Permission to use my images (??)

macvisual

macvisual

Messages
6,754
Name
Peter
Edit My Images
No
Morning all;

I received this private message this morning from a chap in San Francisco who wants to use a few of my floral images with my permission, here's what he sent me;


"I'm a high school band director, and our marching band show for this year centers around the four seasons. For Spring, we would like to use large printouts of flowers on flags as props in our show. Would it be possible to get permission to use a few of your flower pictures posted in this forum"?
Thank you!



This has never happened to me before and I've nil experience of what to do in respect of his request. So any advice relating to this would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks;
Peter
central Scotland
 
In exchange for credit somewhere. Either on a website, or in the programme for said show, of course.
 
I'd politely refuse - unless of course he's willing to send some silver in your direction.
 
RBaker said:
I'd politely refuse - unless of course he's willing to send some silver in your direction.
Click to expand...

But do you post image on here?
If so you need to read the rules..
All images, graphics, and photographs submitted remain copyright of the respective author, and will not be used by Slack Media Ltd without express permission from the author.
images to Talk Photography (either via the website or via an email submission function) is CONSIDERED EXPRESS PERMISSION."
 
macvisual said:
Morning all;

I received this private message this morning from a chap in San Francisco who wants to use a few of my floral images with my permission, here's what he sent me;


"I'm a high school band director, and our marching band show for this year centers around the four seasons. For Spring, we would like to use large printouts of flowers on flags as props in our show. Would it be possible to get permission to use a few of your flower pictures posted in this forum"?
Thank you!



This has never happened to me before and I've nil experience of what to do in respect of his request. So any advice relating to this would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks;
Peter
central Scotland
Click to expand...



you either say yes or you say no... I really dont understand your question? you need to be more specific as to what advice your looking for? are you after money? believe me the other suggestions about credit are completly useless.. good idea.. nice idea.. but complete and utter useless...

so long as you have them agree that its for the use they specify only..they cannot do anyhting else with it.. then all you ahve to do is decide if you want them to usee it or not.. if your after money then think of a figure your happy with and tell them.. chances are you will never hear from them again but then again.. maybe worth a punt :)
 
Chaz Photos said:
But do you post image on here?
If so you need to read the rules..
All images, graphics, and photographs submitted remain copyright of the respective author, and will not be used by Slack Media Ltd without express permission from the author.
images to Talk Photography (either via the website or via an email submission function) is CONSIDERED EXPRESS PERMISSION."
Click to expand...

this post has totally confused me? can the poster or anyone explain? whats slack media ?
 
Slack media is the owner of the forum, but I think they have just posted an irrelevant piece of copyright notice that has more do with slack using images rather than someone from the public.
 
According to quite a few people here, photographs must be paid for, but advice can be given free. If I've followed the logic through correctly, the advice is therefore worthless.

If getting your photos used and appreciated by someone else gives you satisfaction or otherwise makes you happier than you were before, then give the guy a time-limited licence to use them in his show. If not, don't.
 
abdoujaparov said:
According to quite a few people here, photographs must be paid for,
Click to expand...

Quite a few.. not everyone..

abdoujaparov said:
but advice can be given free.
Click to expand...

Lots of people make a living selling advice :)


abdoujaparov said:
If getting your photos used and appreciated by someone else gives you satisfaction or otherwise makes you happier than you were before, then give the guy a time-limited licence to use them in his show. If not, don't.
Click to expand...

100% Agree... your picture.. your rules .
 
The reason many people advise getting paid for every image is simply because many on here use photography as a sole income. If everybody gives away images it makes it harder for those who sell pictures to make a living.
We've already seen wedding prices drop a lot over the last few years, and a number of wedding togs go out of business after years, simply because some high street studios can't compete with people doing weddings for £100.

As for your pictures it's your photo, so only you can decide, I would suggest however that you limit their useage to stop them making money out of it if your not.
 
