You automatically have a copyright in anything you create. If you give someone permission to put the photo in a book you don't necessarily give away the copyright unless you expressly sign something giving away your copyright. You just give them permission to use the photo in the book.
Don't think this is actual legal advice, because this isn't my area and you aren't my client and only an idiot would rely on advice from some pseudonymous loony, but write him back with the terms of the Creative Commons license, whatever they are (you've got them linked) -- he can use it, so long as he acknowledges your copyright.
That way his use can't impinge on your rights to use your picture.
Joeo's probably right. I'd still ask for an acknowledgement.
Thanks. He did say there'd be an acknowledgement.
Grant only first publishing rights and require a copyright notice w/your name below the printed photo. I've got a photog's contract the Biophysicist uses [he's also an internationally published photographer], which I'd be happy tp e-mail to you.
Sounds like you've gotten the advice you need, but if you (or anyone else) really wants to geek out on the topic, this is the place to start (excerpt here.) It's a good book, but I am so glad that there's someone else at work who has to deal with all of the questions instead of me.
So that's what he's going to do now...
"Places I Wanted to Invade, But Never Got the Chance: A Photographic Journey" by D.B. Rumsfeld.
also won't you be giving up pseudo-pseudonymity by getting an acknowledgment? Or is it going to be credited to "Ogged"? (which would be awesome)
1) Demand money;
2) If he or she says no to one, demand sex;
3) If he or she says no to two, demand their first-born (or next born, in the case that they've already started raising one) child;
4) If he or she says no to three, demand a reasonable percentage of their child's whatever-born income in perpetuity. This is so reasonable they're sure to agree, but just in case they don't;
5) Demand acknowledgment that this is only a limited license to use the photo in one context, and that you've retained the right to use it in all other contexts.
Happens a fair amount - much cheaper for the publishers to just get pictures from random strangers than to pay professionals for them. Some people think you should always ask for payment - flattery is not enough - because it's damaging to professional photographers, and places like Shutterstock. But then, those people are probably professional photographers and so on.
9: He could just not tell us what the book is.
Teo, I'll go to my local bookstore, and flip through every new book for the photo. If I keep doing that, I'll eventually find it - it's merely a scalability problem.
What if your local bookstore doesn't carry it? No bookstore can afford to carry every book that's published.
14 -- Library of Congress solves this one.
On topic, though, I'd think you'd want to know more about the book if your name is going to appear in it. There is surely some subject matter you'd prefer not to be identified with.
flattery is not enough - because it's damaging to professional photographers
Oh. Crap. An ethical dilemma.
flip through every new book
Library of Congress solves this one.
I think not, actually.
That's a good point, Charley; he described the book a bit and sounds high-minded enough for the likes of me.
Why don't you just change the license on the photo to CC Attribution-ShareAlike?
(19 gets it exactly right.)
So asilon, how big a sin is this, in the world of photography? Is it equivalent to being a union scab?
I have had a similar fear about playing music at open mics, that by doing so I was undercutting the people who do music as their job; but I came to the conclusion that it was utter horseshit and related more to my own fear and uneasiness about exhibiting my talent (or strivings theretowards) in public, than to any actual bit of reality. But perhaps photography is not an identical matter. I know I'd be flabbergasted if Rumsfeld wanted to use one of my photos for his upcoming memoir.
So asilon, how big a sin is this, in the world of photography? Is it equivalent to being a union scab?
You have got to be kidding....
(If you would like to listen to some music while you peruse your internet, try this.)
SomeCallMeTim: second runner-up in the category "First Against the Wall".
Somehow it never occurred to me to play "Ain't Misbehavin'" while in comments.
If it is really that bad--akin to being a scab--the photographers are fucked anyway. There are millions of people out there posting pictures. If people are looking for nonspecific pictures--misframed cars and the like--they're going to find them. I would think that the photographers are protected by their ability to deliver specific pictures, and to make the most astute technical judgments about film speed and the like when taking the picture. If you're really their competition, they've already lost. No point in you giving up sweets just to feel virtuous.
28: I don't understand the joke.
29 -- it fits though, right?
