p.2 #1 · Contributing works and Creative Commons Licensing
LordV wrote:
It will be interesting to see if anything changes.
Brian v.
It is the Aus CSIRO putting this together so it's deadly serious about its intentions and reputations are at stake, and given the ALA is supposed to become the central source of information on all things Australian flora and fauna they really will have no choice but to source good imagery for it.
I suspect the guy who answered had something to do with acquiring the funding and is trying to mitigate against losing face, the email is CC'd to five others in the same org.
I believe they are not a 'knowing' part of the worldwide grab for image rights and they are realizing if they want the best they have to pay. I think there will be forces working against this in particular, because I don't think the rights grab is by the way accidental - it is a concerted effort to acquire as much of the rights to as many of the images available because someone sees a great saving - and income - down the road.
p.2 #2 · Contributing works and Creative Commons Licensing
Hi Mark,
Read you post and subsequent updates with interest, esp as I'm in aus too.
I'm a structural drafter and where I work (large civil/structural engineering consultants) we have an environmental section (good for IDing stuff!) and I have lost count of the number of times I've had the usual comments about the quality of my stuff esp compared to the crappy shots in field guides etc and how I should sell my shots etc.
Something I noticed is the use of keys for IDing bugs and they rarely rely on photos as the colouration and markings can be quite different even in the case of one individual bug.
Ultimately though, people want something for nothing that's the upshot.
I too have looked at / tried to find specialist stock insect sites, particularly in australia but failed.
Off to have a look at the project you mentioned - sounds like exactly what we need here in australia but as you say, if no-one is going to fund it and fund hi-res images then what's the point !
p.2 #3 · Contributing works and Creative Commons Licensing
Hello Andy. They rarely rely on pix for ID because most pix are really unidentifiable, that changes with professional quality pix. These days they have to include and please the public in order to attract the funding and just on that score they have no choice but to find the money to fund photos. The more popular the more money, and the better the pix the more popular - it's that simple.
As far as I can tell, anyone who is giving it away is giving away crap, so they won't make much impact on the situation - long term.
I believe, like most such public funded projects, when the public money dries up, as it usually does in these public/private partnership times - predictably so, and they seek more commercial sponsors costs are factored and returns are sought.
This is why in the first place people are asked to give their stuff away. So more money can be made by the few running the show. And make no mistake, the money men run the show and they are getting nothing for free from me.
As I have said, where a service is provided free I will charge the least and restrict the use to the asking, no CC licensing where all and sundry can do what they want in perpetuity - BS.
If someone makes something from my pix I want my fair share.
p.2 #4 · Contributing works and Creative Commons Licensing
I'm receiving constant requests of insect photos from people from the childreen content industry (2 last month). Same thing, the foremost reason for people to buy childreen books and websites are the pictures (don't remember seeing a "text only" child publication.
Still the publishers insist in free pictures and I'm becoming tired of the argument "for childreen" in the end of day I left the "symbolic price" era and today I'm asking market price if for publish the photos
p.2 #5 · Contributing works and Creative Commons Licensing
There's a lot of money to be made from Childrens books, and education is as good as privatised - meaning it's not free to anyone anymore. The only reasons I can think of for a good macro photographer to give his or her stuff away is for the exposure, which is known as a red herring anyway, or the 'feelgood' factor. Neither is a sustainable argument for giving your images away, in fact it has the effect of devaluing everybody elses images, making it harder for the argument 'to pay for decent images' to be put.
I wouldn't even consider giving anything for either anymore but full and proper quote on price, or exchange of equal value. Which is negotiable, to a point - the point where it is a fair and equitable exchange of value.
Yes, I am jaded by the argument 'It's for a good cause.'. 'I' am a good cause.
And if you pay me a living price I can make even better images and you won't have to spend a lifetime sifting through the 'free' stuff.
Ha,ha! But it's a worldwide phenomenon, this 'BTW, we can't afford to pay' rights grab, or the 'pleading poor' usage. It started somewhere, probably at the 'good cause level' and the greed that's in every man saw it was 'good' and, like every greedy sod who gets a bit for nothing they went for more and won't stop until people who make 'good' images stop them by telling them 'NO MORE".
More of yours and mine, for nothing essentially. It will only stop if the people whose images they really want just say 'NO'.
No more freebies matey. Why the hell would you give what you have worked for away to strangers anyway?
When I really look at it all I see is a form of idiocy, falling for a con.
p.2 #6 · Contributing works and Creative Commons Licensing
Have seen this issue pooping in several forums recently, I think with the recent enforcement publishers are at least asking for images that in the past they grabbed from the web without even asking.
It have a natural history:
"We are big editors, located in the most expensive city of a rich country, with selected high wage editors working in and a large distribution line, essentially we (always the iconic WE) discovered your photos and think it is worthy for one of our projects, so WE are giving YOU (you is always YOU) the honor to contribute to one of our legendary publications."
Looks they see all of us like trainees avid to work for experience.
Another wrong line of thinking, esp considering people like us is the:
"If you already have a regular job that pays for your expenses, why not give the photos you make at spare time in exchange of fame ?"
R: Because of previous negative experiences doing this in the past ha ha ha ...
p.2 #7 · Contributing works and Creative Commons Licensing
I don't remember where I got these links but here they are again. And you're right. People, photographers, are waking up to the fact attribution is not a proper rate of payment.
You know what surprises me here? There are only a handful of participants in this thread. Maybe all the other people think their work is not worth anything? Or it's too much to think about, easier to go with the flow?
"for childreen" in the end of day I left the "symbolic price" era and today I'm asking market price if for publish the photos 