I know it's not all (and indeed it's far from all, although at least one seems to pop up on these threads). And yes, people sell their advice - that's kinda my point. Giving away photos takes money away from pro photographers in the same way that giving away advice takes money from teachers/trainers/authors. It's true in the abstract, but I'd imagine in the vast majority of cases that money would just never have been spent, and we'd have marching bands without flags and amateur photographers with much less knowledge. The world would be a much poorer place without Talk Photography and the tens of thousands of other places where people get together to help each other out for "free", with "only" the pleasure of altruism and the expectation of reciprocation as payment.

Sorry for hijacking your thread Peter. To make this post vaguely useful - get him to specify which photos he wants to use, and limit the licence to those ones. At least let him understand you're giving him something valuable, rather than a "help yourself".
 
swanseamale47 said:
The reason many people advise getting paid for every image is simply because many on here use photography as a sole income.
Click to expand...

Well, I hope those people never, e.g, get friends to fix their PCs, or to take a look at their cars, or use any Free/Open Source Software, or indeed read the gratis advice given on TP, all of which are things that people earn sole incomes from.
 
abdoujaparov said:
Well, I hope those people never, e.g, get friends to fix their PCs, or to take a look at their cars, or use any Free/Open Source Software, or indeed read the gratis advice given on TP, all of which are things that people earn sole incomes from.
Click to expand...

I hope they don't let people look at their cars!!! Last time I made that mistake it cost me nearly 5 grand for a new engine.
 
abdoujaparov said:
Well, I hope those people never, e.g, get friends to fix their PCs, or to take a look at their cars, or use any Free/Open Source Software, or indeed read the gratis advice given on TP, all of which are things that people earn sole incomes from.
Click to expand...

wow...it must be over a week since I heard this old chestnut... have missed it :)
 
abdoujaparov said:
Well, I hope those people never, e.g, get friends to fix their PCs, or to take a look at their cars, or use any Free/Open Source Software, or indeed read the gratis advice given on TP, all of which are things that people earn sole incomes from.
Click to expand...

I use IT people for my computers, and the main dealer does my car, I don't know of anybody who charges for photography 'advice' and if you mean training theres a big difference between giving someone a few tips on here and a proper training course (I know I teach some)
 
Lez325 said:
say yes- It's good advertising (y)

Les :D
Click to expand...

Lot's of Central Scotland punters visiting San Francisco that time of year? ;)


I'd suggest one of three things:
  1. You ask full commercial rate and specify usage in a written license agreement.
  2. You ask for a nominal fee (up to $100 or so) and specify usage in a written license agreement.
  3. You allow them to use the image for free and specify usage in a written license agreement.
Notice that there's a pattern. Whatever you do you must specify usage in a written license agreement.


(personally I'd reject it, I've had similar approaches from US organisations via Flickr - if you allow usage it's going to be a ***** to enforce whether or not it's used correctly and you'll be talked into sending them high resolution versions for the printing - it's perhaps slightly different that it's an approach via the forum, let the senders post count be your guide)
 
Peter, only you can decide what to do with your photographs - they are your property after all. But as you've seen, questions like yours do tend to divide opinions. That division almost always relates to whether or not the responder is purely an amateur photographer, or one who derives part or all of his or her income from photography. There was quite a long and heated thread a couple of months back on a similar vein, except the person requesting the use of the images represented a successful and apparently wealthy media company, and the images were to be used to promote and market their services - in order to generate business and profit for the company. As I recall the photographer (a talented amateur) was offered nothing in exchange. Now I am not comparing that scenario to a high school band, but some of the principles might be relevant.

The amateur argument will usually include answers along the following lines:

"I happen to like helping people, unlike some of the elitists on here"
"It didn't cost me anything to take the photos, I was there anyway"
"Photography is my hobby, I don't do it for money"
"The pictures are just sitting on my hard drive doing nothing, it's good but somebody wants to use them"
"I like seeing my pictures in print, it makes me feel good"
"I'll get a credit hopefully, and maybe this will get my name out there"

The contributors who make money from their pictures (and who may be entirely reliant on that income) will often respond with the following answers:

