Re: OT Not worth paying for
on 2012-06-10 12:20 Stan Halpin wrote c. I could find open source license-free artwork/photos I could use; i don't think you've got quite the right terminology; while some may be literally license free, there are also many photos _with_ licenses whose terms are very flexible for re-use; you can even search based on specific Creative Commons licenses on Flickr, for example i cannot think what "open source" artwork would be, unless it was generated by open-source software (and in the software world, open-source is very rarely license-free) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT Not worth paying for
On Jun 10, 2012, at 21:21 , William Robb wrote: Seems to me that if the copyright owner isn't able to supply you with a print, they have pretty much invalidated any claim they could make for damages. That's another way to express it. There is no one alive to ask that permission. The company or studio that took the photo in 1897 is no longer reachable, probably it no longer exists. In my heart I truly believe if I did contact the copyright holder and asked for a print, they could not provide one. Few companies, and fewer individuals have kept their library of negatives for over 100 years. If there was a historical value to one or more images stamped with the name of the copyright holder, they were bought up or had donated to companies or collectors such as the Library of Congress, or such as the National Photo Company Collection or the Detroit Publishing Catalog. More current images should be asked if the copyright holder can be reached in some way, yes? If I understand what I found out about old copyrights searching the internet, the copyright has already expired on anything copyrighted before January 1, 1923. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT Not worth paying for
With the explosive growth of self publishing the internet has engendered, there are far too few would be authors who understand there is a difference between option (c) and option (d). No one wants to pay for content on the internet. Too many people wrongly assume "If I can see it on the internet, I'm free to take it and use it any way I want to." It's one of the reasons why I post so few photos on-line. What responsibility do companies like Blurb, Lulu et al have to educate their users about not using copyrighted material without permission? From: Stan Halpin On Jun 9, 2012, at 10:40 PM, 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.) If I were an author or one with aspirations to be an author, and if I wanted to use photos or other artwork in my publication, it would seem that I have four courses of action: a. I could do the art work/photos myself; b. I could hire a professional or several to do the artwork/photos for me; c. I could find open source license-free artwork/photos I could use; or d. I could just browse around and steal other people's stuff without attempts at compensation, acknowledgement, etc. Actually, there is a fifth option - browse around and then do the right thing by asking for permission and offering compensation. This would seem to be the most complicated and potentially most expensive so I can understand why she isn't doing that. But her apparent preferred option, (d), is the most disrespectful of others intellectual property. As an author, how can she be so mindless? I have been involved in the publication of several professional books (i.e., reference books, text books), either as co-editor or co-author or as the supervisor of someone co-editing or authoring such books. [And hundreds of technical reports and articles.] Even though we tried to avoid it, there were times when it was just critical that we quote extensively from others' works and/or copy figures/tables/graphs. And that meant getting those authors' and their publishers' permission to use the material. That is by far the hardest work in writing something, even worse than doing an index. Option (a) or (b) have got to be the best way to go. If this woman is self-publishing, she can probably get away with doing whatever she wants to. If she is going through one of the handful of publishers who publish dog/cat/bird/hamster/ferret material, then her publisher should be apprised of their exposure to serious legal liabilities. stan -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT Not worth paying for
On 11/06/2012 2:04 AM, Joseph McAllister wrote: On Jun 10, 2012, at 21:21 , William Robb wrote: Seems to me that if the copyright owner isn't able to supply you with a print, they have pretty much invalidated any claim they could make for damages. That's another way to express it. There is no one alive to ask that permission. The company or studio that took the photo in 1897 is no longer reachable, probably it no longer exists. In my heart I truly believe if I did contact the copyright holder and asked for a print, they could not provide one. Few companies, and fewer individuals have kept their library of negatives for over 100 years. If there was a historical value to one or more images stamped with the name of the copyright holder, they were bought up or had donated to companies or collectors such as the Library of Congress, or such as the National Photo Company Collection or the Detroit Publishing Catalog. More current images should be asked if the copyright holder can be reached in some way, yes? Copyright violation is all about damages. I think our laws differ between our two countries on this. I may be wrong, but it seems to me that damage settlements in your country are sometimes rather capriciously arrived at, whereas in Canada, damage awards are more in line with actual damages. While the actual copying of the work may be illegal, if the copyright owner isn't able to supply copies himself, he really can't claim he is being damaged if someone copies his work. This may not make the copying legal, but it should limit damages collectible, especially if the copying is non commercial, such as distributing a few copies of an image of someone's family taken a hundred or more years ago. -- William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT Not worth paying for
