I offended a Dutch book editor.
Apparently, it's an easy thing to do. I thought I was being thorough, but I guess I just needed to get over myself. I'm sure I still do.
I have a Flickr Pro account and have used that service for many years—for a variety of reasons. My account isn't really divided into good and mundane, I keep regular blasé snapshots there side-by-side with my favorite images. Some images I've even sold for nice sums of money. I have organized some images into sets, not really based on quality, but rather some connective theme. For example, I have a set that I made especially for our own dear OSer Stellaa. It's a set of my favorites that mostly comprise the images I've used here on OS for the past 15 months. She watches them on her HD TV and connects to Flickr through her AppleTV.
Occasionally I'll get a request from someone to use an image of mine. It happens a lot on Flickr. An online travel guide called Schmap.com has used several of my images. My bride and I were staying at the Ritz-Carlton Huntington in Pasadena when she served on the Board of Directors of ASAE. I took the opportunity to spend most of the day at the nearby Greene and Greene Gamble House, one of the best extant examples of an Arts and Craft home. Schmap thought the images would help promote their guide to Pasadena. I didn't make any money off of them, it's nice to have my name in the copyright in something like this—they're a company I trust.
So. I get an e-mail from Sarah, a book editor at Frame Magazine in the Netherlands. She wanted to use one of my Prada Marfa photos.
Her English is perfect and it's a very nice and polite letter. But I'm a bit suspicious, based on previous experiences on Flickr. I check out her account there, and all I see is a grey-head (or white-head I guess) much like we see when we're looking at what we suspect is a troll account on OS. She has no profile, no images of her own, no "favorite" images to see—nothing at all.
sarah doesn't have anything available to you.
Which means she's a harvester. Which is ok, there's nothing intrinsically wrong with that. It just depends on how someone's images are used. I'm aware of copyright law, and I understand Fair Use as a means of using copyrighted materials. All of my images on Flickr are © All Rights Reserved. There are different categories of rights that you can assign to your images including various levels of Creative Commons. I keep mine reserved, just because it's easier for me. And now with my book due out in a month or so, there are some contractual issues with my publisher with some of my images.
It was nice to get a polite message from Sarah, and I thought for a while before responding. She offered a copy of the book where the Prada Marfa shot would be placed in compensation for its use, which is kind of cool. But what she said next probably made the decision for me. "We don't have a photography budget…" just didn't ring true. It might be true, it simply didn't sound right to me. For a book that will retail at 100 Euros, I think there is indeed a photography budget, apparently just not for me.
This has happened several times before to me. There was a science text book in Argentina and a marquee in the aviary in a zoo in Massachusetts that wanted one of my Fairy Bluebird images—among other offers from sundry harvesters. Promises were made. Promises that were not kept.
Which resulted in me sending letters requesting removal of my images and including CC'ing my lawyer friend and consultant, a copyright lawyer in Connecticut. All of the offers and promises I've received on Flickr were nicely worded and polite. But they've all resulted in zip so far.
There are plenty of people who just don't understand about copyrighted material (I'm not saying Sarah doesn't understand, her request seemed legitimate in fact, I just wasn't comfortable with her request based on my own past experience). A good example of an all too common attitude can be found here.
I wrote Sarah back and, while not going into details about my history with such things, I politely declined. I said that my images are Rights-managed as far as licensing is concerned and would be happy to discuss some modest terms with her if she changed her mind. It was a lengthier reply than was necessary, but I did want to explain my position.
This is the reply I received:
Geez get over yourself. If you are not happy to have an image published then just say so.
She was offended by my considered response. She was upset that I had taken the time to explain my thoughts, all the while exempting her from any association with what had gone on before with those that had broken their promises.
I replied to her message:
Dear Sarah,
Thanks for your kind response. Many of my images are published and I'm quite happy about them.
Best wishes,
Barry B. Doyle
I know, it was a bit snarky—but just a bit.
By the way, the image at the top of this post is not the photo in question; this is one I haven't posted to Flickr or to Open Salon. In fact, I don't really know which photo she was referring to, as she didn't specify which one she wanted to use.
And just for the record:
The image at the top of this post is copyright © 2009 by barry b. doyle
• all rights reserved •
Oh, and my copyright lawyer friend said "Perfect reply on your part :)"
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
jackburns
old new lefty
Jennifer Prestholdt
John A Bayerl
KatieL
Mumbletypeg
Salon.com
Comments
Ahem, can I publish one of your photos, though? No budget, but...
Harvesters - I like that phrase.
good answer, br0. Please, DO NOT get over yourself.
I know that sometimes, from a friend, that kind of observation can be well-intended and even salutary, but most often it's just annoying. To me, it translates to the bare statement, "You think this is important. I don't. And I'm going to advise (even command!) you to change your ways." Depending on what the subject is, this kind of thing can be clueless, but it sometimes rises to the level of being offensive. I'm happy you got the best of the exchange.