"We all like to help people, but not complete strangers who expect something for nothing, or who intend to make money from our work. Give your work away for free and you are either a mug or photographic charity"
"If you enjoy helping people then donate your time and photography to a cause which is meaningful to you"
"Hobby or not, if you worked out the cost of your equipment, IT system, depreciation, peripherals, travel etc then you would be surprised at how much each outing might be costing you - when you give away your pictures somebody is taking a free ride off that"
"Photographers all over the world are going under because the public, businesses, and publishers now believe they can gain good quality images for nothing, and you are perpetuating the belief that photography (even good photography) is worthless"
"Only carefully considered reciprocal arrangements, with the right clients, are likely to bring in extra work - giving your work away to anyone who asks won't"
"How can giving your images away like this give you satisfaction? That doesn't make any sense when someone is simply using your property and offering nothing in exchange"

Therefore it depends which set of answers resonates with you the most. If you decide to share your photographs then as has been said you will need to construct a well thought out licence, perhaps stating that the pictures can only be reproduced for the purpose of this event and must not be passed on to any other party or used in connection with any commercial enterprise. And do clarify what of the event consists of, since sometimes the authors of these e-mails can be deliberately vague. It sounds harmless enough, but you should probably dig deeper before reaching a decision. Personally, if it were me, I would politely decline, but that's because photography is what I do and I live by the principle that my work will only be free to the institutions or individuals I support - not to anybody who asks, and expects it for nothing.
 
abdoujaparov said:
Well, I hope those people never, e.g, get friends to fix their PCs, or to take a look at their cars, or use any Free/Open Source Software, or indeed read the gratis advice given on TP, all of which are things that people earn sole incomes from.
Click to expand...

It would never occur to me to expect my friends to fix my computers, or my cars, or give me software - at least not unless I was paying, or offering them something comparable in exchange, or at least a thoughtful gift. And I think most people take the same view. That has no bearing on this discussion - we are talking here about complete strangers who get in touch with a photographer whose work they want, and request it for free so that they can benefit from it in some way. That is not the same as doing your best mate a favour, but it is akin to walking into a car workshop and asking a total stranger for a free service. I don't think that would occur to most people, but photographers seem to be exempt on the basis that we like taking photos.
 
I must be the acception to the rule then.. I have just told the OP to go ahead and thats is his pictures his rules... Yet my living is photography :) posts 8 and 12
 
If you've ever used Android, Linux, or the Gimp, for example, you're using software based (in part) on code written for no monetary recompense and given away to complete strangers.

In the case of the BSD licence, licensees are specifically allowed to use the code in proprietary commercial software. Microsoft Windows used BSD-licenced networking code for a very long time, and many, many commercial programs use libraries (crypto, especially) given away by their authors simply because they like to code and wanted to get it out to people who could use it. Hell, even World of Warcraft incorporates a scripting language (lua) that is freely licenced under the MIT licence. It's exceedingly patronising to call those coders "mugs" - especially given the huge benefits their code have given the world.

My issue here, by the way, is not with pros (or amateurs) who don't wish to give their work away, but with people who presume to tell others that they shouldn't give *their* work away. Not everybody has to measure value in pounds just because some people make their living at it.

Edit: The other great example is Wikipedia. Every time you look something up, you're taking advantage of someone who gave away their time and expertise freely, simply because they wanted to help. I've been contributing for around 10 years now. I've uploaded around 10 images in the last couple of months. I don't feel like a mug.
 
Last edited:
Your choice, but if your not interested in making money from them I'd just say yes and ask if they use them in any sort of program to send you a copy as a nice keep sake.
 
abdoujaparov said:
If you've ever used Android, Linux, or the Gimp, for example, you're using software based (in part) on code written for no monetary recompense and given away to complete strangers.

In the case of the BSD licence, licensees are specifically allowed to use the code in proprietary commercial software. Microsoft Windows used BSD-licenced networking code for a very long time, and many, many commercial programs use libraries (crypto, especially) given away by their authors simply because they like to code and wanted to get it out to people who could use it. Hell, even World of Warcraft incorporates a scripting language (lua) that is freely licenced under the MIT licence. It's exceedingly patronising to call those coders "mugs" - especially given the huge benefits their code have given the world.

