Better seen?

[rhythmaning]

Last week, I received an email (via flickr) from a website: they wanted to use one of my pictures. They weren’t going to pay me, but I would get a credit.

Actually, they didn’t say they wanted to use my photograph: they wanted to know if I were willing for them to put my photo forward for inclusion on their website.

I felt a little funny about this. One of the reasons for putting pictures on flickr is so that other people can see them (including a Russian ‘bot that seems to have taken a liking to one of my pictures and is trying to get me to look at a Russian – porn? – website…). If I didn’t want people to see my pictures, I could just leave them on my computer.

So I was quite flattered.

But also I felt a bit annoyed – a commercial website wanted to use my picture and not pay me. That didn’t seem right.

I looked at the site - Schmap - and I rather liked it: it is an online travel guide. I was surprised they had picked the picture they had - this one of the London Coliseum (this link shows it on their site).

I can see myself using their site, too – so I guess it cuts both ways!

I decided to go for it, since anyone using their site could see my pictures free anyway on flickr, and it was simply greater exposure.

But it did get me thinking about copyright and the internet. Schmap asked for my permission (as they should do given my copyright), but they could easily not have, and I wouldn’t know about it. abrinsky has written about a similar, though rather more insidious, situation: one of his photographs, released online using a creative commons licence (allowing free use for appropriate, non-commercial uses), was published without credit by a commercial, online journal. Not a good situation.

Of course it is possible for anyone to grab pictures off the internet – without the photographer knowing.

So I am glad that Schmap asked me, and I am glad I said yes.

Comments

[psychochicken.livejournal.com]

Putting anything out on the internet risks it being stolen, but then it's difficult to show it to anyone without risking that. I take it as a risk you have to take. Sites like flicker are quite good at making it slightly more difficult to get an image that's of a resolution/quality of use professionally. When I finally get my portfolio up on a website made with better technology than an old version of Frontpage and a book I bought on how to use it, that'll be a consideration for me.

Exposure is a good thing and it's often the only way to open doors; I totally get the point of that, but there's a big issue in the creative industry at the moment - most notably in illustration, but photography is very much the same - that commissioners are trying to get stuff for free or on very unfair terms. They do this with promises of exposure, further work or money later, preying on the aspiring creative's desire to be seen and be appreciated. Quite often none of these things come.

Problem is, there are enough new people coming along that fall into the trap and the result is that creatives are getting frozen out of paying work, or being forced into unreasonable contracts and usage agreements because if they don't someone else will.

The upshot is that people giving their work away actually damages the worth of photography and illustration and the ability of those trying to make a living out of it to do so. Every piece of work an organisation gets for free is literally one less that a professional creative gets paid for, and worse, adds to the impression that creative work is financially worthless and not something one should have to pay for, and a penny they don't have to pay you is an extra penny on their profit margin.

So I totally understand your position, and why you've agreed to it - I've done it and even produced complex custom work for a client on a similar basis which was monumentally stupid. It felt good, but I now understand that it wasn't really a good idea for me and wouldn't do it again.

The Association of Illustrators is campaigning against the exploitation of creatives on a number of levels, most notably via Pro-Action - have a shufty at http://www.pro-action.org.uk/ for more info.

[abrinsky.livejournal.com]

Schmap is one that I said yes to - for pictures in Birmingham and Stratford - and it was the asking before using that was the key.

Still thinking about what the CC really means (but not after wine...).

[melted-snowball.livejournal.com]

They asked me, too, for this image. Which is actually not very good; I like this one more.

I said no.

[lizziebelle.livejournal.com]

Guess who I just got Flickr mail from? They want to use one of mine for their Boston map. I said yes.