I have received a couple of questions/concerns from photographers who have
not sent in their photos over (1) They should get paid for their work, as opposed to displaying it for free, or (2) The disclaimer on the POTD sites is not strong enough in terms of letting the viewer actually download the photo.
I took some time and sent a lengthy reply to one of them, and am wondering if I should devote a paragraph or page on each of the sites to better define what we are trying to accomplish. My response is below, please tell me if you think think along these lines, or if it is too strongly worded or too weak.
Hi [anonymous]
Very good question, in fact I have considered devoting a page or maybe a paragraph on each of the POTD sites to answering this type of concern.
I would say, first and foremost, if you are a professional photographer, meaning you are paid for your work, you probably do not want to put your work "out there" on the Internet in a resolution high enough to be copied and printed.* If you can make a living selling your work, more power to you.
That is probably 2 or 3% of the folks who have an interest in viewing or displaying images on the POTD sites.
The other ones find joy in sharing what they have accomplished with their eye, camera, and computer. I think that the greatest pride I have found in my work is when a person emails me or announces on a forum that they made my photo into their desktop wallpaper. Or a family whose kid I photographed at the beach tells me the image I sent them by email was so nice that they are going to make an 8x10 print of it. I like that. How much could I have made by selling that random image? $50? $100? Nah, then I'd have to get a business license, keep track of my income and expenses related to photography, declare all of it on my taxes, etc
Yuck. That's called work, and I shoot for the joy of it. I don't want it to be work.
To answer another part of your question, what if I put in a stronger disclaimer that "these images may NOT be downloaded for personal pleasure or printed out for personal use"?
It is probably naive to think that either the artist or the Internet Police could actually catch people who download images and make desktop wallpaper out of them. Or even print out a nice 8x10 and frame it and hang it on their wall; who is going to know? Other than the guilt trip that I could try to lay on them with a strongly-worded disclaimer, I don't see how you can avoid folks grabbing images off the Internet to enjoy for personal use. The music business has spent millions trying to figure out how to avoid illegal downloads and it has gotten them nowhere so far.
What the disclaimer does is give the artist a legal leg to stand on if someone tries to make money on his work, i.e. uses it in a calendar, or a brochure, or elsewhere on the Internet to advertise his business.
We have clearly stated that images may not be reproduced for commercial or business purposes, or for profit, and that they may not be re-posted elsewhere without the express permission of the original photographer. That avoids the assumption that the image is part of the public domain, and reserves all rights to commercial use for the original artist.
If these things concern you, I would not want you to worry about it or lose any sleep over the possible misuse of your images. Just don't send them in, it should be that simple.
I hope that this also in a way sets a purpose and goal for the POTD sites.
We want as many people as possible to see and be impressed with the work of serious, though not necessarily professional, photographers. The world and its inhabitants are wonderful to photograph, and sharing good images should bring joy, a sense of community, charity, and a rightful pride in giving to others a sight that they may never be able to see on their own.
Sorry for the long essay, but I have been asked similar questions once or twice in the last week. I wanted to craft my thoughts on this topic carefully but without ambivalence, and without aggravating other photographers. I hope that this answers your question; if it needs further discussion please give me more input, and I will try to answer as best I can.
Bill
* I say /probably /because in some situations where an artist may want to become better-known, it is not unusual for a person to allow his/her work to be displayed in public at no charge. It is basically free publicity. So some photographers, even professionals (Mark J Rebilas and Bill Turner come to mind) have allowed their work to be displayed at high resolution on our sites, along with a link to link to their own site.
