p.1 #1 · Contributing works and Creative Commons Licensing
I'd appreciate it if you have a little time to read this.
G'day folks. I am in communications with http://www.ala.org.au/ about contributing some of my work under CCL and I was wondering if anyone with experience can contribute to my understanding.
The ALA is a recent project funded by the AUS Gov with matched funding by other orgs, private and commercial. The aim of which is to provide for free a one stop spot for info on Australias flora and fauna, etc. See about here : http://www.ala.org.au/about/
Not surprisingly there is no funding for photography but they would love to have my stuff and I'm not averse to contributing but I don't want to be unfairly exploited either. My point being that everybody gets paid for what they do, usually - as it should be in a world that insists on money to survive. Another issue that arises out of the funding formula (Gov funding ends next year) is who pays next, what happens to the 'Free' part.
They will attribute the works to me and provide links but in my experience this is just a sop to concern for the fact one is not being paid and is of very little practical value otherwise.
I would appreciate others points of view, especially from experience of contributing to or running such a project.
p.1 #2 · Contributing works and Creative Commons Licensing
Mark, difficult to make hard and fast rules about this sort of thing.
One thing I have never done though is use a creative commons licence. I fairly frequently licence nature groups, local councils etc in the UK use my images for specified uses on a non-exclusive basis and often do not charge in this circumstance if it really is an educational and non money making project. I do often ask for a copy of the output though.
It can get muddier though with a big project with lots of funding where it's obvious people are getting paid for their contribution to the project, I would then expect to get paid but normally have been offered an up front fee without having to negotiate.
Where a project is obviously commercially based but the people do not expect to pay for the photos (ie do it for the exposure) I do not then let them use my photos.
So overall I just judge each case on it's merits but like you I think try to avoid being taken for a ride.
It makes it perfectly clear that the user has to give me a photo credit, that it's strictly non commercial, and no one can alter my images or build upon them. That is the CC license that offers the most amount of protection for you.
Derivative works means that someone could use a piece of an image for another project (like a web site banner). I don't like that one, cause someone could just put a border around one of my photos and then claim that since it's been altered they don't have to give me credit or pay me...
One of the biggest problems you'll have with a CC license is that no one reads the fine print, and they are under the impression that every image with a CC license is "free". I've had to ask more than one web master to remove my images from their sites, and a frequent justification for why they were ripping me off was the CC license.
Edit: Never give anyone exclusive rights to your images.
p.1 #4 · Contributing works and Creative Commons Licensing
Hi Mark,
The way I manage the commercial use of photos when someone ask for them is fairly equal the description of Brian, as most of the photographers here I do not live from photo but the making of them involve work and time, and I believe the use of them should be paid unless very special circumstances (education, real science, local publications, less them 40km radius from my home)
Today 15% of my images are on Getty Images or Alamy, some few sales were in 3 digit numerals, for advertising, so insect photos have fair commercial value and your photos are great insect photography, usually publishers have less money for images than advertising agencies and the prices are way below this.
When someone ask for a photo not in image bank I usually charge U$ 30 for a one time one publication small journal, this not cover even my time to prepare the photo for sending, I consider U$ 30 like "free" if I count the processing time, for a nationwide journal the price could be more.
Of course these are for the very best photos, the most aked ones, someone would need one of your average photos of no commercial value for some kind of science work, these you could study in a case by case basis.
This is what I do, today, there are some topics in your initial quest that caught great attention:
project funded by the AUS Gov with matched funding by other orgs, private and commercial
there is no funding for photography but they would love to have my stuff
There is no money to pay for your photography, in my opinion, top macro work.
BUT
There is money to hire someone to ask for your work
p.1 #5 · Contributing works and Creative Commons Licensing
Gustavo, John and Brian. Thanks for contributing.
Here in Aus, except by a few individuals at macro fora, there is little appreciation for my work. When I have had inquiries from businesses and state there will be a cost for use under license I don't hear back. When I suggest to Edu organizations I would need attribution and a copy of the output I don't hear back.
