What would be your reaction?

[Tom Hildreth]

A realty company in a wealthy Vermont town contacted me by email asking if they could use my image below. In a renewed spirit of cooperation and in the hopes of getting my work "out there" I just said, "Sure, you can use it." You may wonder why we didn't talk money. I didn't care about it, that's why. My dissapointment with trying to generate income with photography via the internet could fill a book, so why bother I thought.


I checked their website the other day, and what do you know?  They have my image right there on the front page.
It looks like this

About all I can say is my cynicism is well-founded. Not only was no attempt made to voluntarily pay me, but no attempt was made to properly attribute the photo, and the bozos behind this website seem to know little or nothing about image handling and editing.  In the end, I'm glad my name isn't associated with the image, it would be harmful, not helpful. 

I run into this all the time. Just yesterday I had a professor from Texas ask me for some historic images. His statement was that, "He wanted to know if he could obtain any copies of photos of" a certain subject matter he had seen posted on some of my pages. First, you notice there was no offer of reimbursement, but more importantly, I had to repond by saying there were today many ways to obtain imagery, including prints on paper, JPEGs via email, and TIFFs (which would require competent editing) sent in the mail on a CD. Sounds to me, through my mud-colored glasses, that this is just the beginning of another dissapointing episode. I wish time would prove me wrong, but I don't think so.

Yours in cynicism

[radiophoto]

I'm with you, Tom.  After several years of actively attempting to market myself and my services as a photographer I decided that the general public would rather have "cheap and plentiful" (aka Wal-Mart, Sears, et al.) and "cookie-cutter" (ditto, plus Olan Mills and their ilk) over "unique and creative".  So now photography is a very expensive (albeit beloved) hobby.  I don't blame you for being cynical.  Our stories are different but the experience is similar.

If I were you I wouldn't set myself up for another disappointment with this Texas prof.  Ask for money, and be fair to yourself on the amount.  If he balks, simply suggest that he obviously doesn't want the images badly enough. 

[jake]

People value things that they have to pay for. Even if the money isn't important to you, the work you've done is. So you charge a one time fee and make them sign a simple contact for use that makes clear they have only one-time publishing rights, that use is subject to approval by you and subject to reproduction quality requirements, and that re-use for other purposes requires your permission. If you don't care about the money, the fee can be nominal (though I would encourage you to set a fair price based on your costs, etc.) - $100 per image per use. But if they have paid $100, they will want to make sure they use the image correctly. And if you have a contract signed that includes a clause about reproduction quality, you can require a blurred super-compressed image like the one on the real estate site be taken down and redone. And you can demand proper attribution. You can always watermark your photos, removing the watermark only when proper attribution appears on the website or page proof you are given to review.

Most people are ignorant of the way things work in the photo world. They think photographers just take a photo and that's it. They have no idea how much work and patience goes into a good image, and that craft is 99% of the value of what you do. The rest of the people are just trying to get something for free. The former can become good customers if you give them a little education in contracts and value. The latter weren't customers to begin with, so losing them is no loss.

[LarryD]

I was asked why I did not go Pro recently.. I told them... " It will lose the fun for me." And they frigged up a real nice photo There Tom.

[shadowfox]

A few times people asked to use my pictures from stumbling upon them on flickr.  I simply said no because it's obvious that they just need it for their businesses, not based on any artistic merits.

[Major Black]

I agree with Jake. Very good advice.

[Madrigal]

Tom- that is a beautiful shot. Don't blame you for getting discouraged. Jake's advice makes perfect sense.

It truly is amazing how many people depend on computers and the internet for revenue, but don't bother to learn how to use them effectively.

I had an architecture student working on her undergraduate thesis ask for the use of a shot I took at Sutro Baths in San Francisco. I have no problem with that. I certainly wouldn't have any problem whatsoever charging someone who was actually trying to use a shot for a business, however.

