|
What’s an online pic worth?
 |
In light of our recent discussions I thought I’d present a real-life dilemma that illustrates this issue. Not only do I think it’s worth talking about , I’d also really appreciate your advice.
I got an email from the managing editor of a scholarly journal some academics are proposing to start, called Thymos: The journal of boyhood studies. The email asks for my permission to use a couple of my images from Flickr – this is one of them:
(And if that doesn’t work, here it is on my page).
Anyway, it’s a polite note in which the managing editor promises my pic will be used “with full acknowlegements” {sic} & closes by saying they might “…need art work for the journal in the future, but this is pending. In any case, good job!” Nowhere is compensation mentioned.
Let me be clear that I don’t consider this a rude or outrageous request. In fact I’ve received a number of similar requests in the past year (most I’ve granted). And indeed many bloggers & website builders don’t even inform a photographer when they use his work. For example, Brownstoner, a blog for Brooklyn real estate aficionados that was recently written up in the NY Times, used my image as their photo of the day without even bothering to tell me. (I found out by checking a very useful little site that searches the blogosphere for your name or websites, called blogpulse.). So the Boyhood request was not out of line, relatively speaking. It’s also quite legal, particularly since I’ve already given permission with the Creative Commons “deed” I’ve attached to all my Flickr photos (Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.0 ).
So why does it feel so bad?
Well, the 1st thing is that when I follow the link to their website I see a continuously running slide show of “boyhood” images & there’s no links that I can see. So what exactly am I supposed to get out of it if I’m not even getting that? The other thing is in the collection of slides so many are marvelous! That seems ironic. I suppose some people think I should be honored to be chosen, pleased to be in such good company. What I feel is: how did all these photographers, who must have worked as hard for their shots as I did for mine, end up with their work so utterly devalued? Did none of them notice that the site is using their work without – even – attribution?
Reality time: this free use of photos is standard practice now. This is the way it works. I mean, I deal with stock houses all the time so I know some photos still have monetary value (the bigger the house the bigger the value). I also usually manage to get paid when someone wants my personal pix for print or as prints (I don’t load big files onto Flickr so they can't be stolen for print). But there’s a new attitude now & it’s across the board . It’s not just the community non profits & the student indy projects -- who used to ask for free pix apologetically & be really thankful if you gave them permission. It’s everybody. I have had complete strangers write me emails & ask for prints & when I write back how flattered I am & mention that I charge (very modestly) to make & send prints, they are miffed.
What do you think about this? How would you answer the managing editor’s request?
Originally posted at 7:02PM, 4 March 2006 PST
(
permalink
)
colorstalker edited this topic 45 months ago.
|
 |
First, I agree with them, this pic is a true gem.
Second, I would demand they put credit in small print under all the pictures they use in their slide show (just like, say, the Times does in their slide shows or pictures they put online.) Only then would I let them use the picture, even without any compensation.
Posted 45 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
Interesting question, Tim. I have had the same experience. I'm more than happy to help anyone who asks kindly and is asking on behalf of a non-profit organization or magazine, journal, etc. By comparison, I believe that any profit-making medium--a newspaper, magazine, etc.--should pay to play, and that we only weaken our position when we give it away. But even in the altruistic applications I do insist that credit be given, not so much because it drives any other business, but because it shows basic respect for the artist. If we allow our work to be used without such respect, I believe we're encouraging its devaluation and legitimizing the commodification of our work. Exceptions do occur, of course. But generally speaking, I'd rather the work not be seen at all than have it treated as nothing more than a commodity.
Originally posted 45 months ago.
(
permalink
)
cbonney edited this topic 45 months ago.
|
 |
Publication without attribution reminds me of that saying - "Getting
f%^ked without being kissed".
I think, at least for web publications, there is a great need for viligence and standards so that credit and attribution become part of the design consideration. Too often I have seen a designer's ego or ignorance drop this essential consideration. I'd let them know. Certainly an image index or "about the photographers" page is not out of order. And they call themselves a journal ....
Two thoughts on:
"How did all these photographers, who must have worked as hard for their shots as I did for mine, end up with their work so utterly devalued?"
