76

From experience I'd advise that you should not explain anything (politely or otherwise) when it comes to people wanting you to work for free. Explaining things just gets you into a situation where people (usually people who want everything for free) take it as an invitation to challenge your position regarding payment and licencing which will waste your ...


58

While at a local pub I noticed a lady with a cell phone camera taking covert pictures of me with out my expressed permission, Covert ? Really ? If it was "covert" how can you know she was taking your photo and not a photo of something or someone around you ( or the room in general ) ? Phones typically don't have much zoom capability so unless she pointed ...


58

You have, as a professional, received a request from a potential customer. The response from you should be a written quotation stating your price and other commercial terms.


45

In general, the rule is simple: if you don't know you have the right to use an image, don't use it. It doesn't matter if it's all over the web, it could still be you that the copyright holder decides to sue - whereas with trademarks, it can be the case that if you don't defend the trademark, it can be deemed to have become "generic", nothing like that ...


41

Legal rights seem to vary strongly from country to country. For example: USA: Allowed to publish the photo even UK: Court will decide between a balance of the right of privacy and the right of freedom of expression when publishing France: Allowed to publish the photo even Germany: Needs consent from all people in the photo if you want to share the photo ...


35

Then public domain is not the choice of yours. Public domain means just that. People can use it for whatever purposes, even without telling who the copyright holder is1. Consider a permissive license, that requires everyone reproducing the image to name the copyright holder. Then, people can still sell the photo, but as they have to tell who the copyright ...


23

I managed to find it using this guide: In summary: The number before the first _ is the photoID Append this to http://flickr.com/photo.gne?id= And you get the full flickr URL for the image. In my case http://flickr.com/photo.gne?id=14742720206 Which has a non-commercial CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 license. Credit: Norbert Hülsmann


21

In Canada for example, photos in all areas that are public area is fair game as long as the photos are not being used for commercial use. If you are in a private area that is opened to the public, photos also fall under the fair game sense. the only time photos that are not allowed is when your in a private area that has already been stated your not allowed ...


14

You might consider using the Pixabay site. From that site: Pixabay is a vibrant community of creatives, sharing copyright free images and videos. All contents are released under the Pixabay License, which makes them safe to use without asking for permission or giving credit to the artist - even for commercial purposes. As for the Pixabay license, ...


10

Creative works are automatically protected by copyright law. You don't have to register the work, put a copyright symbol on it or anything. By default, nobody can copy it (except for fair use). That means that if you see some creative work on the web and it is not accompanied by a copyright license or public domain waiver you pretty much by definition do not ...


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 ...


10

Simple. Just write your own license†, dictating the terms under which people can use or are restricted from selling usage of your photos. This is very common. Historically, most licenses of intellectual property carried non-generic licensing terms, that were distinct amongst publishers. As the concept of more universal licensing was considered (following ...


9

Whether, and to what extent, the photographer has the right to use photos with identifiable people in them, without the agreement of those people, varies substantially around the world, as other answers and comments have covered. However, the question doesn't ask that. The question asks: I asked the to stop and to give me a copy of any and all pictures ...


9

Does that mean, that I can use that image(and other such images found on wallpaper hosting websites) without worrying about its license and attribution? No! Someone owns the rights to that image. If you are not the holder of the rights to that image or if the owner has not granted you a license to use the image then you are not allowed to use the image....


9

I think one of the Creative Commons licenses with the NonCommercial clause should do what you want. See https://creativecommons.org/choose/?lang=en where you can choose the features you want for your license.


8

Simply telling them isn't rude. Most people would only be asking because they didn't realize it was a for-pay product in the first place. So just let them know. Them: "Can you send me a link to the digital version of that photo?" You: "Actually, selling those photographs is how I make my living. So I can't just give the source file to you, but if you want ...


8

In Australia you need the land-owner or tenant's permission to take a photo. If you are on public land you are permitted to take a photo. "Public", by definition, means not private, so if you are the subject of a photo on public land, you cannot argue for privacy. However photographers have been charged with public nuisance for disturbing others - this is ...


7

If you store your images on an online repository, then just say “Sure!” and then just provide them with a link to the repository where you store them. But ensure that it is one where they will have to pay to download or pay to view anything larger than a large size thumbnail! It will be very bold of someone to come back to you and ask for it to be given to ...


5

I am not an attorney. This answer does not provide any legal advice, other than to advise you not to rely on legal advice from strangers on the Internet, and to consult an attorney in your jurisdiction for actual legal advice. TL;DR: It depends on how much your work is transformative from the original. You will probably not find a clear answer, until after ...


5

This is always difficult to answer, as it really depends on the work, the buyer, the local market etc. Therefore, you often won't find anyone responding with actual prices, which would set a precedent. However, there are resources that can help, though you will need to pay for them. The USA based American Society of Media Photographers has several books as ...


5

As @coneslayer notes, Creative Commons does indeed provide guidance for XMP information. The main thing is to set xmpRights:UsageTerms to This work is licensed to the public under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by­sa/2.0/ verify at http://example.com/pdf­metadata.html That "verify" link is optional ...


5

I would suggest asking why the people want the file, and what they intend to do with it, and then base your response upon what they say. If the person would be happy with having a low-resolution or significantly-watermarked version of the file containing a notice "Full-resolution version available for license at awesomephotos.example.com", handing out such ...


5

Just because someone has copied something without paying attention to copyright does not mean that the actual author loses ownership. Wallpaper collection sites are notoriously loose with this. You're doing the right thing to stop and think. When doing a Tineye reverse image search and trying to find the actual source, looking for "oldest" is often helpful....


5

You can use pretty much any license you want — but make sure the image really is CC0. There are a wide array of Creative Commons licenses meant to cover different situations. CC0 is special — it is a "No Rights Reserved" declaration. It exists because not all jurisdictions have a clear way to dedicate something to the public domain, even if you ...


5

Public domain is a legal status of where no copyrights exist, you cannot cause that to happen (w/o dying). **Rights have to be waived or transferred (some rights cannot be transferred). A CC-0 (zero) license is as close as you can come to legally releasing an image into the public domain. CC-0 is a complete rights waiver, but it will not prevent an entity ...


5

Other answer give good advice on licenses. However, if you want your images to be free and therefore you can't use a very restrictive license, you just need to make stock photos company's service to lose value. If you distribute your image through an easily accessible and easily searchable canal, nobody is going to pay a large amount to Getty to use your ...


5

Use a standard license A typical user of stock photos will check out multiple photos. Any new license means another day (or more) to research the implications of the legalese, in particular if they are under a different jurisdiction than the one the license was drawn up in. Among standard licenses, prefer Creative Commons license]1 Reasons: Cover all ...


4

Just tell the truth, whole of it. If they are amateur*, they should be pretty open. If they are doing it as their profession, they will actually want to sell rights. Nothing wrong or difficult either way - you just mail, describe what would you want to obtain and they will name their price and conditions. If you are not willing to pay them at all, but you ...


4

US copyright law explicitly permits photography of copyrighted buildings from public spaces, commercial or not. This includes interior public spaces. https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#120 Otherwise Street View would be illegal.


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 ...


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