Short listed on Flickr??? (Semi Urgent)

[DScience]

'So you're worried that a bunch of folks with cameras are digging into your business, then guess what; dig deeper."

EXACTLY!!!

 

[Mystwalker]

Perpetual is one of the big scary points-- that does mean that as soon as you agree, then they can use the picture as long as they wish.

"perpetual" - this I have a BIG problem with ... "forever" is one heck of a long time

If I ever made my shots public, I will not have problem with people using them to make profit, BUT not on a perpetual basis. My answer is based on fact that I do not make money (or intend to) with my photography.

"Schmaps" should be glad they are "granted free usage" - they should not be greedy and ask for perpetual rights. Beggars can't be choosers type of deal.

 

[In2daBlue]

OK, here's one: My brother, a high school history teacher who picked up photography a year ago after I gave him an old D200 of mine is an hobbyist shooter from the word go. He enjoys it though and never expects to make a living from it but, he is getting good and takes some worthwhile shots. He took a nice photo of the Denver skyline at sunset a couple of months back and posted it to Flickr.

Last week he got an inquiry from a very prominent business that wanted to use his photo for some Web design they are doing. Of course, they told him they would give him credit and asked to use it for free. He called me and asked what he should say. He wanted to give it to them, because as a teacher, his photography is not seen by many people and as an amateur he said he didn't really care about the free use part as the exposure was more important to him.

I told him my old adage that you will never be paid for a photo if you're always giving them away for free and suggested he tell the business in question that his photography was only for sale not for credit. He reluctantly took my advice. At first they said "Thanks anyway" and then went on to lecture him about how many photos on Flickr there were of Denver and that they were sure they could find someone willing to give one to them for credit. Again, he reluctantly said his photography was only for sale not credit.

He called me two days later saying he wished he would have given them the photo, as the business is such a prominent fixture in Denver and that he would then have a place to say his photography was being displayed. I told him not to fret, that the shot is good enough to be paid for it and to let it go.

Yesterday, the business contacted him asking what price he would be willing to sell the photo for. At first he was going to say $75 but called me first. I told him that because this a FOR-PROFIT business and because they have money set aside for advertising, to quote $450 for one-time use on their Web site. Again, he reluctantly agreed.

They transfered $450 into his PayPal account yesterday evening.

For all the hobbyists out there who want exposure, take this true story as a lesson. First, don't ever give away your photography for credit only to a for-profit business. Second, don't undersell your work. If you don't value your photography, in the end, who will?

Take it or leave it.

 

[RacePhoto]

Just to clarify: if you submit the picture, you're in fact asked to provide a name they can attribute it to, and they also link the image back to your flickr page - just as the terms of submission state under 4.b and 4.c. I've downloaded one of those guides to check, and personally I really can't complain about the implementation either.
It's just that they don't pay you, and still I doubt you can get famous via Schmap (I hadn't even heard of this service before, but maybe that's just me).

Have to agree with you, if it's just going to be a small photo in the guide and someone doesn't mind giving it away to have their name in print and a link to their Flickr account, what's the harm? Look at it as about the same exposure as putting a photo on Flickr for everyone to see for free? They will be printing a photo that's 1/2 and inch wide. That's not some big paying shot in any use.

For the other responder who seems to jump at things from the negative side, I'll add this.

Photos are published at a maximum width of 150 pixels, are clearly attributed, and link to high-resolution originals at Flickr.

I don't have a Flickr account because I have no interest in giving my photos away and too many people think "If it's on the Internet and I can right click it, it's free." But I have given photos to websites and organizations for free use. It's not always about money. I just like to know who's going to be using them.