First, "who must have worked as hard for their shots as I did for mine" is is a emotionally charged phrase, a phrase of the creator and one many certainly can relate too. I wonder if the Creative Commons permissioning may carry a different message than you'd like - they say these images have no $ value under certain circumstances. In a sense contradicting the "worked hard" with the CC's "easy to get, easy to use" nature. I understand what the CC is - still I tend to see it saying "use me".
On devaluation, I think the volume of images, the inherent anonymous style/nature of photography, the mantra of "content wants to be free" and the CC permissioning scheme all have contributed to the problem.
For Yahoo! Flickr is as much a busines of "service", an application as it is a businees of user created content. Yahoo! just announced that they were scaling back their rather ambitious TV style web shows for user created content. In fact the commercial nature of the Flickr usage as I see it - might really be content for distribution. Of course until Yahoo! applies an advertsing model to Flickr it won't be apparent. Still I suspect the printing partners contribute a nice % of revenue, maybe a gurantee minimum for being there - it really is a smart business model.
Now Flickr T&Cs won't allow commercial use of the site - so I guess you couldn't put a price on the usage of images without violating the T&Cs. Again here the "non-commercial" usage language is flagging the work as "non-commercial" when used in conjunction with the CC could be read as "no value".
Originally posted 45 months ago.
(
permalink
)
av_producer (a group admin) edited this topic 45 months ago.
|
 |
As an academic, most of my writing has been articles for academic journals for which the payment is recognition. It doesn't surprise me that that same payment would be offered for images, although images are not the standard stuff of such journals and don't go through the same peer-review process for use. I know these journals often struggle to make ends meet as subscriptions are limited and usually don't fully support the costs. Many journals now need to rely on advertising by companies that make products related to the field because there is now an expectation that journal articles should be freely accessible via the web. This further cuts into the subscriber base. So, I have mixed feelings here. On the one hand, I am used to believing recognition has value. On the other hand, the images in this case seem more like advertisements for the journal itself and, as such, might be classed as valuable in a monetary sense.
By all means, I think if no monetary payment is possible, the journal should apply the same standards of attribution and access to the author that it uses for journal article authors. That is, name, address, title, institution, website, and email address. At the least, this would allow others who might be interested in paying for images the opportunity to contact you.
Originally posted 45 months ago.
(
permalink
)
*CA* edited this topic 45 months ago.
|
|
"You gotta have frieeends..." Thanks for all your helpful responses. I cribbed shamelessly -- in fact word for word -- from Ron & Christine in composing the following reply to the email request:
"Dear Mr. XXXXXXX,
I'm delighted that you want to use my picture(s) of boyhood, and I understand that academic journals typically struggle to make ends meet and pay their contributors in recognition (for want of a better word). But as your web site is set up now, there is no recognition for the photos -- no attribution of any kind. The slide show cycles, but there are no bylines, let alone links to the source of the photographs. I would be happy to grant permission for use if this can be satisfactorily corrected.
My wife is a professor at SUNY, so I really am in sympathy with your endeavor. But if no monetary payment is possible, I believe your journal should, in the spirit of recognition, consider an image index or "about the photographers" page. This should apply the same standards of attribution and access to the photographer that it uses for journal article authors. That is, name, address, title, institution, website, and email address. At the least, this would allow others who might be interested in paying for images the opportunity to contact their authors.
Thank you for contacting me, and I wish you well with the journal,
Tim Connor"
Let's see what happens. I hope others will also chime in with their thoughts on the larger issues raised. I plan to write more later but need to get out & shoot a little this afternoon...
Posted 45 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
FYI. Very quick reply. What is he saying here?
"Dear Mr. connor.
Thanks for the suggestions! The fotos currently on the site are convenience finds via google image search, fotos qualified if no copyright statement was offered in the vincinity of the pictures, and if the picture was not included in some portfolio or art site. If i remember correctly the pictures' authors were not indicated in a number of the finds. I retract immediately if so asked, but we are obviously not making any money from this endeavour, people will be acknowleged if so desired, and people I think will not likely be deprived of revenues. Placement in journal issues will feature full recognition and perhaps renumeration, such would depend on budget and publisher wishes."
