Ethical/Commercial dilemma ....

Messages
1,756
Name
Chris
Edit My Images
Yes
I have been contacted by the National Parks Association about them using a hi-res version of one of my pics that was recently shortlisted for a National Comp. They are putting an article into Country Walking about the results. No money is being offered, either by the National Parks (comp T&Cs) or by Country walking. I'll get a credit and they're offering a link to my web site in the tag line if they have space for it. So guaranteed no money and no guarantee of a link. Not even sure they're wearing a condom. Should I take it ..... ? ;)
 
Nope, there's nothing in it for you is there?
 
If you entered the image into a competition and the article is about the competition + you get credit, then isn't that really what you were after? Recognition? I'd do it...
 
But you must have been aware that this might happen when you entered the competition, as it was in their T&Cs ? You wanted to win the money, and like most comps, if you win/get placed they do basically what they want with the images, right or wrong.
If you didn't want them to use your image, you shouldn't have entered the competition in the first place. You can't enter a comp with these T&Cs and then moan about them using the image. After all, what did you expect?
 
But you must have been aware that this might happen when you entered the competition, as it was in their T&Cs ? You wanted to win the money, and like most comps, if you win/get placed they do basically what they want with the images, right or wrong.
If you didn't want them to use your image, you shouldn't have entered the competition in the first place. You can't enter a comp with these T&Cs and then moan about them using the image. After all, what did you expect?

I'm very happy for the 72dpi shot they have from the comp to be used for promotional purposes and entered it happy and willing for it be used. I live in a National Park so appreciate the fact that organisations need material to bring people here. The use of the 300dpi version of the shot is actually outwith the T&Cs because it was never entered. What sticks in my craw is the fact that "Britain's best-selling walking magazine" with "a monthly circulation of 47,774" can't pay for copy.
 
Say they are free to use the 72dpi copy if they wish. Check out alamy's calculator for a high res and knock some off. Then say if they want the 300dpi it's £x. Publications don't offer money for shots if they think they can get them for nowt!
 
I'm very happy for the 72dpi shot they have from the comp to be used for promotional purposes and entered it happy and willing for it be used.

Then that's fine, that's what would be expected.(y)

The use of the 300dpi version of the shot is actually outwith the T&Cs because it was never entered.

Oh I see, so are they asking you for a 300dpi version of the shot so they can use it?
In which case, work out what it would cost for their use, and ask them for payment accordingly.

Oh, and well done with the comp, by the way !
 
Oh I see, so are they asking you for a 300dpi version of the shot so they can use it?

That's it.

In which case, work out what it would cost for their use, and ask them for payment accordingly.

Sadly, there is no money being offered by the magazine.

I do sympathise with the National Parks Organisation. They're over a barrel with it as well. It's just that their staff get paid to write the material they send to the magazine. It's madness that in an article that is actually about a photo competition the only people to not actually make any money out of the project is the photographers who entered the pictures, but that is unfortunately the way things are at the moment.

I have been here before and in the past I've given in but this time I think I might just let the 'opportunity' go.

Oh, and well done with the comp, by the way !

Thank you.
 
Last edited:
My own policy, and I state this on my website, is don't approach me about commercial use of my images if you're not prepared to pay for their use-if you're making money out of it's use then I want to also. I realise that the circumstances in the OP's situation are different, but it's helped me fund new gear and such like.
 
Are they giving the magizine away free? if not why should you give them a free pic.
 
Just reply with a quote. If they say no, you haven't lost anything, if they agree to pay you are quids in. Simple.
 
I don't see any dilemma. your photo your rules.
 
Just reply with a quote. If they say no, you haven't lost anything, if they agree to pay you are quids in. Simple.

you'd actually be very surprised at how often magazines will happily pay for the right content
starting from today- let's make a pact, no more free content, ever, and when was the last time you took notice of a photo credit?
although having tear sheets is nice...


and regarding your image, you say "they have a 72dpi image but I dont want them to have a 300dpi"
well, they already do- your 72dpi image is also a 300dpi image, and a 3000dpi image, and a 300,000dpi image (albeit the size of a pin head)
there is no 300 dpi, or 72 dpi

the DPI has no influence on the size of a digital file, DPI refers to 'inches', physical size- and physical size is determined by the pixel count, DPI is just a way of translating pixels into reality. Each printing device has a specific input requirement, i.e. the number of dots per inch it will actually lay down on the page (usually between 250 and 400).

her's some maths: e.g. if you have a 1,000 x 1,000 pixel image, that's 1,000,000 =1mp
dpi is measured as an inch long line, not as an inch square as many people believe, so
printed at 1,000dpi you have a 1" wide image (and 1"tall), make it 100dpi and you get a 10"wide image


think about it another way- if you have 100 marbles, and a 1m long ruler, and place a marble on each centimeter marking, you have 100 marbles per metre- you can lengthen the ruler to 2m and put a marble every 2cm, and now you have 50 marbles per meter, go the other way and make the ruler 50cm and now you have 200ma/m, make it 5cm and you get 2000 marbles per meter. If I told you that from a comfortable distance away you can start to see the space between the marbles at anything above 1ma/m, so going lower than that will allow you to see the ruler underneath, and going higher than that won't give any 'resolution' advantage because the human eye can't see the difference.
Printing is no different, 300dpi is the theoretical limit of perception so any higher and you won't see extra 'detail', but 200dpi is acceptable, and even as low as 150-120dpi for larger prints.

so as you can see, there is no '72dpi'
your monitor isn't even 72dpi- the real resolution is to take the pixel count, take a ruler, and then divide the width of your screen by the number of pixels wide- my macbook= 113, the new retina display macbook pro=220


what does all this mean, well- if you exported your file from lightroom as a '72dpi' file you'll notice the file size is the exact same as if you exported it at 300dpi, the only difference is that photoshop will read your 300dpi file as say 12mp, but will see your 72dpi file as something like 40mp because it's spreading out all those pixels over a much much wider area

to cut a long story short, adjust megapixel output, not dpi

/pedantic rant
 
Back
Top