My issue here, by the way, is not with pros (or amateurs) who don't wish to give their work away, but with people who presume to tell others that they shouldn't give *their* work away. Not everybody has to measure value in pounds just because some people make their living at it.
Click to expand...

Keith, I'm pretty sure the people who developed the software you refer to did so with a lot of very good reasoning behind it. And of course it was their choice to offer it in the way that they did - that is not the same as somebody banging on their door expecting that they hand it over, when otherwise they would charge a fee for it. That's the big difference.

Any individual is free to do whatever he or she wishes with their property - what some photographers struggle with is the assumption that something should be free, and often the ensuing abuse or arguments when it isn't. I have those same arguments every month with publishers and businesses and at times it can wear you down. But that's purely my side of it, and Peter did ask for opinions - nowhere have I told him what to do with his photographs - I was simply trying to explain to him why he will get very different answers. In fact the only advice I gave was to ensure that there is absolute clarity in the agreement, if he proceeds.
 
acetone said:
Your choice, but if your not interested in making money from them I'd just say yes and ask if they use them in any sort of program to send you a copy as a nice keep sake.
Click to expand...

Yes, I think that's important. It would be bad form if they didn't (offer to) send him something.

Going back many years an acquaintance asked if she could use a photo I had taken of her on the cover of her debut CD. No compensation was offered, but I agreed. The CD proved popular (as did the photo, widely used in promo materials) and one day I asked if I could have a copy as a memento. I was told where I could go and buy one - she quite clearly thought I was being cheeky.
 
Last edited:
abdoujaparov said:
If you've ever used Android, Linux, or the Gimp, for example, you're using software based (in part) on code written for no monetary recompense and given away to complete strangers.

In the case of the BSD licence, licensees are specifically allowed to use the code in proprietary commercial software. Microsoft Windows used BSD-licenced networking code for a very long time, and many, many commercial programs use libraries (crypto, especially) given away by their authors simply because they like to code and wanted to get it out to people who could use it. Hell, even World of Warcraft incorporates a scripting language (lua) that is freely licenced under the MIT licence. It's exceedingly patronising to call those coders "mugs" - especially given the huge benefits their code have given the world.

My issue here, by the way, is not with pros (or amateurs) who don't wish to give their work away, but with people who presume to tell others that they shouldn't give *their* work away. Not everybody has to measure value in pounds just because some people make their living at it.

Edit: The other great example is Wikipedia. Every time you look something up, you're taking advantage of someone who gave away their time and expertise freely, simply because they wanted to help. I've been contributing for around 10 years now. I've uploaded around 10 images in the last couple of months. I don't feel like a mug.
Click to expand...
The Gimp developers even explicitly allow the selling of their software by third parties. They say they'd prefer third parties who intend to profit from Gimp to add some sort of value before selling it on, but that's not a rigid condition.

Some people simply aren't interested in financial reward for their creativity. It's not that they haven't considered it, or don't understand that people are getting a free ride from their work, they simply don't care. This does not make them silly or naive. They create things for fun and once that thing is created, giving it away carries a satisfaction all of its own and creates no extra demand on their time or energy.
 
ghoti said:
The Gimp developers even explicitly allow the selling of their software by third parties. They say they'd prefer third parties who intend to profit from Gimp to add some sort of value before selling it on, but that's not a rigid condition.

Some people simply aren't interested in financial reward for their creativity. It's not that they haven't considered it, or don't understand that people are getting a free ride from their work, they simply don't care. This does not make them silly or naive. They create things for fun and once that thing is created, giving it away carries a satisfaction all of its own and creates no extra demand on their time or energy.
Click to expand...

The licence they use wouldn't allow you to prevent sales. We quite often release FLOSS software upgrades we write at work.

It gives us access to the best coders to increase performance, saves us having to productize and support the software and saves us money in he long term by driving competition.
 
ghoti said:
Some people simply aren't interested in financial reward for their creativity. It's not that they haven't considered it, or don't understand that people are getting a free ride from their work, they simply don't care. This does not make them silly or naive. They create things for fun and once that thing is created, giving it away carries a satisfaction all of its own and creates no extra demand on their time or energy.
Click to expand...

