Comments on: Should You Give Away Your Photos For Nothing To People Who Can Pay?

By: Caron Morrison

Caron Morrison — Fri, 31 Dec 2010 19:41:00 +0000

I have all my photos at Flickr (user=parkylondon) and have them available to anyone who wants them. CC licensed of course with a non-Commercial flavour license. Generous but not stupid. Check out my site if you got a second @ Free Windows 7 Themes

By: Raphael

Raphael — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 16:27:17 +0000

I have an album of really great pictures i have taken from time to time so im checking who would like to see them, if this person is interested in some they are on sale!:)
e-mail me at makemoneyonline@hotmail.es

regards

By: brian peterson

brian peterson — Tue, 05 May 2009 14:33:37 +0000

I have been searching Google and Yahoo and kept seeing coming across your posts so I thought I would drop by and check your site out. Thanks for the useful and informative stuff you have here… I’ll be back!

By: Rob

Rob — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 12:21:37 +0000

Some very intriguing thought Thomas.
My attitude is that if someone has actually tried to use his photography as a way to make a living-like myself, it’s absurd to offer something for nothing-with the exceptions being kids/ladybugs and charities that one may find of considerable personal interest.
Non-profits always expect something for nothing although they have staff that get’s paid and rent to offices that must be paid and when they hold events they have to pay the waiters and the pay for food-or should everyone do it for free ?
Catholic Charities paid Patty Blagovich over a hundered thousand dollars to be part of their staff. That’s a “non-profit” too.
No wonder creativity, years of training and hard work, long hours don’t matter.. If everyone did their jobs for free they be living on the street begging for charity from non-profits.
That’s why the use of photography to earn a living is almost over with today.

By: Miserere

Miserere — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 23:09:36 +0000

Thomas, are you even legally allowed to “sell” that particular image? Is it not a trademark?

I was recently contacted by somebody wanting to use a photo I took of an emblematic and easily recognisable L.A. building. I had to decline the offer because I do not have a property release (and would never get one) and while I own the copyright of the photo, I do not own the copyright of the building. Not quite the same case as with your sign, but similar.

By: Eric in SF

Eric in SF — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 04:30:20 +0000

I have a very similar philosophy and I’ve turned down significantly more “Credit only!” requests from multinationals than I can shake a stick at. When a major Seattle daily asked to use a photo for credit only I asked them what did the Union photographers think of a non-union photographer being used. The photo editor said they’ve had horrible contract erosion and that they could use a non-union photo if it was physically taken more than 100 or 150 miles from downtown Seattle! I turned them down, too.

A major gardening magazine website recently used one of my CC-NC photos. When I informed them they were using my image against the published license they had the gall to tell me that yes they WERE using the image correctly because the page containing the image was free to the public but they would abide by my wishes to remove the photo.

On the flip side I have no problem with educational institutions, orchid societies, orchid students, etc. using my photos. That generosity just landed me a partially paid trip to Australia to lecture about orchids. So, as you say Thomas, what goes around comes around.

By: Julie

Julie — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 19:03:05 +0000

A couple of weeks ago a magazine contacted me about using one of my photos. It’s a small publication, but is filled with ads. I figured they could afford to pay me something. They offered credit and I told them I would like a small payment, but if they couldn’t do that then credit would work. I never heard back from them.

It’s probably cold comfort to know that writers have it just as bad. People are offering $2 for 500 words of SEO-friendly copy. I kid you not. I can bang out 500 words, but I still have to research the topic, check my work for errors, then do any requested rewrites – all for two lousy bucks. But why pay that when they can scrape content off of my site? I don’t take a job unless it pays a fair price and I know I’m going to get paid. Do I work less? Yes. Do I make more money than the people banging out 500 word articles? Probably.

Yes, I do adjust my rates for small publications and often do pro bono work for small non-profits. Like you say, Thomas, it’s good karma. I feel my rates are reasonable, but I refuse to lowball them for a company that can darned well pay. Generally, they get what they pay for.

By: Sonu

Sonu — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 13:57:57 +0000

I have had several photos from my Flickr photostream being used without my knowledge. I have either found them accidentally or been told by other people.

Its seems to be becoming more prevalent on the web and its a good thing we do have certain tools at our disposal to be able to search for our own images.

By: Ulrich

Ulrich — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 07:38:22 +0000

Good point and good read.

For commercial companies especially big ones it is difficult to pay. For every such payment they need to create a supplier account, create a purchase order, track delivery, book receipt of goods, need an invoice from such ‘supplier’, book the invoice, etc.

For them it is less effort to send out a bunch of e-mails, use what they get and forget about the rest.

That said, I don’t give away my photographs for free, exceptions being made.

By: Sam Posten

Sam Posten — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 03:14:48 +0000

I’ve had to make similar calls in the past. Schmap has asked me for a few of my NYC images, and I gave them the go ahead to use fingernail size copies. I have no idea who is behind Schmap, maybe they could afford it and maybe they couldnt, but it seemed neat enough idea like a cross between wikipedia and a commercial venture that I said ok.