Think those pics on the internet are free to use? Think again.

[Bob Hubbard]

$850 is overpriced... by a lot, unless the photo is specific and unique to the project. Royalty free stock photography of high quality cam be purchased for around $12. That's for a large, wditable, royalty free image._ look at sites like istockphoto.com.

It is, and it isn't.

To be honest, most photos on the stock sites are crap, and there's a huge glut on the market because every guy with a camera submits to them. My work's worth more than my nephews for example. $850 is in the area for what I charge for a Masters Portrait with full rights assignment. Ed Parker used to charge about $2k for his work. Don't know what the current rate is.

Regardless though, maybe the shot IS over priced. The photographer can still list it as such, and insist on the fee in a case of misuse. Just because you don't like the cost of a Ferarri because an Escort is cheaper, doesn't mean you can get the Ferrari at Ford prices, n all that.

I checked, and the requested fee for one of the images, is $475/year, secondary placement. There are comparable images at iStock for $1-30 bucks.


Like I said earlier though, you can find guys selling solid shots for $2,000, and others who'll do it for a 6 pack or byline. At the end of the day though, the images were used without the artists permission, weren't paid for, and as such violated copyright law by a mile.

And please, no Mikey Mouse stuff.....Disney'd chew us like Goofy on a bone.

 

[granfire]

And now...I shall start linking pictures of Mickey Mouse that are directly from Disney to MT

Be careful! I hear Disney is one of the most adamant in terms of following through on the copyright infringements.

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

Peter Lik's photos roughly start selling around $4,000 and believe you me they are worth it when you see them in his gallery. Simply amazing! So the price of a photo is really what the copyright holder wants it to be and lists it as such.

 

[Steve]

It is, and it isn't.

To be honest, most photos on the stock sites are crap, and there's a huge glut on the market because every guy with a camera submits to them. My work's worth more than my nephews for example. $850 is in the area for what I charge for a Masters Portrait with full rights assignment. Ed Parker used to charge about $2k for his work. Don't know what the current rate is.

It's going to depend on what you're doing, your reputation and the quality of your work. I get that. But you're making some pretty sweeping generalizations. I would say that MOST work on the internet, including privately owned stuff, is crap, and that it's not worth more than $50 tops for royalty free usage.

I am not disagreeing on your research or points regarding copyright. I understand the rules pretty well. I'm just saying that there's usually very little reason to steal a photo. You can often ask and get it for free, or pay what is often an insignificant amount of money for rights. Exclusive rights might cost $800 or more, but the simple, royaty free rights to an image are cheap.

The real point I'm trying to make is that it's like stealing a candy bar. Why get caught stealing something you can buy for practically nothing. That, and this guy is probably overly optimistic about the marketability of his product.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

You're right you can get similar for less. But (always a but) is why can you buy a car for $500, and others cost over a million bucks? My grandfather went on and on the one day, about "who the hell would need to pay $1M for a house!". Because in WNY, you can get a comparable house for $65k. My mothers for example, if picked up as-is and dropped on a same size lot in the Bay Area would suddenly be worth 10x what she paid for it in Buffalo. Same, exact, house.

That, and this guy is probably overly optimistic about the marketability of his product.

Nope, he's that good. He's also represented by one of the top 2 stock shops. iStock, etc are no where near "top shop" status.

Of course, one also has to compare with martial arts instruction. Why pay for lessons at $150/mo when there's someone "comparable" who'll do it for a 6pack?

Putting it another way.... is an Ansel Adams original really worth $10,000 when there are hundreds of other shots of the same pile of rocks out there?

Regardless of what you (or I) see the value of an image at, the produce can place whatever fair value (which in this case is based on industry wide standards) he sees fit. If someone wants to use that image, it's up to them to negotiate and pay for that right. When they don't, there are laws to protect the creator from the theft (which is what this is) of their intellectual property.

As a photographer, I'm in total agreement with the rights holder enforcing their rights and pursuing compensation.

Royalty free rights costs will vary, depending on if you're playing in the 'penny stock' field, or the 'big leagues'.

Someone like Adams, wouldn't be caught dead on iStock. (Not knocking them, I buy their stuff regularly for clients.).

(Hope that makes sense, in need of serious pain meds right now so eyes aint focusing for nada)

 

[Bob Hubbard]

let me rephrase, I got rambly there.

basically I agree with you. In this case, the violator had much cheaper and possibly free options available (including ironically his own collection of owned images on the same subject as the ones he illegally used). Instead he (or his designer) snagged a couple images that were not free, edited out the EXIF data and watermark, and used them on a for-profit site. They got caught, and after ignoring settlement options for a year, look to be heading to court and a high $$ hit as a result.

