Incense

by Bart Arondson

submit your photo


Hall of Fame
View past winners from this year

Please participate in Meta
and help us grow.

Tag Info

Hot answers tagged

18

For commercial use, you have to pay. Period. Maybe not much. If it's for commercial use, the "too poor to pay" line is fiction.


17

I'd suggest contacting the photographer to see what their "specified manner" might be, as a matter of courtesy. But the actual legal requirements are (by design) quite reasonable for reuse. If you read the actual license terms in their full, legal-language form, the key relevant point appears to be: Such credit may be implemented in any reasonable manner; ...


17

As somebody who is interested in photography as a hobby -- not a profession, and therefore not worried about making income from it -- I first consider who is asking. I've had a few requests from groups I am happy to support: mostly local parks and local wildlife preserves. I know they have a small budget but as I frequent them (often for free) and get lots ...


14

You absolutely should be paid. And not only that, you absolutely have the right to protect your work. There are dangers associated with offering "free use" of your work, as once you do, you can never really tell how far your work may be distributed "for free". The company you license it to may turn around and license another company to create some design ...


13

The big question is do you license strictly for stock, or do you also license for assignment? FotoQuote (which is what I use) is 'the industry standard' (self proclaimed though that may be), and truth-be-told that 'fact' does on occasion enter into my negotiation process if I get a balky client: "Well, I don't know Mr. Hip Brand Manager, as you know we use ...


11

I have a different take on this since I don't derive a living from photography. I do it for fun, personal enjoyment, having the pictures, the challenge, having other people like pictures I show them, etc. What I insist on is being properly credited. I get satisfaction out of knowing other people liked a picture from me enough to publish it, and the ...


10

My personal opinion on this is that, while I understand the photographer's position, your wedding album is not her portfolio, even if you want something hideous it's your right as the one paying for the job - I wouldn't agree to her terms. I believe, that for a full price job the service provider can't put his/her own interest above the client's. You can ...


10

The question here is "what exactly did you sell"? There are two major possibilities here: You sold the copyright to the photo. In that case, you gave up all rights to it and you can't now use the photo on Facebook or anywhere else, or sell the photo to other artists. In particular, the buyer could now modify the photograph to his choosing and you'd have no ...


9

You seem to be mixing up two different concepts, copyright and licensing. As a photographer, you own the copyright for images you create (unless you have other contracts which override this, such as a work for hire agreement). The only other action to take regarding your copyright is optionally registering as such (which is usually optional). Your main ...


9

For a photobook, I'd consider the best solution would be to add a credits section on the last page, or on the book flap. Morally, that respects the spirit of the licence, and since it's a private use, I wouldn't be too concerned about the legal side of things. Something along the lines of "Thanks to So and So, who provided the original photograph on which ...


7

If it is for an app in the App Store, then Apple has some pretty strict guidelines on what you can and cannot do with product images here: https://developer.apple.com/appstore/AppStoreMarketingGuidelines.pdf (iOS Developer account may be required to view)


6

I think the point is to have the copyright and CC-licence note in such place so that a viewer a) wouldn't mistake the image as yours, and b) would find the author if they look for it. So just ask yourself: a) Are there places that might make someone think you've authored the images? b) Where would someone go look to see who created the work? Put the ...


6

This is actually a more complicated question than you think, but the short answer is "you can do both, mostly". I post images online using a Creative Commons license -- but I limit those images to lower resolution (1000 pixel widest). That means people are able to use it but the version of the image that's free is one that (to me) has relatively low ...


6

You can't just use them without permission. See the ⓘ symbol in the lower right corner of the image on Bing, right next to the arrows for previous and next image? That shows you the copyright information for that particular image. You could follow that information and get a license — most of the images are from stock photo agencies and I doubt Bing has an ...


5

My understanding is that an image cannot stand independently if greater than 1000 pixels. This would be using the image itself as the primary design, where if the image is incorporated into a larger design and the image is not the primary object, then you are in the clear. This stipulation is often to prevent the image being sold as artwork by a person other ...


5

It depends, if this goes bad then out of the two probably the person with a better lawyer owns the copyright :-) The actual answer depends on who is responsible for the shoot, who is paying who and any contracts and agreements between those people. Questions like that are the reason: You should never work in any creative capacity without a contract ...


5

Now this was fun to research. Good question! Practical tips For all sense and purposes legal battles are trouble, expensive and take time. So avoid them -- in this case a simple contract with details on who owns the copyright would help. Often a contract can be verbal. Legal Here are my thoughts on what the legal situation could be. I am not that well ...


4

Another approach that will give you a figure appropriate to your region/country (as prices will vary) is to contact several local photographers and ask them for a quote for the same terms on one of their images which is similar and then take the average.


4

The Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License (version 2.5) states quite clearly: Attribution — You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work). So to comply to the letter of the license you must contact the author (if they have not ...


4

If you want to really avoid issues, be they moral or legal; your best bet is to seek advice from the rights holder (i.e. the person who took the photograph) - They may be willing to licence it to you with different terms, or advise what options they'd see as acceptable for the attribution (If it were me, and I'd released a photo under those terms, I'd accept ...


4

You do need to give attribution any time you create a copy of it (even if you have modified it yourself). What if you write an attribution on the back (and give attribution verbally)? That way, if your friend forgets where you said you found it, he/she can look on the back of the photo to find out. As others have suggested, your best bet is to contact the ...


4

Since you say up front that you think you should be paid, that's what you should tell them. a polite "no, thank you, I don't give away my images". I wouldn't bother trying to explain or getting into a discussion with them -- they already know (and I'm sure they've heard from other photographers who've already told them about this). Save yourself the time and ...


4

There was actually a really good discussion on this in chat last week. Personally, I do event photography as a side business and view customer choice as paramount, but I do also understand the quality concern. For my top level package, I still maintain copyright but also grant a non-exclusive complete license to the work since I view my work at the most ...


4

Since it appears the original work was not contracted with the intent that they would own the images (which would have required a much higher up front fee regardless of the end product), it sounds like a licensing deal is probably the best way to go. A license allows you to provide the high quality finished product, but with restrictions on what it can be ...


3

(In the US) Any image you take is copyrighted without any additional action on your part, you fully own this copyright and should NEVER part with the copyright. I would suggest you register the copyright, visit http://www.copyright.gov/ for more info on that. You can file a lawsuit against anyone who violates your copyright regardless of if you register, but ...


3

Everything in life is a tradeoff - If you go the micro-stock route you lose all control, your pictures will be sold for low prices, you will get a ridiculously low percentage and your pictures will be in a catalog with millions of other pictures so the chance of someone actually picking you picture is pretty low unless it's something unique. If you go with ...


3

I will answer your questions as you proposed them: Is it reasonable to ask for copyright, or at least a non-exclusive license to the photos if we are paying for the service? (We are not asking a lower price, and her price is about the same as most other photographers here in Australia) It is reasonable to ask for whatever you want, but to expect ...



Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible