Shift in Photo Ownership/Usage Rights
- This topic has 2 replies, 3 voices, and was last updated May 11, 2011 at 3:52 pm by
.
-
Posts
-
As someone who has slowly and periodically started using social photo-sharing apps for random shots I take with my phone, I thought this article was an interesting take on the current status of how those sites share/use your photos.
Thought this was an interesting read for anyone who has used or plans to use one of these sites for any reason.
Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.
On one hand “exposure” and social media are components of marketing. Some say very minor components and others say key. Regardless it has some value, only thing arguable is how much and most will agree that the business end and marketing are every bit, if not more important than being able to take a good photo.
On the other is unauthorized use and reproduction.
I’ve intentionally avoided Flickr and Twitter (flickr being one of the worst) and have kept it to FB. I tend to go through periods where I dont want to add any or very much at all, and others when I feel like uploading a bunch (but usually dont) and get more serious about “marketing”..Regardless.
I’ve really scaled back the amount of photos I post and share on social media and websites for these and other reasons compared to years gone by. Too many images being ripped, used, copied even as screensavers etc. its just work for free ath the shooters expense.People love seeing good photography, they just dont want to pay for it, inlcuding social media/content sharing sites. Where they gain alot by having people do it and the shooters get jack 🙂
Even Getty Images is guilty to a degree.
They scour flickr, offer people micro stock rates.
The same image could be under their banner wher they charge standard rates.Same pic, same liscences, two different fee scheds.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.