Re: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images

[SKID Photography <skid@bway.net>]

Since we shoot mostly famous rock & roll personalities and sell a lot of stock 
imagery, we find that our
images have a relatively short shelf life, and a propensity to be lifted by 
those who would rather not pay us
our rightful fees.

However, whenever such unapproved usages are found out by us, and threatened 
with legal action, we we tend to
get our regular fees plus an extra charge for their illegal actions.

So, again, a clear copyright admonishment will help us get our money more 
easily.

We don't pretend to understand others businesses, but we feel that these search 
engines do have a
responsibility to state in clear and certain terms that imagery cannot just be 
lifted.  It makes public
education just that much easier.  We want our clients to understand that our 
(and this is *all*, yours and
mine), images have a value and a clear ownership.  We feel its in every 
professional photographer's best
interest to keep those ownership rights issues in front of the public whenever 
possible.

I am old enough to remember when it was a new concept to base licensing fees 
based on usage, rather than on a
flat day rate for commissioned work.  I, for one, do not think it's in our best 
interest to revert to the old
way of doing business, with lower fees.

Harvey Ferdschneider
partner, SKID Photography, NYC

LAURIE SOLOMON wrote:

> I think the likelihood of someone wanting to buy a web resolution image is
> probably very low; but the likelihood of someone wanting to steal it (i.e.
> use it for free) is probably much higher.  Typically, those that do steal
> web resolution images are those who either do not use images for their
> livelihood and do don't understand anything about copyrights and licensing
> or those who are aware of such things but will steal what they can and do
> not really concern themselves with the quality or resolution of the image
> that they steal and use.  While it can be argued that making low resolution
> images available on the web and easy to find entices people to download and
> use the low resolution images rather than  view them as previews upon which
> to base decisions as to what Images they would want to license high
> resolution versions of which in turn may narrow the market for higher
> resolution images, I do not think this really is as big a problem as one
> might think; and the existence of engines like Google probably do not have
> any major impact on the rates of image theft.  Thus, I concur with your
> first paragraph in both its literal articulation as well as in some of the
> associated implicit issues it suggests.
>
> As for the second paragraph, I do not think that the question being raised
> is so much people buying low resolution web images per se; but the issue is
> more the effectiveness of selling or licensing high resolution versions of
> the images being cataloged and displayed on web sites based on those low
> resolution web displays.  I know some stock photographers who do find this
> as an effective way of marketing their images; however, I, like you, have
> not found the web to be an effective way to market high quality and
> resolution versions of images or commercial photographic services.  My
> experience like yours has been that the costs outweigh what those who use
> the web are willing to pay for services and use of images.  It tends to
> cater to the mass market mentality where those shopping tend to want high
> quality images ( if they are even concerned with or know quality) at poster
> prices - if not for free - and cheap photographic services where quality is
> not the concern but bottom line pricing is. In short the web market, in my
> experience, is the sort of market where the buyer regards all photographers
> indiscriminately as if they were copy machines (with no differences in style
> or skills being recognized) and all images as if they were off the shelf
> manufactured retail products like you find in a retail outlet.
>