[Greg M]

  An ex co-worker of mine asked me to photograph a local landmark and he would pay for my expenses plus give me a commission.  "Sure", I said,  and because he was a nice guy I went ahead and took him at his word.  I not only never collected, but I noticed my photos on a site of his, no credit, no cash.  He left his job soon after and went several states away.
  This happened just after I decided to no longer be so cynical and to trust someone.  Common story I am sure.

[Tom Hildreth]

First, I should give Jake a big thank you for his well thought-out advice. I agree with all he has said, though educating a user to the extent he suggests is likely beyond my ability. From previous experience, back when I first put images on the internet about 10-12 years ago, when I send a prospective client my price list, (and mine had no reproduction quality requirements), this is the last time I ever hear from them.

There is a fellow to whom I have contributed a couple of dozen historical (40-50 year old) military avaition photos for a book he may publish. Actually, half of these he grabbed off the internet, many from sources which were not the same as the ones to which I uploeaded. I have told him (casually, by email) more than once that when it comes time to get the book published, he should contact me for hi-res versions of the photos. My expectation is that he will forget to do this, and the photos won't be optimum quality reproduction. Depending on the type of book, this may be a problem. Last time he talked about it he was thinking of the Images of America series that is so popular in bookstores-the series that has illustrated histories of America's towns in it. In that case, it likely won't matter much, but if it were to be a largish glossy book, using these internet images will be problematic. I bring this example up because it is typical of the difficulties I have encountered with my images on the internet. It's a pain (unreimbursed at that) in the butt. But that doesn't stop me from uploading more each day. I simply have too many in my collection not to do it, what good are they sitting in my file cabinets?

About the waterwheel photo. You have probably had something like that day happen.  I had one roll of slides in the camera, and went for a morning drive to an area unfamiliar to me. It seemed like every half-mile I was wowed by something I saw and just shot the whole roll as I drove along. Almost every shot on that roll was "golden". One of the best rolls I have ever taken, and very hard to explain. I was so enamored of this one below that I didn't see the aperture outline in the sky for the first couple of years!

[LarryD]

Funny that this thread should come back to life at this time. I just got this mail today.

Nan Goldin Slideshow.
     

Hi there,

I'm working at the studio of Nan Goldin in Paris, I'm currently working on a slideshow about graves with her. I found the image below while looking through Flickr and was wondering whether you would be happy for me to show it to her, and what you felt about the possibility of it being included in the slideshow?

www.flickr.com/photos/jokerphotography/1886317090/in/photostream/

Please let me know what you think is possible.

thanks,

Alex

[Tom Hildreth]

I've no idea who Nan Golden is, but it is impossible to lightly dismiss such a communication because you simply never know if it could lead to something significant for you. Then again we do know three things here: 1. Getting your image means they do not need to go out and take the shot themselves. 2. They aren't likely to pay you, because they haven't brought up the subject. 3. If they were looking at your print portfolio, they would be more likely to start talking money-but the internet? No way. It's all too easy for them to skim images for free.

I just finished watching a movie. I let the credits roll, and watched as several hundred names rolled past. Much of the music in this film was 50+ years old, but still seems to be protected by repeatedly-renewed copyright. Everyone in the film is a union member, so they ALL get paid for their efforts. Everyone is protected. The photographer putting his/her work up on the internet stands alone, without support or legal protection. 

[LarryD]

My reply was. "Yes you can show it to her. Past that we will need to talk."

[Tom Hildreth]

That's as good a reply as any, Larry. I hope you hear from them. And I hope you let us know about it, too.

[LarryD]

Well I need a new car... LOL

[Glenn Thoreson]

Though I don't do any digital/internet stuff (I don't like it), I do give away most of my silver prints to my friends. I do have prints in a museum exhibition that will open in May. That's as good as it gets for me. Anyone that comes around wanting to use an image for "something" will have to pay. Period.
Of course, since I don't have anything on the 'net, that will never happen. I am my own best kept secret, you see.