jerry_cargill Posted June 28, 2015 Share Posted June 28, 2015 <p>Since Facebook, Twitter and Instagram can appropriate and sell our photos without notice or compensation, I feel very uncomfortable posting valued photos there. Is twitter safe for photographers? Or is there another better (free) option?</p> <p>Thanks,</p> <p>Jerry </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles_Webster Posted June 28, 2015 Share Posted June 28, 2015 <p>Since when does FB sell our photos?</p> <p>I thought that myth was thoroughly debunked long ago.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spearhead Posted June 28, 2015 Share Posted June 28, 2015 <p>Charles is right. Here's a <a href="http://time.com/3615271/facebook-privacy-policy-photos/">link</a> regarding Facebook and here's a <a href="http://blog.instagram.com/post/38252135408/thank-you-and-were-listening">link</a> regarding Instagram. I don't know about Twitter.</p> <p>However, if you put your photos online, including on social media sites, there is always the possibility of them showing up elsewhere. That is not as controllable as people think. Selling photos carries a risk, maybe more so because photos that get sold tend to be better photos. I have one photo that has appeared on over 100 sites and on posters. The source of the photo was a licensed customer's site. I watermark photos I post anywhere so I know that my site wasn't the source.</p> <p> </p> Music and Portraits Blog: Life in Portugal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Kahn Posted June 28, 2015 Share Posted June 28, 2015 <p>Charles is probably right, but that doesn't mean your images can't be hijacked by someone and you don't get compensated. I think posting <em>anything</em> on social media involves risks of some sort. But, that's just the old guy here talking...</p> <p>One alternative is to set up your own website. Another is, well, PNet. Yet another is to use an existing website that operates as an on-line art gallery. For example: <a href="http://www.yessy.com">www.yessy.com</a>. It's been around for a while, is pretty straightforward and has good security. The subscription rate is $59US/year, and worth it. (Yes, I belong, and no, I don't work for them.) The downside is that sales are really slow, but it's still a good link for getting your work out there with minimum risk.</p> <p>Edit: Jeff got here ahead of me, and he's right...</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim_Lookingbill Posted June 28, 2015 Share Posted June 28, 2015 <p>If your photos are valued then that implies or we are to assume that they have brought a price according to past sales.</p> <p>If you're currently selling your work without exposure online then I don't see the point of you posting your valued images online because as Jeff indicated they get distributed freely by the unwashed masses with very little control or consideration toward the original owner.</p> <p>Think about it, do you really value that kind of market and/or audience? Your website portfolio makes it clear that your current audience appreciates the art of nude photography and how the prints are hand made by chemical processing. Some really good work there. Do you think there will be an audience online that respects, appreciates both art forms and would pay to have a print or would you attract those that just likes "nudey" pictures.</p> <p>Figure out how to control your market exposure online and then come back and tell us how you did it. I don't have a clue how to keep people from distributing my images online but then I don't have to worry because I have no way of placing value on them since I haven't sold one photo, yet.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcstep Posted June 29, 2015 Share Posted June 29, 2015 <p>With FB, you want to be certain that your embedded EXIF survives and that your copyright is shown there. You should also consider a copyright notice, unobtrusively on the face of each image. One way to assure that your copyright survives is to link to FB through a service, like Flickr, that preserves all of the EXIF and includes copyright notice.</p> <p>There's no way to prevent theft, but you can police it with Google Image Search or TinEye.com (I get better results with google). The Digital Millennium Copyright Act provides protection from those that would strip your copyright and try to sell your images as there own. (Stay out there long enough and it'll happen). The statutory damages are $2,500 for removal of your copyright and $2,500 for adding their own. Those damages escalate substantially if you take the time and effort to Register you images. It's a pain in the butt to keep on top of.</p> <p>Other defenses are to post only low resolution copies, or include a bold, ugly watermark, or not post at all. I have friends doing all of those, but then they can't share the full beauty of what they've done. If you're selling and have a separate sales site, then I think that low resolution is the way to go and then provide a link to your site. Getty resorted to low resolution, plus a bold watermark, until you pay.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spearhead Posted June 29, 2015 Share Posted June 29, 2015 <blockquote> <p>The statutory damages are $2,500 for removal of your copyright and $2,500 for adding their own. </p> </blockquote> <p> <br> These are maximums, which is why lawyers can be reluctant to take on DMCA violation cases.</p> Music and Portraits Blog: Life in Portugal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcstep Posted June 29, 2015 Share Posted June 29, 2015 <p>Those a maximums, per image. Whether they'll do a contingency for a measly 1/3 of $5,000 will depend on their assessment of the defendant's ability to pay, vs. fight.</p> <p>Their eyes open wider when they see multiple offenses, for sure. If you've Registered your image, then one's enough.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spearhead Posted June 29, 2015 Share Posted June 29, 2015 <blockquote> <p>Whether they'll do a contingency for a measly 1/3 of $5,000</p> </blockquote> <p><br /> The problem is that the court could easily award $200 and not $5000. 1/3 of $200 probably gets a form letter from a lawyer. There aren't a lot of success stories for individuals for financial awards against DMCA violations. And, at least where I live, even 1/3 of $5000 is just five hours of legal time. That's not much if it goes to court.</p> Music and Portraits Blog: Life in Portugal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcstep Posted June 29, 2015 Share Posted June 29, 2015 <p>$5,000 doesn't take 5-hours of legal time, unless you go to court. No attorney is going to court over a single violation. Unfortunately, if my cases are the norm, most scoundrels repeatedly violate the statute.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justthings Posted June 29, 2015 Share Posted June 29, 2015 <p>Here is a website that provides a summary of various sites TOS and a ranking (if you find that useful). <br> https://tosdr.org/</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim_Lookingbill Posted June 29, 2015 Share Posted June 29, 2015 <p>There is another issue I forgot to mention in that depending on the image's content some DMCA violators will edit the image to suit their purpose especially for real estate sales sites.</p> <p>That happened to two of my images depicting local Texas hill country atmosphere. One was of a historic structure in my local park and the other of a historic landmark walk bridge over the Guadalupe river taken at sunset which I'ld uploaded to my city's wikipedia gallery section. I knew it was going to get used, stolen, borrowed, etc. but I had no idea that both would have their contrast and saturation cranked up with my minimalist designed watermark placed near the bottom cropped out.</p> <p>Then it got really weird when the real estate website designer who doctored the bridge image called me up on the phone asking for more shots of similar hill country atmosphere type images that he'ld be glad to work out a payment deal with me.</p> <p>I told him no thanks. His site was just too butt ugly that I didn't want my images associated with it on top of the thought that he'ld doctor them to look just as bad.</p> <p>The internet really is a wild west when it comes to marketing through the use of images.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now