 

[Steve]

If you say this guy is that good, I won't argue. Most aren't. And most people couldn't tell the difference.

I think it's less like cars than audio. You can buy a good surround system for about $500. For almost everyone, this is going to be adequate. Most people would hear a difference between this one and a really good one that costs about a grand. But there are people who spend 10x this amount or more on just the speakers. And then another 10 grand or so on the amp. I won't say that there isn't an improvement. I will say that the difference between a $1000 system and a $20,000 would be lost on me, and I'm comfortable saying that most people would agree (if they're being honest.)

 

[Steve]

let me rephrase, I got rambly there.

basically I agree with you. In this case, the violator had much cheaper and possibly free options available (including ironically his own collection of owned images on the same subject as the ones he illegally used). Instead he (or his designer) snagged a couple images that were not free, edited out the EXIF data and watermark, and used them on a for-profit site. They got caught, and after ignoring settlement options for a year, look to be heading to court and a high $$ hit as a result.

And I agree with you completely. He would likely have been just as satisfied with a legal and inexpensive alternative to theft.

 

[Bruno@MT]

My avatar is obviously something I created myself, coloring individual pixels in notepad until the resulting image looked like count duckula.

Btw I agree with Bob that removing watermarks etc is bad. The fact that someone made the (small) effort to mark it means that he cares about his copyright. Making an effort to remove that is acting in bad faith.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Be careful! I hear Disney is one of the most adamant in terms of following through on the copyright infringements.

Why do you think I picked Disney :EG:

 

[Steve]

Why do you think I picked Disney :EG:

There's a somewhat well known story where Disney lawyers went after a daycare for painting pictures of Winnie the Pooh characters on their walls as murals. Harsh... but necessary if they don't want to lose their trademark.

Just for what it's worth (and as a disclaimer, I'm not a lawyer, so this is my lay understanding), we're mixing up two different things here. A specific image is copyrighted (copywritten? ) by the creator. Whether it's a book, poem, image, song or whatever.

 

[Xue Sheng]

There's a somewhat well known story where Disney lawyers went after a daycare for painting pictures of Winnie the Pooh characters on their walls as murals. Harsh... but necessary if they don't want to lose their trademark.

Just for what it's worth (and as a disclaimer, I'm not a lawyer, so this is my lay understanding), we're mixing up two different things here. A specific image is copyrighted (copywritten? ) by the creator. Whether it's a book, poem, image, song or whatever.

I'm not mixing up anything.....and am I taking this all too seriously either.... but Disney is not someone you want to cross on any front.

I dealt with this before at a state office I use to work at; someone took pictures off of a site, 2 different sites actually, and put them on a state website (this is what happens when you let a PhD in Geology make web pages ). Both pictures were under a copyright. One guy, or possibly his lawyer contacted said sate office and basically said take it down or I will charge you. The other guy went right for a $7000 charge. I have no idea how it came out since shortly after that I left that department.

 

[MA-Caver]

A while back I took an image from a newsletter that I used to receive and enlarged it and then put it on a t-shirt and colorized it and volia a one of a kind shirt. Couple years later after that, I go to a national convention and lo, there I met the actual artist of the drawing. She recognized it immediately even though her drawing was a line black n white. She loved it she told me.
I asked her about my using her image without her permission and she laughed, gave me an affectionate slap on the arm saying "I'm not complaining and the only person who WOULD complain would probably be my agent."
Like Bob, as an artist I don't mind someone else using my work as long as I get credit for it and it isn't altered. Photography is a highly competitive field to begin with and Kudos to Bob for sticking with it and working hard to make it work/pay off.

Question comes to my mind are the photos located in the "pictures that make you go hmm" section of the forum. I'm sure quite a few are "illegals"... do we go ahead and kill the thread and have the data erased from the server so that it can't come back and bite Bob on the ***? Or???

 

[Bob Hubbard]

I'm only liable for the ones I post. Beyond that, it gets complicated.
We also respond to all complaints and take down demands.
So, no worries. Also, we're not profiting by it. It would be different if we were using those images to draw traffic, as part of our design, and so on.

I mean, it's not like MT is the Texas Department of Public Safety.

 

[Xue Sheng]

\Also, we're not profiting by it.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Oh I wish. I wish. But can I have that in Canadian Dollars or Euros? I like stable currency.

 

[Xue Sheng]

how about

or

That is about... :hmm: ...$5.66 American