One of my Flickr images (canal not mtb) has apparently been selected for use, by a small canal mapping company. They said they give me credit & a free map.. I'm very happy with this, so is there any reason's I shouldn't give permission or place 'limits' on it's use by them?
(there was a thread before but I can't find it)
PS: I'm a piss poor photographer & it's just a "snap" I took
I occasionally get pictures for the work I do or for my website by emailing people and most are friendly and happy to let me. I'm not a big multi national and the work I do is often for charities. I would happily do the same if anyone asked me. I might be tempted to place a restriction that can only use for the particular use they are requesting with the caveat that I would most likely be happy for them to use elsewhere if come back and check.
that exactly the phasing I want Nick, they sound like an honest bunch & I doubt my photograph would ever be used elsewhere, but would like the chance to protect myself, many thanks.
Only reason I can think of is that I've had three such requests from what sound like similar organisations in the last little while, and am yet to receive a free anything, despite the promises...
Pictures of avalanches can cause a whole host of trouble.
drac that just "whossed" right over my head... do what?
Anything non commercial / educational / well meaning I'm happy to let use my photos for nought. Commercial sites have to pay...
dear god.. I seen the thread up to the point where the permission was asked by the bbc & not looked at it since.
Wow, just wow..
Footflaps, it's commercial but a small 3 person venture commercial, not some huge conglomerate
Personally I'd be tempted to let a small organisation use my images so long as there was some sort of transaction.
Photography is a hobby to me but I don't think it's fair to work for free when there are people trying to make a living that wouldn't be able to afford to do lots of free work.
But if people /organisations are giving something (or you are happy to make a donation) then it's ok.
issue them a non-exclusive licence to use for a set period (say 2-5 years) web and for the print run of the map. and for the U.K. only.
this way it covers you against any 3rd party use.
I was asked by the Edinburgh tourist people to use one of mine - which was funnily just a snap
I had no problem with this, they ask every year for permission which is fair enough
And now with the current legislation being pushed through parliament a credit/payment/permission will be a thing of the past. All you have to do is carry out a 'diligent search' and say you couldn't find the owner of the image and use it for whatever you want for free.
"I found it on the web somewhere, but when I looked again the site wasn't there, I can't remember the URL?"
Is all the excuse you need to use any image you like for free.
I guess some of you are happy for your theft to be legitimised, they are just photos after all.
If you are not happy about that sign this
[url= http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/49422 ]http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/49422[/url]
More info here [url= http://www.stop43.org.uk/ ]http://www.stop43.org.uk/[/url]
Are there any people in the pic ? Need to make sure you have their consent.
[quote=hels ]Are there any people in the pic ? Need to make sure you have their consent.
No you don't
P.S that's a rather paranoid interpretion of the legislation. I think it was more designed to allow the use of Orphan Works ?
Yes you do.
You don't *have* to have it, but a model release will cover you if they say for instance "actually I hate canals and I'm not happy to be used in a photo which implies that I do".
But you don't need one for editorial photography
P.S that's a rather paranoid interpretion of the legislation. I think it was more designed to allow the use of Orphan Works ?
But it means the creation of an orphan work can be done in seconds, strip the metadata (if it hasn't been done already), look for the creator 'diligently' the use the image for whatever you want.
Define a 'diligent search' ? How many images/photographers are there out there?
Not to mention this legislation contravening the Berne convention and copyright law. And what about other countries? Photographers in America and Europe are watching this with interest as images and their use are effectively worldwide and this legislation means their work is free to use too but breaks their copyright and intellectual copyright laws too. How does that work then? What kind of legal shitstorm will result?
It's big media getting cosy with the government and wanting content for free from the small man.
Yes you do
I think "not necessarily' is maybe the better answer.
http://www.ireleaseapp.com/article.php?number=55
You really don't. Have you seen images in newspapers where celebs have been 'papped'? Did they all give their permission for them to be sold to the newspaper and printed?
[quote=hels ]P.S that's a rather paranoid interpretion of the legislation. I think it was more designed to allow the use of Orphan Works ?
since facebook strips all exif data, there are going to be *millions* of "orphaned" works available soon...
Yes you do.
Depends on the use.
Not for editorial. Probably for advertising though.
Let's not talk abotu Kate Middleton.
[quote=irelanst ]You really don't. Have you seen images in newspapers where celebs have been 'papped'? Did they all give their permission for them to be sold to the newspaper and printed?
that's editorial, not advertising
that's editorial, not advertising
I didn't think the example through too well!
It's big media getting cosy with the government and wanting content for free from the small man.
Hard to argue with this.
It might be intended to make my job as a journalist easier, but the contradictions with other nations' laws are likely to just make it more confusing.
It might be intended to make my job as a journalist easier,
That was never the intention, it's more about the likes of google and the BBC with its millions of user submitted content it would like to exploit.
They are trying to use the excuse of museums/education and their huge archives of old work and apply the same constraints to work belonging to creators who are still alive and working (though how much longer they can make a living when everything they create can be had for free).
You can't have a law to enable historical works to be used in a not for profit way* by museums/education and apply that to a market economy that relies on licencing and payment for the creators to carry on creating. It's the thin end of a wedge that could have implications for all intellectual property in various forms. The government likes to piggyback 'Creative Britain' and to be seen schmoozing the big hitters in film/music but want to shaft the visual creators.
*actually you can, it's the current copyright act and human rights law plus Creative Commons licensing that most people understand. Evidently stripping metadata is illegal yet nobody has ever been prosecuted.
Well I got a couple of free waterways maps out of it, so am pleased
http://www.heronmaps.com/ sound like a small venture, so I wish them well.