Yet another request for (free?) use of a photo on Flickr

[Highlander]

Hello

I'm a Danish journalist, and I have been visiting a chimpanzee park in Uganda. I have noticed some of your pictures of chimpanzees on flickr.com, and I would like to use one or two of your photos if possible?

It is for the travel-section in the leading Danish newspaper called Jyllands-Posten (www.jp.dk), and if you let me use it, I will put your name under the photo and I can email you the finished article with the picture and everything, if you like.

I hope to hear from you.

Kind regards

Søren Hebsgaard
Freelance journalist


I'm not really that bothered about seeing my work in print, but will not be giving it away. Besides, if it a national newspaper, they should be able to afford to pay for photos!! So I think I'm going to tell him NO.

[lticket]

SAY NO :o)

[Lorne.t]

Say yes then when it's in print contact the paper and ask for payment.

[Tastydirt]

Coming from a national newspaper, this is pure cheek. Say no.

[Lorne.t]

It isn't coming from a national newspaper.The request is coming from a freelance journalist.
As long as Highlander doesn't say he can use the picture for free he will be able to get the going rate if the newspaper publishes the story.

[Tastydirt]

Ah I didn't read the end of the message. From the wording in the mail it seems he wants to use it for free though?

[Lorne.t]

He wants to use it for free but if it appears in the paper then Highlander can claim the going rate as he obviously didn't expect to have his picture used without payment.

[Tastydirt]

Claim it from the paper instead of the journalist? I get ya.

[downhillbiker]

If the paper want to use the photo... usually it's the picture desk's call at the end of the day, they might decide to use stock, or get something off one of their staffers.

[Highlander]

OK, this is all confusing me. How should I respond?
As said, I do this for fun, and do not expect to get any financial gain from it (although it would be nice!!), but at the same time I'm not going to give my photos away.

[Lorne.t]

I would just say..

"That would be fine, it's always nice to see your shots in print.
Get back to me if you need a larger size.
Please inform me the day the shot appears in the paper with the relevant page number (s) and a scan if possible."

[Highlander]

So no mention about payment :?:
Are you suggesting I hit the paper with a bill, once (IF) published?
I'm a nice guy :suspect: and don't want to lure him into anything!!

[Lorne.t]

There's no need to mention it as in your mind it's obvious you would be paid!
You phone the paper when the picture is published and get put through to the picture desk telling them they are using one (or more) of your pictures on page whatever of the newspaper and you would like to know who to invoice for payment.

[Highlander]

Thanks for the advice Lorne, but I think i'm going to be upfront with it. ie you can use it if you/newspaper pay for it. Sorry to ignore your advice, but i don't feel comfortable doing it your way.

[Lorne.t]

I know for a fact if any of my shots appeared in a paper I'd be contacting them to get paid as I've done it already when I wasn't part of an agency.

[Highlander]

Yes, agreed. But this guy is asking for my permission, with no mention of payment, which i do not want to assume that I'll get. As I said, I'm not particularly bothered if I never get published.

(I've just had a look at my chimp shots, and don't think any of them are all that good!!)

[Lorne.t]

But he hasn't actually said he wants to use them for free.
He will be handing a completed article with photographs to his publisher and will expect to get paid for it.
You have nothing to lose.Play it my way your pictures may appear in print and you could earn £50+ say you want paid straight away and he might not bother.
If you're annoyed about it in the first place from your first post it's because you think he wants something for nothing so it's just a case of going with the flow.

[Highlander]

Despite me ignoring you, your advice is really appreciated Lorne.
I have replied to him (before your last post), basically saying he has to pay to use them. No doubt, like the 2 or 3 other similar requests I've had in the past, i'll never hear from him again!! As I said previously, I'm not bothered about being in print.

[Lorne.t]

No probs!

If you go with the flow next time even if you're not bothered about payment having "Nationally published photographer" on your CV as an additional skill or whatever may make an interesting talking point in an interview situation.

[puddleduck]

Thanks for the advice Lorne, but I think i'm going to be upfront with it. ie you can use it if you/newspaper pay for it. Sorry to ignore your advice, but i don't feel comfortable doing it your way.

Personally I think Lorne T's method is underhand and unethical.

Bit like lending a lawnmowing to your neightbour, then dropping an Invoice for £50 through his letterbox for its use a few days later.

[chrisns]

Bit like lending a lawnmowing to your neightbour, then dropping an Invoice for £50 through his letterbox for its use a few days later.

That's a stroke of genius! cheers! :thumbs:

[Lorne.t]

It's not at all.
There are various going rates that newspapers pay each time they publish a photgraph depending on size.
If a photograph of yours appears in the National press you can expect to get paid the correct amount for it,especially if you didn't specifically say the paper could use it for free.

[Coolhand]

Personally I think Lorne T's method is underhand and unethical.

Bit like lending a lawnmowing to your neightbour, then dropping an Invoice for £50 through his letterbox for its use a few days later.

Actually, it's more like your neighbour borrowing your lawnmower and using it to cut other people's lawns for money.

I'd be billing them.

[Highlander]

Just had a reply back.
He said other flickr users have agreed to let him use their photos for nothing.

[Coolhand]

Just had a reply back.
He said other flickr users have agreed to let him use their photos for nothing.

Tell him you've heard of other men's wives who give it out for free so you're going to be pojering his missus senseless tonight.

[Woz]

Just had a reply back.
He said other flickr users have agreed to let him use their photos for nothing.

I'd be asking him if he's donating the article to the newspaper for nothing.

