Photo Reposting Accounts: Photographers, What Do You Think?
I'm starting to get annoyed with accounts reposting my and other photographer's work for their profit. After a discussion I had with @photo-trail, who, as a number of other accounts, had previously reposted my photos without my consent, I have to raise this issue with the Steemit community.
Let me make a comparison, so you get my point.
One of the winners of @jamtaylor's photo contest, proudly taken by me.
Expenses: Time and Money
| Photographer | @photo-trail (and similar accounts) | |
|---|---|---|
| Photo equipment | $500-$50,000 | $0 |
| Travel expenses | A couple of dollars to thousands | $ 0 |
| Location rent / Model payment | Nothing to thousands of dollars | $0 |
| Chance of getting a fist up your face (street photography) | 0-100% | 0% |
| Time to take a good photo | Hours to weeks | 0 hours |
| Photo experience to take a good photo | Thousands of hours | 0 hours |
| Professional post processing software | Hundreds of dollars | $0 |
| Time to post process a photo | 10 minutes to an hour | 0 hours |
| Time to publish a photo | 10 minutes | An hour to gather some other people's photos |
| Profits | $0 | Hundreds of dollars: Link, Link |
So my question is: Did people upvote the photos in @photo-trail's post or his copy-pasting skills? If people upvoted the photos, then why is @photo-trail taking the profits from other people's work?
Don't get me wrong. Curation services are great. But just as any gallery, the curator should take a percentage on the sale and a big chunk should go to the author of the work of art. And I don't see this happening.
Here is an alphabetical list of photographers, whose work was "featured" in the last couple of posts by @photo-trail and received (to my knowledge) nothing from the profits. There are other accounts, which do the same, of course.
@adriansky
@alisawonderland
@allmonitors
@apprenticeoflife
@bitbuddha
@bragih
@brumest
@clodoweg
@cottonlazarus
@deanliu
@digitalis
@dolphinstudios
@dreamstream
@dxxxr
@ekavieka
@emanuellindqvist
@ericoliveira
@evildeathcore
@eyemapuppet
@foxkoit
@georgian
@gintama
@homeartpictures
@jasonrussell
@johndogett
@jsantana
@kommienezuspadt
@lightenup
@lighteye
@madlenfox
@maestroali
@marinauzelac
@markfitzgerald
@max28
@myroadtours
@omrusman
@outerground
@pm-me-your-dog
@restyler
@roytc123
@rushpictures
@shieha
@soonidrift
@tecnosgirl
@twogirls1planet
@unhorsepower777
I hope I can start a discussion and see what other photographers think. Thank you for taking the time to read my rant, and I'll be grateful for a resteem, so this issue can reach a wider audience.
I think Curator's job is to bring to limelight anything that's not yet seen by a wider community. In this regard, I think @photo-trail is doing their job.
Also by asking you permission to post this image and giving credit/ link to your main post I think they are maintaining a level of decorum as well. I could see in that comment that the moment you rejected their offer and they did not hustle you further, there seems to be certain standards in their approach.
All this being said, their work can come into scrutiny if:
Taking a neutral stance, I don't think I'd completely agree with your thoughts on revenue sharing - it is their post after-all! Although, in my own opinion what you have mentioned would be the best (and right) thing to do by @photo-trail.
In case you have not already done this, can you please try to open a discussion with them either in discord or steem.chat or however possible to tell them why this revenue sharing will work out much better than what they are currently doing. I think if they offer to share their revenue, they would be able to get much more quality pics featured and hence higher chance of revenue.
I think using their follower power to feature your work should be reciprocated both ways; the terms can always be mutually agreed upon. If they disagree, I see an opportunity here! You can consider setting up a trail and make the most of this situation.
Apologies if this view of mine does not sound appropriate to you. But thought I will chip in anyway ;)
I see what you mean, but you should consider the difference between attribution and copyright.
Atrribution always has to be given, otherwise it's considered plagiarism. This is not what we are discussing.
Using other people's content without their consent is only OK under "fair use", e.g. using a couple of screenshots from a movie, because you are reviewing a movie.
Since @photo-trail is not using photographers' content under such circumstances, but reposting their work in its entirety, he should ask for their permission. He didn't used to, but now he does.
Now comes copyright - he cannot take profits for other people's work, unless he has a contract with them.
He can, however, post links to other people's work. Would he receive hundreds of dollars for a page of links? I don't think so - but he may try, and if he is successful, then all is legal and he has earned his money.
This is not what copyright is.
If they already have a permission to publish, it doesn't matter if they make money from it.
If as an artist you want to get a share, you negotiate your price and then sell the publishing rights for that price.
A free publication (which photo-trail essentially is) is not legally obligated to share their revenues with you (or even buy the publishing rights from you), especially if you have already given them permission to publish your photos. Copyright simply doesn't automatically entitle anyone to royalties, it is only a tool to help you negotiate those royalties.