32: When the revolution comes. But 31 is more to the point.
31: I've done my share of Early Christian Martyring. But--I can't even get my head around this. It would be like someone asking you not to make the blog public, because people read it instead of various magazines, those people don't get paid very well in any case, and now you're stealing potential work from them by providing incisive ass commentary for free.
I think the idea is that people like this book guy are deliberately seeking out amateur photographs to avoid paying professional photographers.
-gg-d provides the best ass commentary.
You're right, the blog is going behind a paywall on Monday.
No, actually, that's not analogous: the analogy would be if someone wanted to use posts from several liberal blogs, pay the bloggers nothing, and turn around and sell the posts as a paper magazine. You can see that that's problematic, right? It's not that I'm screwing a particular writer or photographer, but that I'm devaluing the profession.
It depends on how important your photo is to the book, I suppose. (It's the traffic photo right?) To varying degrees, when people quote liberally (or even concisely but well) from other blogs, they deprive (at least some) bloggers of income.
It's not that I'm screwing a particular writer or photographer, but that I'm devaluing the profession.
This, I don't get. Maybe this is why SB wants to shoot me, but how is this any different from the arguments for massive farm subsidies so people can work the same land as their forefathers?
29 -- an alternate selection for those whose tastes run more to the Beach Boys than to the Hot Quintet.
(Ignore the announcer at the beginning, who has not got any clue.)
the analogy would be if someone wanted to use posts from several liberal blogs, pay the bloggers nothing, and turn around and sell the posts as a paper magazine. You can see that that's problematic, right? It's not that I'm screwing a particular writer or photographer, but that I'm devaluing the profession.
But the whole point of paying someone to do something is that their providing a service either you can't come by any other way, or you're paying because the quality is better than the free alternative. If a profession really can be replaced by the random attempts of amateurs, well then fuck that profession.
Well come on gswift, photographers gotta eat like the rest of us.
(Or do you not acknowledge their humanity -- when you prick them do they not bleed?)
If photographers had to be members of a guild, and only those who completed a long apprenticeship could own cameras, we we'd never face this kind of dilemma. Sometimes simple solutions really are the best.
They gotta eat, but if their work can be replaced by me and my little 300 dollar Sony, maybe they should consider learning to drive a forklift or something.
45 -- alternately perhaps we should consider a program of government subsidy to photographers threatened by the proliferation of -gg-dy amateurs destroying their livelihood. The department of cultural preservation could pay above-market rates for their works and preserve them in vast, climate-controlled silos.
Exactly: photography subsidies/farm subsidies.
Perhaps someone should phone the question in to Philosophy Talk.
da, cæ, thankyewverymuch - my first pwnage.
(btw, can we just give it up a little for the fact that Rummy's middle name is Bruce?)
I like that "Much more" at the end of the bit quoted from Peretz. How sinister!
How sinister!
I can't tell if he means that the Democrats should declare war on Iran, or that Pelosi and Harman should make out in front of the C-SPAN cameras.
I'm curious, so I'm going to kick this question up to some professional photographers. They should answer promptly, now that the Mexican's taken their jobs.
My instinct is that Flickrers are either fulfilling a niche or creating a niche that they're best suited to fill. This guy's approaching Ogged personally about including the image in his book; it's not a publishing house. Before Flickr, the author might not have even considered the option, and if he had he might not have been able to afford or even find the right photographer. But a publishing house would have and will—so no one's taking bread out of a photographer's mouth in this transaction. Of course, I might have pegged this guy's book wrong, and I'm describing a narrow range of Flickr sales because that's the kind I'm familiar with.
Shutterstock, on the other hand, I'd like to slap with Walter Benjamin's cold, dead cock. I'm not even particularly convinced that you can demean a debauched artform like digital photography until I see something like this site. It's a sweatshop.
TNR's got to walk a narrow line between social liberalism and neocon imperialism, after all.
You seem to be making a lot of assumptions about this guy that may not be warranted, 'Smasher. Do we even know he doesn't, say, work for a publishing house?
Peter Jaszi wrote a relevant essay for this collection.
A publishing house would have explained it to Ogged. It would be a standard deal, like in 6.
