Powered by Blogger.
RSS

Selling Stock Photography Re: Acclaim/Pinterest

 

Peter, it's fair to say I don't know what Angie's target market is. When I said art buyers, I really did mean *art* buyers, rather than commercial picture editors. Their attitudes may vary in your locale. My lecturers and visiting art buyers all advised against watermarking as even a faint one can look like a fault in the image.

Speaking of your locale, I know your authorities try very hard to make you think otherwise, but the US does not own or even control the rest of the world. In my country, we are not made to do a load of unnecessary admin for every picture we take. Imagine the workload for an event photographer or someone at the London Olympics! The effectiveness of your system is questionable anyway, thanks to the types of people I mentioned in my previous post. If your images happen to catch their untrained eyes, they will end up distributed all over the internet anyway, regardless of copyright registration.

In my country, you create something and you own the copyright, outright, until an average lifetime has passed AFTER your death. For a photograph, so long as you never let anyone else get their hands on your negative or digital raw file, you can prove you own the original. The only way copyright on a creation changes ownership in this country is if the author or whoever inherits their estate sells or gives the work to someone else in a legally binding, documented manner. We have exactly the same issues with annoying morons nicking our work and passing it on, uncredited, to all and sundry, but at least we don't have anyone trying tell us that registering every individual frame with some anonymous bureau will work like a magic bullet to deter those people. People like that are either too ignorant to think of checking whether what they do is legal, or just couldn't care less because they don't believe they'll get caught, or that the consequences could be worse than the wag of a finger by an unsmiling schoolteacher.

How the stock agencies survive is another discussion altogether.

Anyway, the main thrust of my previous comment stands: that Angie might like to go and have a look at Pinterest to understand how it works, and then decide if she still doesn't want her images appearing on there.

Avril

--- In selling_stock_photography@yahoogroups.com, "Peter Noyce" <groups@...> wrote:
>
> >>2. Publish as above, but watermark everything. Take the risk that this
> defacing of your own work won't put off serious art buyers. It will, though.
>
> 3. Don't publish online. As far as getting your work in front of art buyers
> is concerned, this is probably equivalent to retiring from photography and
> selling your equipment.
>
> Avril
>
>
>
> In which case Getty, Alamy, AGE, etc are presumably going out of business
> due to buyers being put off
>
>
>
> In a commercial environment a faint watermark is accepted and understood.
>
>
>
> Alternatively use un-watermarked images, register everything with the US
> copyright office and set up a system to find and pursue every infringement
> and sue accordingly with punitive damages
>
>
>
> Kind Regards
>
> Peter Noyce
> <http://www.peternoyce.com/> www.stock.peternoyce.com
>

__._,_.___
Recent Activity:
.

__,_._,___

  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • RSS

0 comments:

Post a Comment