Send her my way. As most of you already know, I photographed "Dogs at Play" for my MobileMe gallery for more than three years, placing all the viewable images to the tune of 2k - 4k per year, all of them downloadable at a reduced resolution. Still printable as 8 x 10, I believe (never checked). 75% were crap, 15% sharp and not too cluttered, 10% worthy of being framed and hung. 10% of that 10% were really fine captures. The early ones were usually not sharp, as the early models of Pentax DSLRs were not cooperative in that department when it came to the actions of dogs running and jousting in a dog park, the K10 and K20.
The first year or so I also had magnetic photo signs on my car, let everyone know I was there most days with my camera(s). After a year of handing out business cards, I had one (1) woman want her dog photographed by me in a setting at her home. To spur business, I offered her an hour of photography for $60, more per prints. She was shocked, and told me she would pay me $300 for the hour. I hesitated, but she insisted, so we agreed on that. I called her up after a week of no calls from her to set a date. I was told "Oh, my neighbor had a digital camera and took the photos for me, for free." Looking at the hundreds of hours I spent taking the photos, cleaning them up and cropping prior to uploading, I saw the light. Took the signs off the car. Stopped handing out cards. From the middle of last year or so I uploaded very few images. Apple's transitioning from "free" Gallery use ($100 a year) to no longer offering any photo services other than streaming everything you put on your computer for 30 days at a time. I'll be moving my website to some other service, possibly my own URL if I can find one I like. I'll only be uploading the best of the best, dogs and others, and deny downloading without a password which I will give to those who I deem need that permission. Not that I think my imagery is that good to deserve this restriction, but I'd like the picture thieves to get the message for all of our shots displayed online. They belong to the copyright holder. Be nice. Ask. On my recent 50 day trip throughout the west I photographed over 3000 documents and other's pictures from snaps, tintypes, hand colored portraits, and prints held together with tape. These will be put on a separate password protected site for the enjoyment of the relatives. And yes, some of them were portraits taken professionally from 1880 to 1950. I know they are copyrighted by default. I am of the belief that because a: no one in any of the pro prints is still alive. b: they will only be accessed by relatives of the persons's or place's image. c: I don't feel one bit bad about it, so few will see them, the only way to capture them is by a screen shot. In today's evolution of online genealogical searches, most software used "invites" you to copy others images into that same person's record when a match is confirmed. Opinions? Arguments? Praise or Condemnation? Bring it on, please. I'll listen. On Jun 9, 2012, at 19:40 , Matthew Hunt wrote: > An author of dog training books contacted my wife about a picture I > took of my wife and our late Doberman. The author wanted to use the > picture in a book she is writing. My wife respects the author and > liked the idea of being in the book, but I didn't want to give away a > photograph for a book to be sold at profit. I realized that the book > is likely to sell on a pretty small scale, so I thought a good > compromise would be to allow her to use my photograph, in exchange for > a free copy of the book. That would make my wife happy (for both the > book and being in it) and be a minimal expense for the author. > > The author declined these terms. You see, she plans to use hundreds of > photographs, and clearly it would be too expensive to agree to such > terms. > > (Since the author is seeking permission from the subjects, rather than > the photographers, I'm sure the book will be full of photographs that > she doesn't have the right to publish.) Joseph McAllister [email protected] “ The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.” — Kevan Olesen -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