When I was selling my pix mounted and matted at Eumundi, a market 300k north of home, I was making $500 a day in the first few days selling to European tourists off buses but couldn't keep up the pace - 600k travel a day and little sleep. It has been said to me many times I need to go to Eu to sell, which seems a little drastic, though I do enjoy the markets - meeting people, talking about the work and the wheeling and dealing atmosphere.
Gustavo, I looked at the stock image co's but it's not my thing, seems like a lot of effort for a little money and not much else. It's not really the money that interests me, but the engagement of the process with interested people.
As you say John, people interpret CC license as 'Free' and there's no way around that - and I don't want to chase people for infringement, though I know it's inevitable. But that CC license you linked is the most I would be willing to give away for no cost - to the right people, whoever they are.
The fact Gov funding is up next year and the other interested parties are primarily commercially funded science/research/educational makes me suspicious of the true intent, free or not.
It looks like something along the lines Brian uses are more appropriate in a world run on money, and therefore greed - however regulated. (Referred to in some circles as predatory or exploitative capitalism.) Non exclusive, one off use, non derivative, with provision to charge or not depending on the purpose of use. But I look again and even the education system is a for profit enterprise these days and getting more so, at least from where I'm seeing it - students have to take out loans that are a disgraceful burden for anyone but the well to do starting out - it keeps the individuals focus on making money which I think is at the root of much injustice and we are seeing some reaction to it in OWS demos around the world.
Are my politics showing?
Anyway, Brian, I don't want to intrude but if you can link me to plain English templates of sample licenses you use I'd be grateful. But I don't mind doing the work.
If anyone thinks I've missed something chime in, by all means except drone attack.
p.1 #6 · Contributing works and Creative Commons Licensing
The biggest problem Mark is that there are too many people willing to give their work away for free. Not long ago I was contacted by Dr. Norm Gary who wanted to use some of my honeybee images for a book (possible the only book he would ever write considering his age). He was honest with me when he told me that, given the choice, the publisher would use average looking images that were free instead of good images that cost money. In the end I agreed because I thought it would be good publicity for me, but my images were a small fraction of the photos used and none of them were printed full page.
Then there is the Photography 401 Scam. Everyone getting paid except you? Nope...
At the end of the day you have to juggle getting your work known with compensation. How you go about doing that is strictly a personal choice.
p.1 #7 · Contributing works and Creative Commons Licensing
"Anyway, Brian, I don't want to intrude but if you can link me to plain English templates of sample licenses you use I'd be grateful. But I don't mind doing the work. "
Mark afraid I have never used a formal licence unless it was sent by the company I was dealing with.
About as far as I go is something like this :-
I Hereby licence the use of the pictures identified below for ( agreed use ) on a non-exclusive basis (for a period of....... ).
I have only on a few times had to do formal contract signing.
I suspect if was really trying to make money from the photography I would do it on a more formal basis.
p.1 #8 · Contributing works and Creative Commons Licensing
Dalantech wrote:
The biggest problem Mark is that there are too many people willing to give their work away for free. Not long ago I was contacted by Dr. Norm Gary who wanted to use some of my honeybee images for a book (possible the only book he would ever write considering his age). He was honest with me when he told me that, given the choice, the publisher would use average looking images that were free instead of good images that cost money. In the end I agreed because I thought it would be good publicity for me, but my images were a small fraction of the photos used and none of them were printed full page....Show more →
Yes John, if an honest man asked me for the use of my pix over average freebies I would certainly consider giving them but with due attention to return in kind. It's a question of value, not necessarily money, and whether it's truly appreciated and fitting to the situation. Hobby or not, you know what it takes to produce the quality of image you do. And having done it you know there aren't many with the passion necessary to match it.
Then there is the Photography 401 Scam. Everyone getting paid except you? Nope...
At the end of the day you have to juggle getting your work known with compensation. How you go about doing that is strictly a personal choice.
