this post was submitted on 17 Nov 2023
1 points (100.0% liked)

Photography

24 readers
1 users here now

A place to politely discuss the tools, technique and culture of photography.

This is not a good place to simply share cool photos/videos or promote your own work and projects, but rather a place to discuss photography as an art and post things that would be of interest to other photographers.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
communick@viewfinder.pro
1
Publisher Used My Photo Without Permission (alien.top)
submitted 1 year ago by BeingBalanced@alien.top to c/photography@viewfinder.pro
8 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

I see that Getty sells high resolution royalty-free stock images for $500. I assume that's a license in perpetuity to use the image however and wherever you want but just not be able to resell it yourself. I also assume that means they can keep selling the same license to others for the same photo.

I took some photos that I provided to a major publisher along with an article I wrote that then syndicates my article in the relevant local travel magazine website. They told me they were going to use my article (and paid me for it) and not use the photos I took. I've discovered the company has published one of my photos in four articles (not written by me) in two major City local travel websites, crediting me on the photo but I received no compensation nor was asked permission to uses it.
Normally they get non-exclusive rights to any of my photos they use with my article for an additional $50/photo charge.

I'm trying to figure out a ballpark reasonable fee they should pay per photo. Seems to me at minimum they should pay $50 X 4 articles. = $200? And a lot more if they want exclusive rights to use the image.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] cookie_kindness@alien.top 1 points 1 year ago

Because I’ve seen it happen first-hand. The metadata fields get automatically pulled over into the content management system, but there’s no field for “this has been properly licensed and here are the terms,” at least in the one I’ve seen. It’s a flaw, to be sure. Irresponsible but not nefarious.