Links to Member Photos

[tegan]

I should also indicate that some of us deal with corporations rather than the general public and I deal in television and video as well as photography, so I have no need for web site and in fact see web sites as having disadvantages to a professional photographer.

Tegan

[AcadieLibre]

in fact see web sites as having disadvantages to a professional photographer.

Tegan

Curious can you elaborate on that further? You must do some photography for enjoyment and don't you want others to see your work?

[tegan]

Curious can you elaborate on that further? You must do some photography for enjoyment and don't you want others to see your work?

Sure, the first area is copyright. Despite the fact that the photographer retains copyright whether he/she posts photos on the net or not, enforcing these rights can be difficult, particularly if the offender is based in another country. Determining loss due to copyright infringement requires you to trace the use and perhaps reselling of your photo.

To talk generally about law suits, I am finishing up work on a different one after 3 years. The time involved has been considerable and for example something as mundane as photocopying costs of documents has totalled $20,000.

Even, if you win a judgement, you still need to collect it, which may involve court orders and further legal action.

The type of shot that is stolen is most often the simple shot that symbolizes or represents places and concepts: Canada, Québec, Newfoundland, Africa, multi-culturalism, racial equality, freedom, love, sorrow, war, peace, environmentalism, pollution etc. The second type of stealable shot is one with a perfect location in the image for a text overlay. The third is the emotional/humourous, effective, candid grab shot which has all kinds of potential uses.

The second area is visual impact. Owners of stores, web sites, magazines, newspapers, television stations, etc. find that they need to redo their visual layout and appearance to be noticed and get new customers and potential business. When it comes to photography, buyers are often looking for a "fresh", different style, look etc. Inversely, a lot of public exposure reduces the saleability of a photo. "Oh, people have seen that before!"

So, of course, I could create a gallery/site and not put my best work in it, but I am not sure whether that would be counter-productive or not.


Tegan

[Travis]

I have a Flickr account that I am working on....

Just waiting to build up a better volume of quality images before I link...

People that use Flickr (or equiv) that are concerned about copyright usually post their pic's in a poor quality jpeg... I guess this makes thieves less interested due to poor printable quality...

I guess it's really up to each person to balance their risk... I definitely understand a pro taking more precautions then an amateur...

[tegan]

I have a Flickr account that I am working on....

Just waiting to build up a better volume of quality images before I link...

People that use Flickr (or equiv) that are concerned about copyright usually post their pic's in a poor quality jpeg... I guess this makes thieves less interested due to poor printable quality......

I find it somewhat amusing that some people have copyright through their images or use poor quality jpegs of photos that most pros would throw out in the garbage.

In assessing risk, you need a good eye for photography and a good understanding of what is "worth stealing" and what isn't.

Tegan

[Alex Wilson]

I've got a link to my site in my sig.

An the art side of photography, I think a website is an invaluable tool. For minimal cost and a bit of time, it exposes your work to a huge audience. My site generates commercial gigs, print and book sales, and collaborations with models that I might not have otherwise got in contact with. It's not going to make me rich or anything, but it's certainly worth it for me to do it. I was interviewed for a feature in the UK Digital Photographer magazine a few months back, and I'm sure that came about solely because of my web presence.

More importantly, it gives me something to do with all my images. Not all of them can make it into book, and I got lots that I think are worth sharing.

As for dealing with copyright and stuff, I just limit the size of images I post. If someone really wants to steal or make a print from a 600 pixel image, so be it. I find watermarks really annoying and distracting, so the only time I've used them (aside from proofs) were at the specific requests of models who had past problems of people stealing their images.

After the camera itself, and Photoshop (or whatever your editing application of choice is), the website is probably the next most useful tool in a modern art photographer's toolbox.

[tegan]

After the camera itself, and Photoshop (or whatever your editing application of choice is), the website is probably the next most useful tool in a modern art photographer's toolbox.

For some certainly, but you need to know your market. I'm in a situation where I know more about the Internet and computers than most that I come in contact with, who are several years or sometimes, decades younger.

Diversification into all media areas has also reduced my need to advertise or have a web site. I can choose what I wish to do, from various kinds of photography through to video, television production and multimedia presentations.

Tegan