Ha! I just wrote back to one of these asking what he was offering besides a link and guess what?
I read the justifications people use for giving their work away but they just don't hold water. In this world if you don't get paid a proper rate you've been scammed, barring genuine 'no funds' projects that match ones own values or suit ones needs.
I too have antennae that twitch when a scam gets close enough and 'exploitation' is the translation of the signal sent directly to the part of the brain responsible for 'due respect'. What can I say, I'm an elusive bug at heart.
p.1 #9 · Contributing works and Creative Commons Licensing
LordV wrote:
"Anyway, Brian, I don't want to intrude but if you can link me to plain English templates of sample licenses you use I'd be grateful. But I don't mind doing the work. "
Mark afraid I have never used a formal licence unless it was sent by the company I was dealing with.
About as far as I go is something like this :-
I Hereby licence the use of the pictures identified below for ( agreed use ) on a non-exclusive basis (for a period of....... ).
I have only on a few times had to do formal contract signing.
I suspect if was really trying to make money from the photography I would do it on a more formal basis.
Thanks Brian. That's what I've done in the past and I suppose it's the way to keep it plain and simple. The difference here is the size and weight of the org I'm dealing with. I just don't want to give away to anyone who will make money from it down the road.
I am writing to them and I'll update here when I hear back.
p.1 #10 · Contributing works and Creative Commons Licensing
That's a great topic folks, possibly the most matture discussion I have seen on the topic "how to deal with people that want your images for free". I'm in a hurry now (taking pictures :P) but a important issue called my attention:
In the end I agreed because I thought it would be good publicity for me, but my images were a small fraction of the photos used and none of them were printed full page.
It's a question of value, not necessarily money
That's the main issue, usually the images given for free do not end in the deserved place, or the way we wanted, good previous experiences with sold images and bad previous experiences with images given for free is a big reason to shift the thinking towards charging.
p.1 #11 · Contributing works and Creative Commons Licensing
Having been looking at this matter for some time, as no doubt many have. When you leave out all the wily justifications of those who would argue something for nothing, and the self deceptions, the mere fact it has taken years to develop the skills and know-how, or the art, warrants payment in the currency of the world. Money, as it does for any other labour.
It is a matter of principle when too often the assumption is it can be had for free. How much is the only question remaining, to me, and the answer is; It depends.
This is how I intend to proceed from now on, even if I only charge a penny that penny is symbolic - it's not free to anyone anymore. And I will accept a cheque, for framing if nothing else.
And where the charge is symbolic the terms are most limited. Where it is an acceptable rate the terms are what is paid for.
It is a false argument such a stance will limit my exposure. What's given for free is not valued anyway. As those who have given know.
Mark
PS I must add my position is supported by my view that art, the pioneering spirit at the cutting edge of human endeavour, the will to excel in whatever endeavour, is the important part. Not the dissecting, naming and cataloging of science, or the vanity of the historical perspective. The rest is 'while in Rome do as the Romans', but not 'as' a Roman..
p.1 #13 · Contributing works and Creative Commons Licensing
Here is my letter to the organisation involved.
Hello E .....
Apologies for late reply but nature calls. The garden needs attention
for attracting creatures for next year and the native bees are out
with very short windows of opportunity for capture (a picture).
As far as taxonomic ID goes I won't be able to help much. I know some
of the common names of some of the creatures I shoot, the bees for
instance, some spiders, beetles, etc. But my focus is the art and
beauty of nature's overlooked creatures, and of presenting them in the
best possible light, of every kind - not in scientifically naming or
categorizing them.
Nature is where I find peace of mind - at least I started there with a
focus of will, and unless an appreciation develops for the whole of
nature and not just the cuddly, exciting, panoramic or scientific bits
it will be, through neglect and abuse, lost as we now know it, if it
isn't already too late. And the scientific process by itself is not
going to help much.
So I am able to provide thousands of professional quality images but
not the taxonomy - without help.