On Jun 10, 2012, at 21:21 , William Robb wrote: > Seems to me that if the copyright owner isn't able to supply you with a > print, they have pretty much invalidated any claim they could make for > damages. That's another way to express it. There is no one alive to ask that permission. The company or studio that took the photo in 1897 is no longer reachable, probably it no longer exists. In my heart I truly believe if I did contact the copyright holder and asked for a print, they could not provide one. Few companies, and fewer individuals have kept their library of negatives for over 100 years. If there was a historical value to one or more images stamped with the name of the copyright holder, they were bought up or had donated to companies or collectors such as the Library of Congress, or such as the National Photo Company Collection or the Detroit Publishing Catalog. More current images should be asked if the copyright holder can be reached in some way, yes? MrPentaxian MrMcMac — A picture is worth a thousand words but… It uses up a thousand times more memory, not to mention storage. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT Not worth paying for
On 10/06/2012 3:38 PM, Joseph McAllister wrote: 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 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. Seems to me that if the copyright owner isn't able to supply you with a print, they have pretty much invalidated any claim they could make for damages. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT Not worth paying for
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 pentax...@mac.com “ The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.” — Kevan Olesen -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT Not worth paying for
On Jun 9, 2012, at 10:40 PM, 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.) If I were an author or one with aspirations to be an author, and if I wanted to use photos or other artwork in my publication, it would seem that I have four courses of action: a. I could do the art work/photos myself; b. I could hire a professional or several to do the artwork/photos for me; c. I could find open source license-free artwork/photos I could use; or d. I could just browse around and steal other people's stuff without attempts at compensation, acknowledgement, etc. Actually, there is a fifth option - browse around and then do the right thing by asking for permission and offering compensation. This would seem to be the most complicated and potentially most expensive so I can understand why she isn't doing that. But her apparent preferred option, (d), is the most disrespectful of others intellectual property. As an author, how can she be so mindless? I have been involved in the publication of several professional books (i.e., reference books, text books), either as co-editor or co-author or as the supervisor of someone co-editing or authoring such books. [And hundreds of technical reports and articles.] Even though we tried to avoid it, there were times when it was just critical that we quote extensively from others' works and/or copy figures/tables/graphs. And that meant getting those authors' and their publishers' permission to use the material. That is by far the hardest work in writing something, even worse than doing an index. Option (a) or (b) have got to be the best way to go. If this woman is self-publishing, she can probably get away with doing whatever she wants to. If she is going through one of the handful of publishers who publish dog/cat/bird/hamster/ferret material, then her publisher should be apprised of their exposure to serious legal liabilities. stan -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
RE: OT Not worth paying for
> From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of > John Sessoms > > > > I wonder how expensive a copyright suit would be, if only one of > those > > photographers whose copyright she might infringe were to sue. > > If the copyright is registered the infringer has to pay all of the > costs. > Quite -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT Not worth paying for
It was what I expected. Matthew Hunt wrote: On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 11:31 AM, P. J. Alling wrote: I was wondering, did she even offer photo credit? Since she didn't ask who the photographer was, it seems unlikely. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT Not worth paying for
William Robb wrote: On 10/06/2012 6:12 AM, Matthew Hunt wrote: On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 7:00 AM, Paul Stenquist wrote: Most dog pics are taken by the dog owner, so I suspect the book author won't have much trouble getting enough photos that come with "the photographers"approval. There's lots of professional photography at dog shows and performance events (agility, obedience). This sort of training is likely to be the focus of the book. From what I've seen, the "dog people" just don't care about copyright. Once they "buy" the picture at a dog show, they use it magazines, ads, websites, whatever. The "dog magazines" run submitted pictures without asking who the photographer was, even when it clearly wasn't the owner. I'm sure it was the same with David Brooks and the equestrian photography. The dog world is terrible that way. I got asked (more told) one time by a breeder to send her a full size file of a picture I had taken of her dog so she could submit it to a calender company for publication. I told her I would happily trade services with her, and asked her if she could send me a puppy from her next litter as trade Planning on a roast? (sorry, but it was too easy). -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT Not worth paying for
On 10/06/2012 6:12 AM, Matthew Hunt wrote: On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 7:00 AM, Paul Stenquist wrote: Most dog pics are taken by the dog owner, so I suspect the book author won't have much trouble getting enough photos that come with "the photographers"approval. There's lots of professional photography at dog shows and performance events (agility, obedience). This sort of training is likely to be the focus of the book. From what I've seen, the "dog people" just don't care about copyright. Once they "buy" the picture at a dog show, they use it magazines, ads, websites, whatever. The "dog magazines" run submitted pictures without asking who the photographer was, even when it clearly wasn't the owner. I'm sure it was the same with David Brooks and the equestrian photography. The dog world is terrible that way. I got asked (more told) one time by a breeder to send her a full size file of a picture I had taken of her dog so she could submit it to a calender company for publication. I told her I would happily trade services with her, and asked her if she could send me a puppy from her next litter as trade -- William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT Not worth paying for