Posted 45 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
Tim, I had a look at the on-line Journal that you mentioned in your initial comment.
www.boyhoodstudies.com/
I went away with one sentence ringing in my mind: they're trying to look good at your expense.
Originally posted 45 months ago.
(
permalink
)
Yellowhammer edited this topic 45 months ago.
|
 |
I hate the sloppy way that reply is written. The strange language and eccentric use of commas in place of full stops, plus other confusing punctuation, mean it has to be read very carefully to follow its meaning.
What seems to be being said is that, on the website, images are used that are already publically available on google image search and which appear to have no explicitly-stated copyright restrictions attached to them. The suggestion is also that finding the authors to credit/pay them would be difficult. However the policy on publication in the paper journal is different - there, authors will be credited and perhaps also paid, the latter subject to budget.
Posted 45 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
might there be a difference, Tim, between the images they've "borrowed" without attribution for use on the website, vs. actually wanting to print one in their journal (what they've asked you), with attribution? dunno...
Posted 45 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
Tim
I think what they are saying that they have lower standards for web publishing then do for their traditional paper journal.
I guess they will use the blame it on Google defense.
And of course Google is no better on this matter. They have built their empire on other's intellectual property.
Posted 45 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
If you don't want your images used in this way, you can choose the "all rights reserved" option here on Flickr. As Ron said earlier, CC licensing tends to give the impression that you are open to "sharing" your work.
Posted 45 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
I just looked at the site and there are some really cool images. I also recognized some people on the editorial board so this is an incipient journal that is legitimate and could be interesting (if the editorial board is real).
He said:
"fotos qualified if no copyright statement was offered in the vincinity of the pictures"
He's simply wrong here. On the Flickr image page is a link (in the button next to "Some rights reserved") to the creative commons short license which states that attribution must be provided as specified by the author.
In addition, on each and every Flickr page there is a link on the bottom to the Community Guidelines which includes the following item:
"The Flickr service makes it possible to post images hosted on Flickr to outside websites. However, pages on other websites that display images hosted on flickr.com must provide a link back to Flickr from each photo to its photo page on Flickr."
He said:
"I retract immediately if so asked"
If he has sufficiently p-o'd you, you can tell him to retract the image.
He said:
"people will be acknowleged if so desired"
If you choose to leave the slide you should tell him you require acknowledgment as per both the CC license and the Flickr guidelines.
He said:
"Placement in journal issues will feature full recognition and perhaps renumeration"
Here's the carrot. I doubt placement on the site, even with acknowledgment, will draw anyone to you. On the other hand, placement in the journal might, unless of course there are few personal subscribers and the only hard copies will be in libraries. The images in the journal will likely not be accessible online after publication.
It's all your call. At least you have some choices here.
You could also make a new version of the image with a white border and include your name and website or email within the border and ask him to use that version.
Posted 45 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
i've had two such requests this year. one for jpgmag's "photography is not a crime" issue (available soon) and one for a seminar by a fairly well-recognised psychologist who specialises in internet studies. both have made me feel pretty good, actually - considering that i made no effort whatsoever to be published, apart from posting to flickr (which is more of a sanity-keeper than an effort, for me).
so, that's the worth of an online picture, for me. i'd be wallowing in even deeper obscurity if it weren't for the openness of sites like flickr.
of course, i haven't had a bad (or even borderline) experience yet. i'll let you know how i feel if i do ...
Posted 45 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
on a slight tangent, we've been having an interesting discussion (not a flamewar, no, never that!) over here: flickr.com/groups/sydneyphotobloggers/discuss/72057594071...
about the right to re-publish (with credit, for review purposes) a photo that was exhibited in a public park. it all got a bit emotive for a while. just goes to show how much misunderstanding there can be about both the spirit and the letter of copyright law. (myself, i'm a follower of the spirit, not the letter.)
Posted 45 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
Here's the denouement -- or maybe there's another act to come. Thanks for your good advice. I just sent the following:
"XXXXXXXX,
I realize you are not making money from this endeavor and that's not the point for me. I would like only what the Creative Commons "Some rights reserved" license that accompanies my photo on Flickr stipulates -- a byline coded as a link back to the Flickr page on which my photo appears. If you can provide this, I'd be delighted to have you use it. Otherwise, thank you for thinking of me, but I would ask you to please not use my photo(s).
