers and written confirmation will be provided.
The content of the email and any attachments are CONFIDENTIAL and may
contain privileged information.
If you are not the addressee it may be UNLAWFUL for you to read, copy,
distribute, disclose or otherwise use the information contained herein.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Courtesy of The STOCKPHOTO Network - http://www.stockphoto.net/
Posting Rules - http://www.stockphoto.net/Subscriptions.php#rules
STOCKPHOTO Archives - http://www.stockphoto.net/Archives.php
STOCKPHOTO Bookstore - http://www.stockphoto.net/bookstore/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ant Upton
Sorry not to have offered my thanks for your reply, I must have missed your
response when you originally posted this.
So a belated thanks
Ant
Regards
Ant Upton
onEdition Photography
T: +44(0)20 7978 1459
F: +44(0)20 7978 1469
M: +44(0)7973 830 517
E: A...@onEdition.com
W: http://www.onEdition.com
Our on-line image library World-Wide-Images can be viewed at:
onEdition are the official photographers for:
Global Challenge 2004-2005
Aviva Challenge
London Boat Show 2006
Flora, the Flora London Marathon 2006
Playtex Moonwalk 2006
JP Morgan Asset Management Round the Island Race 2006
Skandia Cowes Week 2006
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE AND LEGAL LIABILITY WAIVER: If you require hard copy
proof of the contents of this email or you wish to confirm whether the
statements and opinions contained in this email are endorsed by the
photographer or onEdition.com Ltd; please contact onEdition.com Ltd. on the
above telephone numbers and written confirmation will be provided.
The content of the email and any attachments are CONFIDENTIAL and may
contain privileged information.
If you are not the addressee it may be UNLAWFUL for you to read, copy,
distribute, disclose or otherwise use the information contained herein.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Courtesy of The STOCKPHOTO Network - http://www.stockphoto.net/
Posting Rules - http://www.stockphoto.net/Subscriptions.php#rules
STOCKPHOTO Archives - http://www.stockphoto.net/Archives.php
STOCKPHOTO Bookstore - http://www.stockphoto.net/bookstore/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to: