I was still wondering about this:
How/Where do we put "photo taken by..." OR is our name automatically included? I know for the articles we have to include it in the article, but how do you do that for the photos?
I know REason mentioned that the page of the photos has "designed by", but I do not beleive this means our name would have to be included by the buyers -- or does it? (All of our article pages have this same feature (written by), but this does not include our name when article sells)
I just know that we HAVE to have the name as part of the article to be included for articles, but how do you do that with a picture????
THANKS!!!!
Catnipp333
How Do We Add Our Name as Photographer?
Moderators: Celeste Stewart, Ed, Constant
-
catnipp333
- Posts: 203
- Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2006 4:37 am
- Location: Florida
- Contact:
How Industry Cites Photography Credits
I think I understand your question. How the industry works is that it is common practice for photo buyers and photo researchers to give photography credits next to the photograph or somewhere else in the article. Usually they will cite the photographer (in this case designer) and sometimes the agency as well. As an example: Photography by REason / Constant Content.
The reason that it is up to the Photo buyers and Researchers to cite the credit is that they are usually the graphic or page layout designers. It gives them flexibility on photo placement in the design of the article.
The other reason is that if you try to place a copyright notice into the photo itself - it can obscure the image or it might not show up at all due to image manipulation or scaling.
This is industry standard and it may seem a little bizarre to writers. The challenge I believe is educating the end user - that is people who are not professional photo buyers and researchers but are acting in the same capacity. The standard operating procedures work pretty good in the graphic realm.
I suggest that everyone take a look at some top notch stock photo sites - after all they are the competition! Be careful not to compare apples and sour grapes. There are two types of stock photo sites and the business model differs greatly. The ones that you should look at are those that have a monetary amount attached to the photo - not tokens, coupons, credits or other types of play money. These are called micropayment stock photo agencies. Another post in the question forum touched on this type of business model - but it is very different than Constant Content. Unfortunately for everyone the micropayment business model is hard to understand at first. There is a really good article on this very subject, that I hope people will read:
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.06/crowds.html
When you read the article keep in mind the only fact that the author got wrong is the national average salary of photographers. Photographers national average salary is only $30,000 a year - even back then when the article was written.
Guess it's pretty obvious I'm a photographer. When I'm in photo mode my writing goes out the window - don't analyze my grammar and spelling please!
The reason that it is up to the Photo buyers and Researchers to cite the credit is that they are usually the graphic or page layout designers. It gives them flexibility on photo placement in the design of the article.
The other reason is that if you try to place a copyright notice into the photo itself - it can obscure the image or it might not show up at all due to image manipulation or scaling.
This is industry standard and it may seem a little bizarre to writers. The challenge I believe is educating the end user - that is people who are not professional photo buyers and researchers but are acting in the same capacity. The standard operating procedures work pretty good in the graphic realm.
I suggest that everyone take a look at some top notch stock photo sites - after all they are the competition! Be careful not to compare apples and sour grapes. There are two types of stock photo sites and the business model differs greatly. The ones that you should look at are those that have a monetary amount attached to the photo - not tokens, coupons, credits or other types of play money. These are called micropayment stock photo agencies. Another post in the question forum touched on this type of business model - but it is very different than Constant Content. Unfortunately for everyone the micropayment business model is hard to understand at first. There is a really good article on this very subject, that I hope people will read:
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.06/crowds.html
When you read the article keep in mind the only fact that the author got wrong is the national average salary of photographers. Photographers national average salary is only $30,000 a year - even back then when the article was written.
Guess it's pretty obvious I'm a photographer. When I'm in photo mode my writing goes out the window - don't analyze my grammar and spelling please!
Hi REason,
Thanks for the link and all the info. You don't need to tell us you are a photographer, we can see that from your work, I like your photographs very much!
Any words of advice for passionate, but very amateur photographers like me? I have posted some of my work on CC, but feel pretty unsure yet...... 
Thanks for the link and all the info. You don't need to tell us you are a photographer, we can see that from your work, I like your photographs very much!
Any words of advice for passionate, but very amateur photographers like me? I have posted some of my work on CC, but feel pretty unsure yet...... Thanks for the compliment. Even I feel unsure! There is always a certain amount of guesstimates when a new service is offered.
The photo stock is only slightly different from the writing. I'm used to Royalty Free licensing which isn't offered in writing. In royalty free the purchaser pays a one time fee for as many times as they want to use it. They may also manipulate the image into composites and such; however, they don't get the copyright. I know it must seem bizarre to writers that someone could pay high dollar for as many uses as they want plus have the ability to change the image but not obtain full rights. It's very different and I must take that into consideration when pricing. I'm trying for competitive pricing. It may or may not work here. We shall see!
Video licensing is also very different photography and writing. Unfortunately I think I am stuck on obtaining audio for my videos. I may not be able to sell here. I have not found a way to get around performance licenses and mass production rights (this is usually around 5,000 professional mass manufactured discs). All these licenses are extra and most audio stock sites have limits in these areas. Unless CC adds limits to the video usage, I can't sell. I can get around these limits by purchasing extra licenses but it's just far too much money. Not very cost effective either to hire a band. I could always not put audio in the video - but what's a video without background music. Not liking that idea at all.