If you are unable to manage this for the web site but plan to provide clear attribution in the journal, please keep me in mind when the time comes. I would be pleased to appear in your publication under those conditions.
Cordially,
Tim"
There's really no point in flaming the guy -- or at least that's not the role I see for myself -- but in fact the photos on that site are the only thing going for it. I mean they're doing 99% of the work in making the idea attractive to potential paper submitters as well as subscribers. And they can't even manage a BYLINE? Give me a fucking break...
Posted 45 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
P.S. to Ingrid, I'm thinking about changing my license, as you suggest. Not sure.
Posted 45 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
PS. I sat through what I think was the entire slide show yesterday, and did not see the above referenced shot, so he may have already removed it.
Posted 45 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
Ingrid, I don't think he ever included it. Although I believe that photographers are -- from the evidence of the slide show -- so far being exploited by this journal, my own situation does not constitute explotation. The managing editor ASKED in advance. According to my CC license he didn't have to (which is why I'm thinking of moving that license up one level of exclusivity, as you suggested). What the managing editor was obligated to do was to give attribution to my photo & the site is not currently doing that. I'm not even sure if the guy knew it wasn't happening. Most of the time that's left to the web designer, who may have found it inconvenient to figure out how to do it or thought all those pesky bylines would clutter up the design. Since at least some of the photos in the slide show apparently have become separated from their bylines on the road to google, it's very possible a lazy decision was made ("if we can't credit all, we won't credit any"). As someone who publishes photos in my work, I know a little about this. It's WORK to get the credits right. If the photographers don't insist on their rights, corners will frequently be cut -- just from laziness. Most people don't think it's important. Apparently, a lot of photographers don't even think it's important.
It's possible this managing editor will push for changes in the web site & my photo WILL be published & attributed. I doubt it. So that's a reaity. Ultimately, what makes this kind of thing so painful is the deep anxiety of photographers (me included) , their underdog's desire to be noticed, to be published, & the fact that the publishers KNOW IT. What this guy did essentially was to say, "no money, no credit on the web site & when the journal comes along (if it ever does), probably no money but (we promise)some sort of credit." Those are not exactly great terms. Yet, as a photographer, I feel so powerless & underappreciated, part of me actually feels my final email MAY HAVE BEEN A MISTAKE because now I probably won't have a chance at the journal.
This is where we are.
One last thing & I'm done. Ron pointed out that my phrase about "working hard for the shot" was "emotionally charged," & that was very helpful to me. For so many of us, this IS emotional & personal & to the extent possible it probably shouldn't be. I found the feedback you all gave me here incredibly helpful because there was a certain objectivity. Not disinterested certainly, but more clear headed than I am about these things. I know a photographer who has a "price consultant" & refers all negotiations about money, rights, etc. to him. My friend just takes pictures. Well, maybe we all need to develop a separate price consultant in our heads.
Ans now I gotta do some work.
Posted 45 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
A quick note on what Ron said: "And of course Google is no better on this matter. They have built their empire on other's intellectual property."
I have no intention to argue for or against this statement, but in this case Google has no responsibility, IMO. These people found the images using Google search, but they could go to the websites from which the images originated and find the credits for the images (in most cases, at least), they were just lazy or otherwise reluctant to do so. Google does not infringe on anyone's rights but finding images on webpages; on the contrary, I am sure most of us would be happy to let Google find our images.
Posted 45 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
Skyredoubt
I appreciate the points you raise.
An interesting discussion of the pros and cons of Google's searching policy is here on SlashDot
yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/02/26/077227&from=rss
Posted 45 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
Thanks for the link, Ron, I will read it.
Posted 45 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
Would you like to comment?
Sign up for a free account, or sign in (if you're already a member).
|
|
Positive Focus /
Discuss
Feed – Subscribe to Positive Focus discussion threads
|
Deutsch
|
English
|
Español
|
Français
|