[downhillbiker]

No offence, but if there are other flickr users giving away pictures for free, where they should be due a fee, then they're arseholes. This is a perfect illustration of how giving away high res images is bad news for professional photographers.

[still average joe]

No offence, but if there are other flickr users giving away pictures for free, where they should be due a fee, then they're arseholes. This is a perfect illustration of how giving away high res images is bad news for real photographers.


Thats a bit strong isn't it. If what you call "real" photographers are good enough they have nothing to worry about surely as publications/reporters will always be prepaired to pay for their images.

The pictures are the property of the individual flickrite and they can do what they want with them. They dont have an obligation to anyone to charge for their use.

[downhillbiker]

Perhaps I was a little blunt, but it is a real issue - I've had first hand experience of a large news organisation being total misers because they would rather get a free, average image, than pay for something specific.

It's infuriating for a photographer to be undercut by someone who's just happy to see their name in print, and let photos be used by big business for nothing - at least if they ask for a fee, a professional can compete; you can't undercut £0.00...

I should also be clear that I'm talking about organisations who would normally pay photographers for images, and then see Flickr or other online galleries as a way of cutting costs at the neglect of people who make a living from photography.

[puddleduck]

I get loads of this crap, I'm sure that folks just tend to "spam" certain key words hoping for suckers...

I noticed a couple of your photos that look interesting to me as possibilities to dress up a website I'm building for the purpose of selling seafood products.
If I wanted to use some of your photos in constructing my web site, is that ok?
- Doug

Ironically I don't have anything vaguely seafood related at all?!!

[Highlander]

My latest request. First one that has mentioned any money though.
He made an initial enquiry, and I asked him for more details. Looks like it's not going to happen now, but how much should I tell him.


Hi sypix,

thank you for your answer! I wanted to integrate your picture at our small companies-website, but just now i had spoken with my manager and my plan is castaway by him...
Be that as it may - however, I would like to know, how much we have to pay, if we integrate your picture at our homepage. We are a small Agency (4 People) that bring music to the market. Your picture would be integrated in 205x79 and 950x128 pixel (the second copy is very very blurred). I think this enterpirse is castaway by my manager but, however, I want to how much money do we have to pay for your picture. I instruct you if your picture is still fitting to our website - now it depends at my manager ;-)....
If you send me the cost of your pictue - it is possible to retune my manager....
Now I ´m out of office - hope to hear from you at monday.
Best wishes
Arne

[puddleduck]

it is possible to retune my manager....

LOL! Don't you just love corporation speak!

Translation - I need to tell my boss to find another sucker :)

[downhillbiker]

I should point out here, seeing as it's in a similar vein...

I recently had a couple of images (which had large copyright banners across them) used without my permission by the website of a large, well known company. Luckily, a photographer I know was meant to be taking photos from them, so I looked on their site, saw mine, and then realised they'd taken them from Flickr... and cropped out the copyright banners I'd laid across the images.

So I invoiced them, and following a lot of to-ing and fro-ing, with me being diplomatic and letting them make offers of other work, instead of burning a bridge, they decided that they were just going to pay me £100 for the use of the 2 images. Given the time I'd wasted on them, and the next option being taking the company to court, I settled.

I should point out the following about the photos:
1) They were not available for download.
2) They were marked as "all rights reserved" with no Creative Commons license.
3) They had a clear copyright warning displayed on the page of the set.
4) They had a large, clear copyright banner across the images.

So basically, there's nothing you can do about people nicking your photos - if someone can see your photo, they can take it. The only thing you can do is make a photo look so appalling that nobody would want to use it.

[puddleduck]

I recently had a couple of images (which had large copyright banners across them) used without my permission by the website of a large, well known company.

This happened to me quite a few years ago. I'd done some product photography as part of a review, and I noticed my images on another site.

I went for the nuclear option and the whole site was pulled by their ISP under their "no copyrighter material" clauses under their user T&Cs :)

[downhillbiker]

I went for the nuclear option and the whole site was pulled by their ISP under their "no copyrighter material" clauses under their user T&Cs :)

Magic :clap:

[RomerojpgX]

Just like that!

[DeadKenny]

No offence, but if there are other flickr users giving away pictures for free, where they should be due a fee, then they're arseholes. This is a perfect illustration of how giving away high res images is bad news for professional photographers.
Whilst harsh sounding it's a valid point. The stock photo market has pretty much collapsed I gather what with sites like flickr and people giving photos away for free because they feel honoured to have been asked, and stock photo sites that charge peanuts per photo now.

Now I'm no pro and I'm not looking to sell stuff but I can appreciate how those who do may feel that others giving photos away for free devalues their profession.

The way I look at it, if you wanted to stick a photo in a newspaper you'd have to pay right? Therefore why should the newspaper get your photo for free when they want it?

Also don't almost all newspapers pay for the photos they use, even the local newspapers? Something like £10 or £20 would be peanuts really for them (though some pros would say even that is way undervalued).

Bare in mind also the audience. A photo that could be distributed to thousands or hundreds of thousands of people (more if national), and you give it away free!

This is what annoys me about BBC and Sky who encourage people to send in their photos of news events for no reward other than seeing them on TV or their web sites. Sounds great and you get your photo on TV but if I was a photo journalist covering events I'd be annoyed at that. Plus don't you sign away your rights with them when you submit your photos?


As I say, I'm no pro. My stuff isn't worth any money anyway :D. But I do see the problem for those who do sell photos, and I do feel people are being exploited by making it seem like such an honour to have their photo used whilst really they're being ripped off.


Highlander - The quality of your stuff, I'd be charging a fortune! :D.