Who is "they" in "If they already have a permission to publish, it doesn't matter if they make money from it."? If you mean @photo-trail, then sure - if you don't care someone is making money from your work and you've explicitly allowed it, all is fine. However, I and the photographers here did not allow republishing of our work for other people's profits, yet @photo-trail is republishing our work for personal gain.
"If as an artist you want to get a share, you negotiate your price and then sell the publishing rights for that price." - I don't understand your point here, either? You don't sell your copyright - this work is yours. You only negotiate others using your work for profit - be it shared profit, or them making money on your back.
"A free publication (which photo-trail essentially is)..." - yes, @photo-trail is not taking my money to publish my work (is this what you call "free"?), but is making money from my work, without my permission. This is illegal.
"...is not legally obligated to share their revenues with you (or even buy the publishing rights from you), especially if you have already given them permission to publish your photos." - I've not given permission, and they do not have the right to make money from my work. Even if I give permission, which should be in the form of a written contract (and I dare you to find one), they are obligated to share their revenue with me, unless I've given them permission to post my work for their own personal profit. Which I and the other photographers, haven't given to them.
"Copyright simply doesn't automatically entitle anyone to royalties, it is only a tool to help you negotiate those royalties." - Copyright means you have the right to this work of art. If there's someone interested in your work (like @photo-trail), they should engage in negotiations with you. If you like what is offered, you agree with them reposting your work. You can agree to share the profit, you can also agree to have them take all the profit, which is what you are obviously keen on doing.
@@ -553,16 +553,17 @@
ou give
+@
photo-tr
I personally think it's pretty messed up. If he had asked for consent from everyone and set up an agreement with each of the photographers to credit them and also share the profits, then I think it would be fine. But, just blatantly taking the pictures everyone has shared and then posting them himself with no consent is fucked.
At first, I thought that @photo-trail was meant to give exposure to photographers, but if they were only thinking about promoting and supporting the photographers in our community, they should have declined post payouts (or as you say set up an agreement with each one of them).
I agree. The thing is, everyone is here for the money. If @photo-trail declined post payouts, then why do it in the first place?
Yeah, you are right.
You right and on point...!
Agreed
My point exactly. Thanks for commenting!
One of these photo reposters has been called out for copyright violations, and has since given the option of showing a link only.
I don't like these photo reposters at all. There are a few who, with good intentions, show undervalued content only, but apart from that, they are just making money with other people's work and mostly don't even ask permission for it, and they don't even share rewards.
I generally don't like this meta stuff; if you want to make money, produce your own content. There are only a few people here who can reuse my photos without my permission, and they know who they are. Anybody else doing it is violating my copyrights.
Agree
Agree 100% and I support you for any action taken
My thoughts exactly, I agree with you @ocrdu. Thank you for taking the time to comment!
I agree, such freebooting accounts should not be getting rewarded for using other people's content in this manner.
There's the resteem option which works nicely already. If you want to introduce your followers to good photo-content, just resteem it.
It's too bad you can't add a comment to the things you resteem though.
I agree, it would be better if we had the option to comment on what we resteem. Thanks for commenting! :)
Yeah...resteeming is ok
You raise a real point there @dek. What did @photo-trail say when you were discussing this with them?
I like the fact that they resteem the posts, but yes, they making a killing on the "daily photo" compilations they put together. maybe they should like take 30% of the post's profit and then split the remaining 70% between the photographers by sending them the SBD?
Just my 2c ;)
He asked me how I'd like to be featured on his daily selection. I asked what are the advantages of being featured, as I only see benefits for him. He said that he will no longer bother me with his service. You can see the comments under a recent post of mine.
I agree with your point - curation should be rewarded, but so should the authors.
Ah, I see. Only a temporary solution though :(
Photographers should get the post reward split... after the curators cut
Exactly! And their work should only be reposted with their permission.
The blockchain is useful in copyright disputes - you can easily prove you're the owner, as you posted the photo first.
You right...
I think that nobody has the right to use my work (or any other photographer's work) without a written permission. Especially for profit. I believe @nspart brought this up as well.
Aha! So there's already a widespread disgruntlement on this issue! Interesting and thanks for sharing your view!
If he was offering to increase viewing of your work by including a link to you and your work, it could benefit you. But...as what is becoming the normal mindset of society today...so many want to make money and do nothing to earn it.
Yes, I have a steemit account...it's not even worth $2.50...lol...I enjoy everyone's posts and the interaction. I may not post everyday, but MS drains the body and mind.
I'm only here for two weeks and one of my pictures was used in one of those. although the list dude made not much money of it, he did at least ten times more then me. And I didn't get a SINGLE extra vote. so yeah ...
Rather disappointing really, yes. Downvoting is always an option.
Well, I actually said 'thnx man', because I thought it would give me some exposure .... haha :(
Haha :) There's nothing wrong with trying!
As long as no consent was given it's wrong, in my case @photo-trail did ask for my consent last time.
I agree. But the image is yours - did you receive part of the profit?
No I don't think so, and I've also started noticing other people making similar "best photos of the day" posts and profiting...