Wow, a post-contemporary intervention. Sexxy.
56: My dad makes a 1-2 hundred dollars a month from Shutterstock (mostly abstract stuff, interspersed with the odd picture of my youngest) - do tell me your objections so I can berate him; we'll both enjoy that. But at least it meant that when one got bought for the cover of a magazine he got paid!
He wrote:
My name is XXXX. I'm working on a book called "XXXX," which will be published by XXXX in January 2007. The purpose of the book is to provide readers with compelling visual renderings of XXXX’s dense but important ideas about XXXX.
While looking through Flickr, I found your photograph “The Famous Something-or-Other Avenue.” This photograph would make an amazing addition to the book, and I am writing to ask permission to use the photograph for “XXXX.” In order for the photograph to be used, however, I need the file in the largest format you have available (minimum 300 dpi).
While I cannot offer you monetary compensation, you would of course receive credit for your contribution in the book and receive a free copy of the book upon publication.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Note that I don't think "I'm working on" means "I'm the author."
Is #63 in response to #60? And is "XXXX" meant to stand in for the same word all the way through?
It sounds like someone evading paying photographers. If you're conflicted, and having the picture published doesn't mean much to you, then maybe you should pass this up. Who knows? I don't think you'll be responsible for the demise of photography as a profession if you let him use it.
64 -- but do you think it means "I'm the author of"?
Yeah, "XXXX" stands for the same word throughout. It's your job to determine what it is.
And 50, when I (addled) wrote 22 I was misreading 19 as stating that your pwnage was five-thousand-fold, which is what I was affirming. On rereading I agree with da's sentiment as stated but do not think it goes far enough. You were in a fine fettle last night, I got belly/boffo laughs from a couple of your comments on various threads.
I bet he is the author. I doubt if a designer who actually works for a publisher would have the nerve to ask to use a photo for free. Unless it's a very small specialty press. Maybe you should ask to see a sample chapter, in order to determine whether it's a work with which you would care to be associated. But I think you should ask for money on principle, even a nominal sum. He's not giving his ms. to the publisher for free.
As for the photography business, Corbis and Getty ate the low end a long time ago, so the mouth you'd be taking the bread out of is Bill Gates'. Mmm, enjoy.
I am prone to understatement, Clown.
I laughed just as hard when I read mike d's comment again just now.
So complicated. Unless he's lying about his name, he's not the author. The book is available for pre-order on Amazon, so I can see who the author is. It is a small specialty press. Oy.
This is getting boring.
You can guess Bush's nickname for Pervez Musharraf is. But what if it turns out that Musharraf really does have a serious kink? Bush's jokes about Perv and the goat would really fall flat then, and might even precipitate a nuclear crisis. (Germany doesn't have nukes, so goosing the Prime Ministress was no biggie.)
That letter definitely sounds like something written by an editorial assistant or some such rather than an author. When he says he can't offer you money, that's a little suspicious, but if it's a small specialty press they may just not have the money to pay photographers. Seems like your call.
72: Then maybe you should just make sure you retain copyright, and not worry about money after all. They probably aren't making much.
73: Are you changing the subject because you're bored, Emerson? or posting to the wrong thread?
I don't think that a Pervez-nickname thread exists yet. Copyright law is not one of my interests.
"Working on" is exactly the language I 've used when ghostwriting/rewriting/editing as a freelancer, which this person may be. I don't find it suspicious that he says he can't pay you; he's just being up front and sparing both of you the trouble of further exchanges over money. The profit margins at small specialty presses are tiny, and it sounds as though the content of your photo is specific enough that finding an existing as-yet-unpublished photo for purchase at a reasonable price might be pretty difficult and time-consuming. I'd say you're off the hook.
I'm not very interested in copyright law, but I am interested in the impact the big internet stockhouses have had on photography as an occupation, and on illustrators as well. Every day I thank god I didn't try to make it as an illustrator. Almost every day.
But it's always fun to anticipate the next nuclear disaster. Some guy on Flickr has an amazing series of photos of Chernobyl.
