# Not specifocally Canon, but very well said about photos in general.



## monkey44 (Aug 27, 2016)

Don't know exactly where to share this:

http://petapixel.com/2012/01/10/this-photograph-is-not-free/ 

I've often made similar comments to folks that ask "Can we use this photo free?" ... OR, in the same vein, "Will you write us an article for free. We're a non-profit and don't have much PR money." Requests usually come from non-profits that have a mission (don't we all?) ... while the Director and staff all draw salaries ... but have no additional budget.


----------



## GuyF (Aug 27, 2016)

Yeah, try explaining that to Getty Images.


----------



## Click (Aug 27, 2016)

GuyF said:


> Yeah, try explaining that to Getty Images.



+1


----------



## 9VIII (Aug 27, 2016)

I'm pretty sure that a popular restaurant reviewer would get free meals.
The question is whether or not the exposure is worth your time.

I don't know enough about professional photography to say what qualifies as valuable exposure, but surely there must be some venues where you'd be better off showing your work for free.


----------



## monkey44 (Aug 28, 2016)

Sure, some venues worth the freebie - but I want to choose who and when and where. I've had managers ask (non-profits in particular) - And I said sure, you donate the same amount of your salary to "your" organization as my photos are worth ... and generally get no takers.

Now, having said that, I do give a lot of images to non-profits when I believe in the service they provide. But was once asked to shoot a complete art show advertising for one - where it was making a bunch of money off it. The director of that NP made over $100k a year, and wants me to shoot free. Tough to figure sometimes, where folks come from with these requests.

And, I don't want anyone stealing my images off the web -- none of us do.


----------



## MrFotoFool (Aug 28, 2016)

Well stated article. Sadly the general public for the most part does not understand or respect copyright at all. It is not as if they think stealing is ok (except for a few), it is they honestly do not believe using or copying a photo is stealing. Same with music - no one these days thinks copying a friend's CD is wrong. I worked two decades at a photo lab and we ran into copyright all the time and people are just clueless. Many are not inherintly dishonest, they are just plain ignorant.


----------



## Stu_bert (Aug 31, 2016)

that is true (ignorance), but not really an excuse and they wouldn't feel the same if it were their work. I'd be curious of how many of those you explained the law to then followed it, and how many continued to "be ignorant of it" ?

The article does push the cost angle to a silly extent, but then recognises it partially.

If the same logic was used for the restaurant, if the kitchen the Chef prepared the meal in cost 100K (i'll ignore currency), or even just 20K for the cooker, utensils etc, would you expect to pay that for the meal ?

Using depreciation of assets is a reasonable cost model (not pricing model), using brand new equipment as a one-off calculation is not. You could use second hand variants of all the camera kit and still take the same picture would be a valid counter-argument. Or as most people do, value a picture on what is typical price for the market in your location, much the same as every industry does. But I digress....

I seem to recall Adobe once taking a view that people copying Photoshop, installing it, and then only using it to "crop a photo and use auto-levels, auto expose", would likekly never justify buying the product and so were never their target for piracy. It was the person copying it and selling it, or paying for 1 license but using it everywhere in their office.

I guess the photographic equivalent is someone profiting from your work. A school kid using your picture in their homework perhaps not really something you want to get riled over.

*<rant on>*

Charities make my blood boil - as mentioned, what they pay some of their staff and yet they try and play the conscious card to get you to do things for free, or donate for fre - hmmmm. I get the need to try and get money for the charity, and the clever people might find cunning ways to extract more. I get the fact that to invest and use the money wisely needs talented people (who arent free). The fact (in the UK), that they only have to spend 20% of their donations on the actual charity and have no obligation to report what they actually get in donations and how they spend it, is just bang out of order and the lack of transparency dupes the public into giving more than I'm sure they would if they knew the truth.

*<rant off> & apologies to all*

Any other person or organisation who uses your image for profit, yet wants it for free - unacceptable behaviour.


----------



## KeithBreazeal (Oct 17, 2016)

Add the standard mileage rate and it gets better. 
Pretty much spot on article. 
No major publisher has stolen my work- which speaks volumes about my photography.
When I sell a photo to a web site, it's a small file.
I have been asked several times about donating or just use permission. I have a rule- if it's a non-profit that
has some redeeming qualities, I will consider free use. Other that that, I have a good & fair rate.
My video archives for broadcast has a fixed minimum of $1,000 for a full license.
Don't undercut yourself, but don't lose a sale over your ego.


----------

