A photobuyer calls, "We like the photos you sent us and have scanned two dozen of them in our database."
"You what...?" is your response.
The photobuyer responds, "You have a lot of pictures that we feel we could use in the future. We're building an in-house reference file. Any problems with that?"
Consider it a compliment. Scanning of photos by a photobuyer needn't be a threatening experience. Twenty years ago, when only large corporations had photocopy machines, copying a photo for their files initially seemed like copyright infringement to stock photographers. Gradually we saw we were getting sales from the photocopy reference photos on file with photobuyers.
The same is happening with scanning. The photobuyer scans photos to obtain low resolution "thumbnail" images to put into their reference "view-only" database. A software program cross-references them.
In the future, scanning your selections will be commonplace. No need to fear thievery any more than you do at the present. And particularly if you are working within the confines of a photobuying community where you know your buyers and they know you, it would be odd to hear of larceny.
Scanning comes in all forms, and most scanned thumbnails are useless for anything more than a reference print, "comps," or a postage-stamp-size image. To scan to produce a full-blown high-resolution "reproducible" image takes too much disk space. Most photobuyers are going to be confined to disk space that gives them room for just a few high resolution photos at a time.
A graver problem regards digital images is that it's possible to easily pass them on to others (swapping). If a photobuyer goes out of business, or photobuyers begin trading images, yours, or parts of yours, could be involved in the action.
Again, however, if you are working as a specialist and deal with repeat buyers, you will know your buyers and they will know you. Encourage potential repeat buyers to scan your photos. -RE
Welcome
to ImageStox.com. Here's where you'll
find information about photo thievery, avoiding
internet abuse of pictures, copyright abuse,
and selling pictures.
Who Are The Thieves?
The answer will surprise you...
Once a year, it seems, a question about thievery on the Internet comes up. As I've written before -- thievery on the Web is certainly possible. With today's software capabilities, it's possible to 'res up' a 72 dpi image to 300 dpi with excellent results.
So, technically it's possible to "steal images" by capturing small images on the Web and increasing their resolution. In my book, sellphotos.com, I give some examples of misguided improper use of photos.
One example: A commercial printing company executive used a previously published photo from the company's digital file for unauthorized use in a commercial brochure. The photographer took him to court. And rightly so. But the infraction was a mistake -- not outright thievery.
As we rush pell-mell along in the new Digital Age, of course some honest mistakes are going to be made. We're all entitled to a few of those.
NOT OUR PHOTOBUYERS
However, since the emphasis at PhotoSource International is on editorial stock photography, not studio pictures, not commercial stock photos, we should keep in mind just who we are apprehensively thinking may steal a photo. Our markets are books and magazines. And relax: photobuyers at book and magazine publishing houses don't steal photos.
Nor do commercial art directors. The negative fall-out would be too damaging. But as I say, commercial photography is not our bailiwick. We have a greater advantage being editorial stock photographers-- we produce pictures that can easily be identified because of their uniqueness. We need to examine whether we're putting too much worry into a concern that does not deserve it.
A rare few early mistakes have been made as everyone gets introduced to the Digital Age. This has been a learning process for executives and printing company personnel as well as the general public, who are now learning the benefits of the Web. Eventually ignorance on appropriate handling of photos will diminish.
You won't find your photobuyers at publishing houses and magazines exhibiting such ignorance.
LURKING IN CYBERSPACE?
But the question is... "Is thievery rampant, or even existent, on the Web?"
Ever since photographers began realizing that it's possible for someone to "borrow" an image from the Web, I've heard warnings from my fellow camera columnists that thieves are lurking in cyberspace, waiting to steal your photos. Certain pros in our industry often perpetuate the myth at seminars and camera club meetings. They warn that photographers should beware, and that they should not expose images on the Web unless they are so tiny that someone could not profitably make use of them.
Look. A photobuyer who likes his or her job, is not going to jeopardize their good name and that of their company by lurking in cyberspace to steal images from vulnerable stock photographers. It's just not happening.
Sure, there may be the rare exception. But that kind of thievery was happening before the Digital Age came along. A certain percent of the population is going to be stealing things, no matter what kind of lock you put on it.
Ask yourself, "What are you putting your images on the Web for?" It's to expose them to the buying public. If you hide them or make them too tiny and ineffective, you are sacrificing a major marketing channel.
When I hear reports of stolen images, I ask the persons for documentation. The informants seldom come forth. When they do -- it turns out that a cub scout organization, church group, non-profit newsletter, foreign newspaper, or industrious teen-ager, is the culprit.
So What?
Should we put in barriers to entry to potential buyers by installing a firewall or elaborate registration system? Few of us can afford time spent on paranoia or money on expensive deterrent software. Nor can we afford to have photobuyers, when they encounter these barriers, move on to the next photo supplier.
I have said this often: "Please let me know (with documentation) where a professional photobuyer in the United States has purposely stolen someone's image. No hearsay please, I need documentation." (This refers to the U.S. because of the familiarity of our rules of Copyright, etc. in this country. Other countries have different copyright protections.) I'm still looking for someone to come forward with documented evidence that "stealing images" by a reputable organization has or is being done.
