Jump to content


Member Since 19 Dec 2008
Offline Last Active Feb 10 2015 06:06 AM

Posts I've Made

In Topic: Solent News- offer to publish/ distribute Photos

10 February 2015 - 06:07 AM

I had some tentative discussions with Solent News a while back, but they went no further.


With all of these deals, the key thinks to think about are:-


What's in the contract? Is there a sub-licensing clause?* What triggers payment? What percentage?


What is the average license fee they charge? How likely will my work attract top fees? 


If I were to contact the picture desks directly, could I make more money with less effort?


Anecdotally, I have heard that licensing fees for use on some very high profile websites can result in a mere £10 into the creator's pocket. And this is for a site receiving hundreds of thousands of hits a day. And the terms usually mean the use rights are in perpetuity - in other words, forever.


And these popular sites are then scraped for content by the infringing masses...who then use your work for whatever purpose they see fit and yes I have seen my own work ending up in some very unsavoury places that would not have been licensed under any terms.


So you need to do a bit of homework. Figure out what the likely return is** and make a judgement call. If you can't guess already I'm not a fan and my work does not end up with syndication agencies.


*I can go into more detail about why sub-licensing clauses are the work of the devil himself and are to be avoided at all costs. Been there, not good.

**If they won't tell you, or give you a rough idea, then this would ring alarm bells.

In Topic: New Website to share and feedback sought

23 January 2015 - 09:10 AM

Simon, Can you tell me how to see embedded metadata in a photo online?  How do you check for that?  I am working on loading up a new set with this in it. I thought I had this turned on to be included, but apparently it was not.  


Thanks - Pam 


Sure. I use this site to view what meta data an image file carries:-




Its a great tool. Your site may decide to strip meta data - heaven only knows why sites do this for any legitimate reason - but it can happen.

In Topic: New Website to share and feedback sought

22 January 2015 - 06:34 AM

It was only a small sample, but none of the images have any embedded meta data?


Why is this important? It can be used by others to help find you when your images walk from your site.

In Topic: Flickr selling Creative Commons photos?

03 December 2014 - 12:08 PM

Yeah, but it will probably come as no surprise to find my views less than positive...


As far as I can tell, Flickr are using the Creative Commons CC-ND-CA-BY material for commercial gain via print sales, with no revenue share being handed back to the creator. That's the nutshell...here's a longer view.


Creative Commons has at its heart a series of tags that allow photographers (amongst others) certain use rights without asking permission first. So by tagging the image CC-BY-NC-ND means anyone can use an image as long as:-


BY - there is a byline or credit. 

NC - non-commercial.

ND - no derivatives


The credit bit is basically an assertion of moral rights. Generally these need to be asserted, and I charge double for anyone not crediting my work, but nevertheless BY makes it clear. Non-commercial is interesting as I charge for pretty much every single use with only prints (tangible objects/physical goods) generally being given away...bloggers, twitter users, corporations, charities - basically the rest of the world who functions with money - pays. Many who think their use is free fail to remember they are paid a salary, their employer has overheads with everything from the cost of the building to the tea/coffee fund etc, yet there is 'no budget for images' whilst at the same time issuing shareholder dividends...I digress...Finally the no derivatives means no on may alter the work as it stands.


As I understand it (feel free to chip in if you use CC... been a long time since I looked at it...) you cannot revoke a CC license. Its a one-way street and once published as such, there is no going back. So what I hear you cry? Well how about you find the Anti-Nazi/Nazi League using your images under CC and as your moral values are not aligned yet your name is associated you want it removed and them to stop using the image? No matter how much you object and find it objectionable there is nothing you can do.


So Flickr are using the work of their members and quite within the terms. The members are wondering why...and I am wondering why no one didn't see this coming? It is, after all, the new way of making money; free content and no sharing of the dosh. And no, there is nothing anyone can do - which is pretty much why I chose to give CC a very wide berth a long time ago.


Hope this helps?

In Topic: Facebook thoughts

29 November 2014 - 01:01 AM

In light of a couple of things, I'm going to reopen the debate.


Firstly, if you weren't giving away your work on FB now (and I will still argue you are - see below) then you may well be soon:-




And secondly, this conversation may well be relevant:-


1st phone call;

Me; I have just shot an image that would make a great DPS* for ****** magazine - can I send you a low res?

Editor; Sure, please do.


Follow-up call;

Me; Hi - what did you think of the image?

Editor; Great, yep...except the art director says he's seen it on Facebook...so we won't be using it.

Me; I'm offering FSBR** and can categorically state its never been posted by me on Facebook...can you ask them to check? I would love to know who posted it if its there...

Mufflled exchange off the phone while editor asks art chap to look...

Editor; Ah no, its not yours - similar subject but useless as a DPS...gutter goes right through the subject...we will run yours...can you get us the high res?....and how much?


In this world of everything is free, how can a commercial publication make money by showing its readers something they can see for free elsewhere?


Like I said, if giving your work away works for you then by all means carry on as its your property - at least until you upload it to FB and then share commercial rights with them, with no money in exchange. In a perverse way it means those who give stuff away undermine the market, but in certain cases allow others who don't to exploit a unique content gap and fill it at a higher rate.


Each to their own I guess.


*Double page spread - one image across two pages

**FSBR - First British Serial Rights