Sweet Jeebus. Let him use the photo for free. Find out how much he would have had to pay a pro, and donate that amount to a photographer. Or start taking applied mathematics and econ courses. Model the effect of your donation, including the extent to which your decision will effect similar decisions by your reading public and members of their social network. Determine the decrease (or increase) in the amount of photography created in either case (allow or don't allow); make sure to include a factor that rates the quality of the work produced in each case. Put the model on the web so others don't have to repeat your work.
80 makes me wonder why we have not heard any invocation of Kant from our resident invoker of Kant, on this thread.
Well, I was going to say that there's no need to bring the categorical imperative into it, but that would have brought the categorical imperative into it. You forced my hand, Clownæ. Thanks a lot.
You know, I don't think I even have a 300dpi version of the photo, so this is probably all moot.
Is this the right thread to talk about how the Spurs are in first place, and the Mavericks in last place, and to ask Armsmasher why exactly this is so?
I meant in their division, hater.
the analogy would be if someone wanted to use posts from several liberal blogs, pay the bloggers nothing, and turn around and sell the posts as a paper magazine.
Am I the only one who's gotten multiple queries from ppl who are trying to set up, not pper magazines, but blogs, that do exactly this? With maybe promises of payment "in a year, maybe"?
I'd possibly let someone use a post of mine in a dead tree mag, just for the sake of the clip; but blog reprinting without payment? Does anyone do this?
It's been a weird season so far. Atlanta is the best team in the East to date. Atlanta!
I note that the Reign of Kwame has been momentarily forestalled by injury. Once it starts, the relative standings of other teams will be moot.
Ben Domenech's latest project is relevant here. I'm not sure if he pays the bloggers, but there's no mention of payment on the site.
89 - I'll believe the hype when I see proof.
At least he's upfront about his plagiarism now, eh?
Joe, I'm stealing your "Nancy boy" tshirt idea. Please don't sue me.
Sure, that one's free. Just send me one.
91: There is a book in which is inscribed every unbeliever's name. Yours comes after ogged's and Pooh's.
Is this the right thread to talk about how the Spurs are in first place, and the Mavericks in last place, and to ask Armsmasher why exactly this is so?
No, because I'm in Philly on vacation. I'll address this when I come back or when the Mavs turn it around, whichever I acknowledge first.
I was contacted out of the blue like this for a photograph I had taken. I had gotten a good shot of a polling place the night before election day with a good view of the wheelchair-access booth, and a small magazine for the spinal-injury community wanted to use it for their cover picture. It was clearly a small outfit, so I just asked for credit and a copy of the issue. The deal
My thoughts on how this all affects the world of commercial stock photography lines up with 30/42 - there's no natural right to make a living taking random photographs, and I don't feel any particular deference to those people.
Vacation? In Philly? Were the hotels in Omaha and Akron full up?
The old-time photographers are almost extinct. The new digital idiot cameras make photography too easy.
98 is weird, Philly is obviously preferable to both Akron and Omaha.
I think the idea, 100, is to imply otherwise.
I've got a photog's contract the Biophysicist uses...
After a day of writing, the first thing I think when I read this thread is JESUS! How in God's name will future historians be able to figure out what the fuck that means.
On its heels is JESUS! What kind of historian would be gathering data from Unfogged comments threads?
Then I realize, one who would write a killer book. Why not beat him to it?
OT, but here's a Borat lawsuit.
107: Have we talked about that before? Because I've had that thought -- future social historians swimming in much too much data, immersed in a million million Myspace pages and blog comment threads. If anyone's reading this for their thesis in 2070, my apologies for the verbosity.
Have we talked about that before?
I don't think so. I've thought about it before, usually in conjunction with thoughts like "Damn, there were a fuckload of newspapers back in 1890." Then I remember, we may not have newspapers, but we're still inundated with words. Hopefully, though, MySpace will be dead and gone by 2070, although Unfogged? I don't know. It's strange to think of y'all handing the reins to someone else once dementia sets in, but one day it'll have to happen.
I think we have discussed this before, although it may have been in a different context (I don't recall any specifics). It's an interesting thing to ponder what's going to happen to all this in the long term. Hard to say.