Constant Content

Hi Constant,

It would be really cool and I think a good sales factor if we could embed images in our articles. I know that opens up a whole boatload of pros and cons, but sometimes I think the article would be so much better if I could ad a screenshot of my own.

You could use tineye.com and images.google.com to check for copyright.

If this has already been mentioned, oopsie my bad.

I don't like that idea much. CC has a definite emphasis on writing with good grammar, punctuation and style. We all know that because we know how strict the editors can be. I think adding photos could chip away at the writing standards. Also, if we writers have to research whether photos have a clear copyright that would add to the time that we spend preparing an article.

gorgygirl wrote:I don't like that idea much. CC has a definite emphasis on writing with good grammar, punctuation and style. We all know that because we know how strict the editors can be. I think adding photos could chip away at the writing standards. Also, if we writers have to research whether photos have a clear copyright that would add to the time that we spend preparing an article.

Agreed!

I can't agree more with the initial post. So, it takes more time and adds value, which means creators charge more. I don't see the issue with that. Of course, if buyers aren't willing to pay for the pictures, that could be a problem. That's something we tell with experience and experimentation, though, just like setting prices and selling the articles we already are.

When I first started at CC, they offered writers the opportunity to sell images as well. It didn't work and was discontinued. I have private clients that occasionally ask for an image or two to go with an article and I accommodate them by sending the image to their client rep and it is forwarded to them. There are thousands of images being sold that are copyright violations. I am a professional photographer and have a constant battle with people removing my copyright from my images and reselling them. I belong to a group of photographers world wide who are very tired of their images showing up all over the Internet without being paid, or credited, and other people's names added as the copyright owner.

CC can't be expected to take responsibility for copyright violations writers have made. Google is successful in finding copyright ownership only 38% of the time. Image thieves can scrape a photography site in minutes and then start selling the photographs for premium prices. They remove digital watermarks by downloading the image and running through a scanner. Anyone with basic knowledge of PhotoShop can remove a printed watermark either by cropping or cloning. That leaves room for a while lot of lawsuits. There are good stock photography sites where clients can pay for the legal use of photographs, so photographer's can earn a living too. I write for several magazines that also purchase my photos to accompany the article.

This is marketed as a high quality writing site, and in my opinion, if they have to have the editors checking on image copyrights as well, the average wait time will double. I like the site the way it is. If a client makes a request for an image, try to fulfill it if you can do it without a violation of someone's copyright.