As I mentioned earlier, this question comes up yearly. Each year, I make the same request. Send me some (documented) U.S. examples of images stolen by a professional photobuyer.
I never get them.
-- Rohn Engh
Business
Notepad
MODEL RELEASE.
As an editorial photographer, will you need a model release pad in your photo bag or back pocket ? No, you won’t, and this video explains why.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DevxX-e57j8 ... Full
Story
Program maintains it's easy to earn extra
funds by establishing a photo business out of your home and
photographing local businesses, corporations, churches, schools,
sports teams, and families in your community.
Internet Thievery
Q: To: Rohn Engh. Your writings on the Internet about the problem of surfers stealing photos being not the threat that it's made out to be, has caused quite a controversy. How can you say that we don't have to worry about photo thievery on the Internet ?
A: There's an element of human nature involved here: Trust.
I can remember when we first got here to the farm. The nearest grocery was (still is) the Horse Creek Store. Fred Nelson would stand behind the counter and retrieve the products you wanted from the shelves. It's not that he didn't trust his customers. It was always done that way. A few years later when supermarkets were introduced, I asked Fred if he thought customers would walk out of the supermarkets with products in their pockets without paying.
Fred's response, "Well, there might be some of that."
As we all know now, yes, a few people, it turns out, will do that. Maybe 2% --maybe 5% -- of the population. Nevertheless, at the Horse Creek Store you now gather your own items from the shelves. And the supermarket service model, used everywhere from huge groceries to hardware stores, has benefited both customers and owners. Customers retrieve the products themselves, and thereby far more customers can be taken care of per day. Businesses have learned to factor the minor loss through thievery into the cost of the products and volume sales.
This model places an element of trust in the customer. It says, "I trust you (most of you!) enough that you won't walk out of my store without paying." It absorbs the modest occurrence of thievery.
The Internet will also eventually settle into a comfortable balance built on basic trust. Why not put energy toward serving the 95% of customers who are going to be trustworthy, rather than the 5% who won't be?
You might say, "Well, photos are different. They are easy to steal. No one is watching."
Perhaps, but small items ranging from chewing gum to shampoo are easy to steal. Most people, including kids, are basically honest. They don't steal. Stealing, besides being immoral, has disadvantages that outweigh the benefits.
When we hear of Internet theft, you'll find that most of the perpetrators of Internet theft cases fall into the "immature hot shot" age category. Another small percentage of guilty parties are people ignorant of copyright law. The final percentage consists of people who live life trying to get away with getting something for nothing. But is it worth your time to track them down and shake a finger at them? (That's about the only reward you are going to realize.)
I would advise going about your business without agitation, knowing that human nature is on your side. The majority of people who are going to visit your website are not going to steal, either because they are moral -- or it is too inconvenient!
David Arnold and Gail Rutman are Oregon-based photographers who have been writing about photography and computers since 1980. Their web site is at http://www.arnoldrutman.com.
Of
Interest
When Security Is a Security Risk
Yet another fake Windows Security Center is out there. Current Windows products include a Security Center that warns you of dangerous conditions, like whether you have a firewall installed, if you’ve turned off Window’s Automatic Updates and the status of your anti-virus program.
This trojan modifies certain Windows settings, and uses the Security Center to falsely warn you of missing anti-virus protection. Of course, the real issue is the fake Security Center warning. It tells you to download a specific product (the real Security Center does not specify products by name), which costs forty bucks.
Just like the protection rackets of decades ago (yes, I know they still exist in the world), you are to pay to clean up a mess (or prevent one) that is not of your making. This trojan instructs you to download WinDefender 2008.’ And to help ensure that you do, it blocks outgoing Internet connections so you can’t download a legitimate program, and continually harasses ... Full
Story
COST OF TRAVEL OVERSEAS is always prohibitive for the stock photographer
just starting out. One way to skirt around this problem is to become a
Travel Agent.
BETTER VIDEOS COMING Canon, Nikon video-shooting SLR cameras ready for action
Two new SLRs can now shoot high-definition video, taking advantage of
the superior lenses (much better than video cameras,
way better than point-and-shoots) available for SLRs.
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/products/2008-10-01-slr-video_N.htm?csp=34
HOW DO THEY DO IT? Yuri Arcurs - Microstock Entrepreneur - Not content with an
annual microstock income of US$1.3 million and being the top selling microstock photographer, Yuri Arcurs is creating a microstock empire. Here's a summary of his new entrepreneurial activities.
http://www.microstockdiaries.com/meet-the-new-yuri-arcurs-microstock-entrepreneur.html
WHO SAID PHOTOGRAPHERS CAN’T WRITE? History in the Buffer - David Burnett, photojournalist, wrote this piece about his experience "in the buffer" covering the election night in Chicago. A remarkable diary of his election night experience.
http://werejustsayin.blogspot.com/2008/11/history-in-buffer.html
TAKEAWAY: When TIME Magazine made “the computer” the Man of the Year, they sent David Burnett to Pine Lake Farm to photograph me and my new Radio Shack TRS-80 Model II. You can see the picture TIME used at:
http://www.photosource.com/rohntime