On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 11:31 AM, P. J. Alling wrote: > I was wondering, did she even offer photo credit? Since she didn't ask who the photographer was, it seems unlikely. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT Not worth paying for
On 10/06/2012 12:26 AM, Bob W wrote: -Original Message- From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of Matthew Hunt Sent: 10 June 2012 03:40 To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: OT Not worth paying for 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.) Mathew, could you send me the name of the person offlist please? Thanks -- William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
RE: OT Not worth paying for
From: "Bob W" From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of Matthew Hunt [...] 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.) This is rather like the claim many of us have doubtless heard from people who don't want to pay upfront for quality software (or any other product you care to name). They end up paying more to retrofit the quality later. I wonder how expensive a copyright suit would be, if only one of those photographers whose copyright she might infringe were to sue. If the copyright is registered the infringer has to pay all of the costs. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT Not worth paying for
I was wondering, did she even offer photo credit? knarftheria...@gmail.com wrote: I think you were being more than reasonable in your offer. I am surprised that she was not willing to offer you ~anything~ for the use of your photo. She has some nerve! I would have done the same thing were I in your shoes. Cheers, frank "What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof." -- Christopher Hitchens --- Original Message --- From: Matthew Hunt Sent: June 9, 2012 6/9/12 To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" Subject: OT Not worth paying for 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.) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
RE: OT Not worth paying for
I think you were being more than reasonable in your offer. I am surprised that she was not willing to offer you ~anything~ for the use of your photo. She has some nerve! I would have done the same thing were I in your shoes. Cheers, frank "What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof." -- Christopher Hitchens --- Original Message --- From: Matthew Hunt Sent: June 9, 2012 6/9/12 To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" Subject: OT Not worth paying for 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.) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
RE: OT Not worth paying for
> From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of > Matthew Hunt [...] > > 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.) > This is rather like the claim many of us have doubtless heard from people who don't want to pay upfront for quality software (or any other product you care to name). They end up paying more to retrofit the quality later. I wonder how expensive a copyright suit would be, if only one of those photographers whose copyright she might infringe were to sue. B -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT Not worth paying for
On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 7:00 AM, Paul Stenquist wrote: > Most dog pics are taken by the dog owner, so I suspect the book author won't > have much trouble getting enough photos that come with "the > photographers"approval. There's lots of professional photography at dog shows and performance events (agility, obedience). This sort of training is likely to be the focus of the book. >From what I've seen, the "dog people" just don't care about copyright. Once they "buy" the picture at a dog show, they use it magazines, ads, websites, whatever. The "dog magazines" run submitted pictures without asking who the photographer was, even when it clearly wasn't the owner. I'm sure it was the same with David Brooks and the equestrian photography. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT Not worth paying for
Most dog pics are taken by the dog owner, so I suspect the book author won't have much trouble getting enough photos that come with "the photographers"approval. I understand why you would say no since you take your photography seriously, but for the vast majority, having a photo of their dog in the book is reward enough. I would be surprised if the author ends up making more than $10 an hour for his efforts in writing this book. I understand his predicament. Paul On Jun 9, 2012, at 10:40 PM, 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.) > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT Not worth paying for
In this day & age of self publishing a 'publisher' who's understands the niceties of image usage is a rare thing. DS On 10 June 2012 14:26, Bob W wrote: > if she's using a respectable publisher then their legal department should > put a stop to that. In any case, if she won't give the book away, why should > you give the photo away? > > B > >> -Original Message- >> From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of >> Matthew Hunt >> Sent: 10 June 2012 03:40 >> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> Subject: OT Not worth paying for >> >> 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.) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
RE: OT Not worth paying for
if she's using a respectable publisher then their legal department should put a stop to that. In any case, if she won't give the book away, why should you give the photo away? B > -Original Message- > From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of > Matthew Hunt > Sent: 10 June 2012 03:40 > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: OT Not worth paying for > > 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.) > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and > follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