While I'm thinking about it - there is an excellent web site www.pdnonline.com.
If you can afford it I would subscribe to it. Good industry news. They did this one article on disability insurance for photographers and how it was more expensive for females than males. Good solid investigative reporting.
The Cost of Disability Insurance - here is the URL:
http://login.vnuemedia.com/pdn/login/lo ... FM5g%3D%3D
The photo stock is only slightly different from the writing. I'm used to Royalty Free licensing which isn't offered in writing. In royalty free the purchaser pays a one time fee for as many times as they want to use it. They may also manipulate the image into composites and such; however, they don't get the copyright. I know it must seem bizarre to writers that someone could pay high dollar for as many uses as they want plus have the ability to change the image but not obtain full rights. It's very different and I must take that into consideration when pricing. I'm trying for competitive pricing. It may or may not work here. We shall see!
Video licensing is also very different photography and writing. Unfortunately I think I am stuck on obtaining audio for my videos. I may not be able to sell here. I have not found a way to get around performance licenses and mass production rights (this is usually around 5,000 professional mass manufactured discs). All these licenses are extra and most audio stock sites have limits in these areas. Unless CC adds limits to the video usage, I can't sell. I can get around these limits by purchasing extra licenses but it's just far too much money. Not very cost effective either to hire a band. I could always not put audio in the video - but what's a video without background music. Not liking that idea at all.
While I'm thinking about it - there is an excellent web site www.pdnonline.com.
If you can afford it I would subscribe to it. Good industry news. They did this one article on disability insurance for photographers and how it was more expensive for females than males. Good solid investigative reporting.
The Cost of Disability Insurance - here is the URL:
http://login.vnuemedia.com/pdn/login/lo ... FM5g%3D%3D
-
catnipp333
- Posts: 203
- Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2006 4:37 am
- Location: Florida
- Contact:
-
Celeste Stewart
- Posts: 3528
- Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2006 5:28 pm
- Location: California
- Contact:
Hi Catnipp,
I would maybe place a line in the description area specifying how you would like the credit to read. You probably don't want your screen name to appear and would prefer your professional name, right? So maybe write: Please cite the photo credit to Joe Q. Public rather than Catnipp33(insert your real name instead of Joe Q Public of course).
I would maybe place a line in the description area specifying how you would like the credit to read. You probably don't want your screen name to appear and would prefer your professional name, right? So maybe write: Please cite the photo credit to Joe Q. Public rather than Catnipp33(insert your real name instead of Joe Q Public of course).
-
catnipp333
- Posts: 203
- Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2006 4:37 am
- Location: Florida
- Contact:
Celeste,
THANKS for the reply -- that is exactly what I dont want -- my username being used instead of my name.
Do you know if this is the way to do it? (What you suggested)?
I know how it must be in the articles to be included, but how are we assured it is done with pictures?
THANKS again!!!
Catnipp333
THANKS for the reply -- that is exactly what I dont want -- my username being used instead of my name.
Do you know if this is the way to do it? (What you suggested)?
I know how it must be in the articles to be included, but how are we assured it is done with pictures?
THANKS again!!!
Catnipp333
-
Celeste Stewart
- Posts: 3528
- Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2006 5:28 pm
- Location: California
- Contact:
Maybe create a second CC account using your real name for subbing photos? Not sure if this is allowed or not. Plus it would be a pain going back and forth between accounts. Hmnn.
For now, I would place a note telling customers how you want credit to be given but there's no guarantee they would necessarily follow instructions.
For now, I would place a note telling customers how you want credit to be given but there's no guarantee they would necessarily follow instructions.
Celeste's suggestion is a good one. A "credit as" field would be appropriate for photos. I have nothing to do with this, so I don't know if it will be implemented.
Not to be cynical, but even if there was a blinking screen that said in neon letters "GIVE PHOTO CREDIT AS," there is no guarantee that anyone is going to credit photos. Unfortunately, giving credit for photos has never caught on in the web world - I see webmasters and freelance writers using photos without crediting those photos all the time . . . even on this site, but others, too.
I'm not sure why people think this is okay, but it is a risk you take. Many people will credit as a matter of course; others won't credit at all.
Ed
Not to be cynical, but even if there was a blinking screen that said in neon letters "GIVE PHOTO CREDIT AS," there is no guarantee that anyone is going to credit photos. Unfortunately, giving credit for photos has never caught on in the web world - I see webmasters and freelance writers using photos without crediting those photos all the time . . . even on this site, but others, too.
I'm not sure why people think this is okay, but it is a risk you take. Many people will credit as a matter of course; others won't credit at all.
Ed
Ed is correct. It may be viewed as being cynical but it is truthful. I've been pirated before and will be pirated again. It's the nature of the web.
Every photographer or artist should realize this and prepare for it when the time comes. I encourage people to make their own guidelines. Under what circumstances will they respond to infringements and when it isn't worth it. For some it's about principles while other artist's won't waste their time sending an e-mail unless they can obtain monetary compensation.
Every photographer or artist should realize this and prepare for it when the time comes. I encourage people to make their own guidelines. Under what circumstances will they respond to infringements and when it isn't worth it. For some it's about principles while other artist's won't waste their time sending an e-mail unless they can obtain monetary compensation.