It's very likely they care about reward, and they do benefit somewhere down the line - they're rarely alone in their venture. There are affiliates, marketing kickbacks, reciprocal agreements .... plenty of payback. As you say, they're neither stupid nor naive.
 
Lindsay D said:
It's very likely they care about reward, and they do benefit somewhere down the line - they're rarely alone in their venture. There are affiliates, marketing kickbacks, reciprocal agreements .... plenty of payback. As you say, they're neither stupid nor naive.
Click to expand...


I spent many, many hours translating Linux distros into Welsh. There was no benefit, no material reward, no kickbacks, no payback, other than the satisfaction of doing it. Believe me, very few of the true spoddy coders who write Free Software are in it for the share options - the're in it for the intellectual challenge, the respect of peers, or to scratch an itch, as the cliche about them goes.
 
abdoujaparov said:
.

Edit: The other great example is Wikipedia. Every time you look something up, you're taking advantage of someone who gave away their time and expertise freely,
Click to expand...

:LOL: Sorry I had to laugh, you put Wikipedia and Expertise in the same paragraph.
 
acetone said:
:LOL: Sorry I had to laugh, you put Wikipedia and Expertise in the same paragraph.
Click to expand...

Wikipedia is probably the most widely used and useful source of information on the planet. It is something that mankind should be truly proud off.

Make fun of it, if you will. But we all use it regularly and learn from it, and use it to expand our horizons.

Sorry if this seems melodramatic, but why does everyone on here have to turn everything negative? I know personally one Professor who was mentioned in a noble prize speech who used wikipedia as a source, but an internet idiot will rip it to pieces.
 
acetone said:
:LOL: Sorry I had to laugh, you put Wikipedia and Expertise in the same paragraph.
Click to expand...
Wikipedia is an excellent source, shown to be more accurate and thorough on representative topics than most well known "paper" encyclopedias, including Britannica. Anyone clinging to the hoary old nonsense that wiki is inadequate because it's crowd edited simply hasn't got a clue what they're talking about.

Of course, you wouldn't use it as an academic source, but then again you wouldn't use any encyclopedia as an academic source. However, it can offer excellent primers on unfamiliar subjects and acts as a reliable springboard to meatier academic texts. Working in academic research, I've used wiki countless times for these reasons and so have the huge majority of my colleagues.
 
Go to wikipedia and search for "best selling girl groups" and note the sales figures in the top 8

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_girl_groups

ScreenShot2013-09-10at092421_zps072de75e.jpeg


Now go to wikipedia and look up all girl group Dixie Chicks

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dixie_chicks

Note the sentence about sales, and see how accurate wikipedia can be :LOL:

ScreenShot2013-09-10at092135_zpsc97eb298.jpeg


Yes it can have useful info but certainly has to be taken with a pinch of salt.
 
Last edited:
The Dixie Chicks aren't a "girl group" any more than Led Zeppelin were a "boy band".
 
Yes. You're conflating two distinct meanings of "girl group" here. The first article describes (as it actually explains in its opening paragraph) that it's dealing with the - I hesitate to use the word - "genre" of girl-groups. Featuring mainly harmonising singers & dancers with limited instrumental input. Yer Spice Girls. Yer Girls Aloud. Yer Destiny's Child.

This is not the same thing as an all-female "band".

Weird example anyway.
 
This has gone wildly off-topic but I'd just like to say something to the OP.

You might feel honoured to have been asked - it's called the warm glow factor - but there are countless thousands (millions?) of people, organisations and businesses trawling the net and making that sort of offer to other photographers, amateur or pro.

For them it's just a means to get free photographs. If you say "no" they will just look a little longer for something that they like the look of.

I agree with all that has been said about refusing to give images away unless there are very special circumstances. On a forum mainly populated by amateurs it may not be a very popular viewpoint but it has to be said.

.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top