Clearly I am not a fine and noble gent
No amateur in thinking could possibly have accidently arrived at such a weird conclusion. :king:
Last edited:
-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
A great opportunity - to get ripped off. (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter hollis_f
- Start date
No amateur in thinking could possibly have accidently arrived at such a weird conclusion. :king:
Robert / Seattle
Well-known member
And it would really help if others would stop tying their opposing shoelaces together.
Funny, yes. But not helpful.
Perhaps. It is a free world, and you can do what you wish. But if you grow tomatoes, then leave them in a bowl in front of your house for passers by to take, then I would argue that you are a fool. Similarly, if someone takes a first rate image, and then gives it for free to a company that uses it to make lots of money, then they are a fool. This is only my opinion of course, but I am entitled to it, just as you are entitled to give away your property if you so wish.
stevetb
Registered user
It was interesting, and yes could be seen as useful. But what I said was that the argument was flawed.
I've no problem with people giving their opinion, but why cant we keep this thread friendly?
There have definately been some very interesting (for me anyway) points raised, and it has opened by eyes and perhaps changed my opinion slightly.
Robert / Seattle
Well-known member
Good point, AC/DC ...
I've learned to take the written word with a little caution. Devoid of facial expressions and gestures, not to mention intonation, unintended implications can often "sneak in" to a message.
Overall, I'd have to submit that this discussion, though often "spirited", has been largely respectful. It certainly has been instructive and illuminating.
Cheers,
Robert
First, most of us take pleasure in sharing our pictures, hence the BF gallery, etc. Sharing of tomatoes is generally not known as a popular pastime. A newspaper or birdwatching magazine publishing my picture is allowing me to further share these images. If I wish to permit them to do this and seek a lower price in return than someone else, or indeed for free, then that is my choice.
Second, as I do not need tomatoes as a source of income, why exactly would I be a fool to share them? I have stated photography is a hobby for me, I am neither naive nor a fool if I am content to leave it as that, without seeking to make financial gain from it.
Incidently, my gardens have umpteen trees that are currently hanging heavy with cherries, plums and apples. Would I also be a fool to share some of these?
Last edited:
stevetb
Registered user
Very true Robert, sarcasm is a classic example of what you mention that leads into 'sniping' etc.
Vectis Birder
Itchy feet
Robert/Seattle said:
Sharing things is also a fine and noble thing to do and people might like to share their images for everyone to see, whether in a magazine or on the net.
On the other hand I totally agree that if the magazine or organisation is going to subsequently make money from the images then it is right that the contributor gets some remuneration from them.
While I doubt I'd pay to enter a competition I would be happy to send my photos to a magazine and see my name in print - who wouldn't?
I can see it from both points of view.
dantheman
Bah humbug
Depends. If you take them in to work, and leave them out for people to take, you would make friends, and benefit. But if you put them in a bowl in front of your house for strangers to take, well you would not really benefit.
Similarly, if you display photos on your web site that is fine. But if a company takes your image, and makes themselves rich without passing any money on to you, then IMO you are being exploited, and I would class you as a fool. As they say in Yorkshire, "If tha does owt fer nowt, do it fer tha sen". (Foreign languages are not my strong suit, so the quote might be a big awry.)
Clive Watson
Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit ampheta
You could make them into jam and flog that.
paul goode
Well-known member
Markus Varesvuo, in my opinion a gobsmackingly good wildlife photographer has either won or been runner up in a category of this competition in 2007,2006,2004 & 2003. I have no intention of insulting him with the words the OP and others have used to describe people who enter this competition but if they are right those words must apply. Does anyone truly believe a wildlife photographer of Markus's standard is entering this competition to be ripped off. I don't. One way or another he is getting enough out of the competition to justify entering it.
Oh yeah he's got an MSc in economics as well, so I think he'll know if he's being scammed.
Oh yeah he's got an MSc in economics as well, so I think he'll know if he's being scammed.
Last edited:
Harold Stiver
Well-known member
I thought it might be useful to look up exactly what the contest rules are regarding ownership rights. It is as follows:
The organisers and sponsors reserve the right to free reproduction and exhibition in all media of prize-winning or commended entries, but only in connection with this competition and publicity for it.
The organisers reserve the worldwide, royalty-free right and licence for the full period of copyright to publish winning and commended images in a book or magazine, and at their discretion will pay reproduction fees to photographers.
This is not a copyright grab as some unscrupulous contests are. In fact they require an agreement that they can publish the winners and commended, which seems very reasonable to me.
The ones to watch out for usually say something like "all images submitted become the property of Mad Dog Enterprises"
The organisers and sponsors reserve the right to free reproduction and exhibition in all media of prize-winning or commended entries, but only in connection with this competition and publicity for it.
The organisers reserve the worldwide, royalty-free right and licence for the full period of copyright to publish winning and commended images in a book or magazine, and at their discretion will pay reproduction fees to photographers.
This is not a copyright grab as some unscrupulous contests are. In fact they require an agreement that they can publish the winners and commended, which seems very reasonable to me.
The ones to watch out for usually say something like "all images submitted become the property of Mad Dog Enterprises"
Robert / Seattle
Well-known member
That may not be his intention, but it's certainly the consequence. If he's that good, and relies on the craft of photography to make his living, then he should know better. Perhaps he feels the exposure may further his career - I'm not about to presume his motive(s). But whatever they may be, he's playing the unfair hand dealt by the publisher.
Last edited:
Robert / Seattle
Well-known member
Harold Stiver
Well-known member
Not at all. The submitter is granting them a user licence for the uses specified but retains copyright. You may feel that they are granting too much but this is very far from signing over the copyright.
Robert / Seattle
Well-known member
Ah! Simply stated, "spot on".
Robert / Seattle
Well-known member
We may all have to defer to an Intellectual Property Rights Attorney on this one. Semantics aside, the thrust of the argument is that the author of the image, whether willfully or in ignorance, is being exploited.
I apologize for getting in late on this thread - but is this similar to being low balled ? Where craftsmanship is devalued - this happens all the time in my line of work. I am a hand weaver and what I do probably costs 60+ times what a sweat shop in China can produce.
Last edited:
Robert / Seattle
Well-known member
It's certainly analogous, Dave. There's a reason I don't buy Nike footwear. There's also a reason why I'll patronize the local deli instead of McDonald's. Does it cost me more? Absolutely. But the value added is immensely important to me. And if it enables that Mom and Pop store down the street to hang on just a little bit longer, then so much the better.
We've all got to do our part.
Similar threads