*
Regarding Licensing, I don't agree with CC licensing. I simply cannot
see why I should give my work away free when all else involved or who
would use it are paid for theirs. But because the project is to be
made freely available, to the public and whomever - I believe, I am
willing to draw up a license for the use of specified images for the
specific purpose of showing on the ALA.com site only, and for a
nominal or symbolic fee. All other uses to be determined and licensed
if and as required.
My concern that Gov funding runs out next year leads me to suspect the
free part will not last long since it seems everyone wants something
for their investment, even when asking others to work for nothing. If
this happens and the site becomes commercial in any respect I would of
course be free to alter the terms of use of my images accordingly.
p.1 #15 · Contributing works and Creative Commons Licensing
Update :
Here is the pertinent of the letter I wrote to the http://www.ala.org.au/ who want my images but don't want to pay for them. It was sent 9/12/11 and no reply yet.
I will pursue this matter as I'm sick of people expecting quality images for nothing and I want someone to tell me why, and why they think it justified. This is a Gov funded org so I can do some travelling on this one, up the chain of responsibility.
Ideas are welcome, I don't mind being told a better way of getting what I want.
"Regarding Licensing, I don't agree with CC licensing. I simply cannot
see why I should give my work away free when all else involved or who
would use it are paid for theirs. But because the project is to be
made freely available, to the public and whomever - I believe, I am
willing to draw up a license for the use of specified images for the
specific purpose of showing on the ALA.com site only, and for a
nominal or symbolic fee. All other uses to be determined and licensed
if and as required.
My concern that Gov funding runs out next year leads me to suspect the
free part will not last long since it seems everyone wants something
for their investment, even when asking others to work for nothing. If
this happens and the site becomes commercial in any respect I would of
course be free to alter the terms of use of my images accordingly.
I look forward to your response.
Regards."
Will get back on this too, probably end of Jan or so, as soon as I have something.
p.1 #16 · Contributing works and Creative Commons Licensing
thanks for the update Mark, it would be interesting to know the arguments of a possible response from them, it would be interesting to know the general view of publishers in this issue.
p.1 #17 · Contributing works and Creative Commons Licensing
gmazza wrote:
thanks for the update Mark, it would be interesting to know the arguments of a possible response from them, it would be interesting to know the general view of publishers in this issue.
Yes, what logic are they using to include hi iq images in what is expected for free. I think it's just a greedy grab to exclude one cost at least myself, human nature as we know it, but I will pursue it and see what they say.
p.1 #18 · Contributing works and Creative Commons Licensing
I heard back from the ALA a while ago and the letter is too involved to reproduce, given most of it is not really relevant to the issue.
Their argument remains there is no funding for photography, basically because nobody thought to include it, or somebody thought to exclude it. It wasn't considered important enough to budget for so they could get the best available images.
Here is my resonse :
Hello ......
Having considered carefully the matter of giving my work away to the ALA I must say it's not going to happen. As I have said before I will charge a penny or a pound depending on the circumstances but I will charge and restrict use accordingly.
If photography wasn't budgeted for by the ala.org.au then someone made a terrible mistake, for a national flora and fauna website. An inexcusable blunder in fact, basically because nobody thought to include it or someone thought to exclude it, the why doesn't matter anymore.
You will spend all the money on anything else and your freely acquired pix will take any shine off your multi million dollar project - when you could have had the best for not a lot, properly organized.
That's unfortunate, because I would love to contribute to the ALA. But not under the prevailing conditions.
p.1 #19 · Contributing works and Creative Commons Licensing
I Got a reply to the above from the ALA:
There are some expected changes in this area in the future - in that we and others being funding in this way have successfully argued that data (which includes photos) is a core and vital component of eResearch infrastructure.
In general, the Atlas is currently seeking funding from additional sources. One possible opportunity is that the Education Sector is currently very interested in using the Atlas as part of the National Schools Curriculum. As we progress in conversations with them, we will definitely inquire about using funds for the purchase of content and your work would clearly be extremely attractive in this context - so we'll keep in touch!
