Tony Wu's excellent response to requests for free images
Posted 15 October 2011 - 03:48 AM
Instead of composing yet another lengthy reply, you can now just send a link to the excellent reply that Tony Wu has composed and that he is sharing under a Creative Commons license.
I find the text comprehensive, educational and polite, hence I will start using it as my standard reply for unreasonable requests.
I urge fellow Wetpixelites to sign on and use it as well.
Big Thanks to Tony Wu for putting together this tool!
Posted 15 October 2011 - 03:19 PM
One of the divers asked if my pics from the trip would be on a website that they could copy them.
I said they were available for purchase on my website and gave her my card.
She responded, "OK, I'll put my son on it. He might be able to get a copy. He is good with computers"
Nauticam D7000, Inon Z-240's, 60 micro, 105 micro, Tokina 10-17
Posted 16 October 2011 - 12:31 AM
I find that sending this :
make people realize too.
Posted 16 October 2011 - 01:46 AM
Like all the best rules its flexible, but in 99% of circumstances it works well enough. I know one colleague who automatically forwards a similar link the moment the 'We have no budget' phrase is mentioned...what this statement actually means is 'we have plenty of money but we want to keep it for ourselves'.
Tony's open letter is good, but I do wonder if it's a bit long.
Based on that, how many will read it? After all, the intended audience will be too busy investing time looking for another free image or two...but having said that I will use it next time someone comes looking for a freebie.
Edited by decosnapper, 16 October 2011 - 01:53 AM.
Posted 16 October 2011 - 05:40 AM
Having said this, I do give "casual" pictures to friends and I make donations to the two causes I support. But when ppl who get paid themselves out of a project approach me for "free labor or resources" I find Tony's text brilliant.
Posted 16 October 2011 - 07:41 AM
1. The person offering such a service knows nothing about inherent moral rights with intellectual property - i.e. the right of attribution/credit.
2. The person offering such a service knows all about moral rights, but hopes the gullible will say yes.
In the two examples above, neither approaches/methods are professional. This automatically rings alarm bells. Will they pay my bill? Will they use images outside of the terms of the license? In other words, will they act professionally...chances are they won't.
Creators are entitled (caveats apply...) to a credit, its not something that can be offered as a bonus. As an aside, for those exempt from moral rights (Here in the UK, newspapers and magazines) I put it in the contract when material is supplied +25% is added to the bill if a credit is omitted. To date, this clause has yet to be invoked.
Edited by decosnapper, 16 October 2011 - 07:43 AM.
Posted 17 October 2011 - 09:53 PM
(TESCO is a British supermarket food chain.)
I buy my own photographic kit. Diving equipment manufacturers and diving services suppliers get even-handed treatment from me whether they choose to advertise in the publications I write for or not. All the equipment I get on loan is returned as soon as it is finished with. Did you know you can now get Diver Mag as an iPad/Android app?
Posted 19 April 2012 - 09:04 AM
"We will credit you", by the way, is generally a sign of naivety with respect to authorship but it can arise legitimately if you work for a content creating organization. Many times only the organization is credited.
For example, if I create a graphic or take a photo on behalf of an agency or media company (newspaper, graphic design firm, magazine etc.) sometimes only the organization I work for will be listed as the author (I have had both happen to me - so that is why I am giving thes examples).
This is not always a cabal against the photographer. For example, I photographed basketball games for my college newspaper and while photos running in the newspaper had my name credited, conglomerations of basketball photographs provided to the university (that featured ~6 photos from past several decades) just referenced the newspaper and not each of the photographers who took the exhibited photographs.
Posted 22 May 2012 - 08:45 AM
I have worked as an unpaid reviewer for the editing websites since 2002. Most all hardware and software is sent to me free of charge, however, in no way am I obligated to provide either positive or negative evaluations. Any suggestions I make regarding products are a result of my own, completely, personal opinions and experiences with said products.
Posted 24 May 2012 - 04:56 PM
Posted 03 June 2012 - 01:12 PM
D300, D7000, D7100. 10.5, 10-17, 16, 10-20, 17-70, 60, 105, 150 Hugyfots, Issota, Subtronic Novas, Seacams 350, YS250s, YS-D1s
Posted 06 July 2012 - 09:09 AM
Several photographers (some of which are WetPixel members) kindly allowed their images to be used free of charge. Naturally, they were acknowledged in the paper and their images given full credit.
I thought it was cool especially when our work was put on the front cover of the journal it was published in.