On a lighter note (yes, I know, I shouldn't take myself so seriously :-), I commented to my wife last night while we were watching TV, "You know when someone tells the cops, 'Talk to my lawyer'? Does every have a lawyer but us?" So you're one of them...
;0 Believe me, we don't hate you because you're beautiful.
:-)
Thanks Stacy, I found it pretty humorous too, I actually laughed when I got her reply.
Bill, I probably do.
Mary, you are worthy of every good thing, I'm glad I could be a small part of that.
Rob, our lawyer friend has given us great advice on branding, copyright and trademark issues for my bride's books she's written with the third of three. He's often helped me with my own questions and issues. He gets art in exchange for fees, so I think it's not really a case that we are in that class where I would ever use the phrase "talk to my lawyer." But he has given me permission to use his name, followed by "Esq." in the CC line of emails I send to people who need a gentle reminder about using my stuff. So, I'm lucky.
Ann! ha! Can you detail how and why you (pl) hate me? The bride would love the ammunition.
Thanks Buffy!
Ha VR! It was just a little thing.
Thanks Stacy, I found it pretty humorous too, I actually laughed when I got her reply.
Bill, I probably do.
Mary, you are worthy of every good thing, I'm glad I could be a small part of that.
Rob, our lawyer friend has given us great advice on branding, copyright and trademark issues for my bride's books she's written with the third of three. He's often helped me with my own questions and issues. He gets art in exchange for fees, so I think it's not really a case that we are in that class where I would ever use the phrase "talk to my lawyer." But he has given me permission to use his name, followed by "Esq." in the CC line of emails I send to people who need a gentle reminder about using my stuff. So, I'm lucky.
Ann! ha! Can you detail how and why you (pl) hate me? The bride would love the ammunition.
Thanks Buffy!
Ha VR! It was just a little thing.
People can be snotty.
d
Actually, you deserve to be - your work is your work and you should be properly compensated for it. Be as snarky as you like. Please.
Damned poachers/harvesters...whatever!
Protect yourself, period.
Great story!
Can I publish your Rancho Laurena photos now? Kidding, sort of, I might want to make a remembrance album for everyone.
LOVE
Some days you get the bear and others the bear gets you.
And other platitudes that don;t make stupid people any less so.
If I get any further over myself, I am going to split my personality.
Rated!
I agree with your copyright attorney as to the perfectitude of your reply, but would suggest something similar to the following in the future when a request comes in with advice there is no photography budget:
Dear ___:
Thanks for your interest in publishing my image. Unfortunately, I am required to assemble a photography budget in order to produce my images and am therefore unable to accommodate your request to publish absent a photography budget on your part.
Good luck with your publication,
etc, etc, etc
Will probably save you the time and trouble of sharing your valuable thoughts with uninterested parties, as well as from having to compose a follow-on reply.
No charge for the boilerplate rejection template, by the way.
It's a problem for those of us who want to share our work somewhere other than our own website. I still believe if OS wanted to, they could develop a more structured relationship with some of us who'd like to use this site more officially for promotional purposes. Or maybe we should just get over ourselves. :) Great post, as usual, my friend.
A few years back, I found out about a few people appropriating images from my web site. Then I added a bit of script to disable the copy function in the browsers of potential harvesters when they tried to take more.
I've occasionally gotten bogus sounding requests like the one you described. I'm happy to say "thanks, but no thanks" to those.
The creator of the work should have control over the work. Period.
Btw, when does your book come out? Maybe you could send her the Amazon link.
They sort of expect us to think that. Many younger, hungry artists fall prey. In my career, I have only met two dealers who were advocates for creativity....they were in Chicago, and they paid in a timely manner, appreciating the levels of sacrifice and creativity.
Unfortunately, they both found it hard to sustain themselves doing business legitimately.
Sadly, you and your fellow photographers are not alone. google—poor, destitute google—has kindly informed illustrators that they can enjoy the privilege of letting google publish their work—for free! How gregarious of them.
Just stumbled across your blog and are glad we did. Looking forward to exploring your photographic repertoire.
m&m
BTW what do you think of the new short story serialisation - my first for OS?
I'm trying to get over my own self with this but something in your blog made me think of my own years of never writing letters like that. Ever. It's just not the way business is done and Sarah needs to learn now or never to shape up.
Your photography is not at the amateur level, and she knows it, or she wouldn't have wanted it for her book.
Maggie
Isn't it funny how everyone gets paid except the artist?
Good anwwer, you have a smart and very level head there, Barry!! If I ever have a problem wherein all of the possible angles for considerating a solution elude me, you are going to be the first friend I call, for sure.
It's sad that there seems to be little (sane) middle ground between the parties who expect everyone's work to be available to them for free and the handful of draconian corporate rights holders who impose onerous fees in perpetuity on works that were often swindled from their actual creators generations ago.
BTW - Very impressive work. But you already know that - if you're not completely "over yourself" ;)
I do a search on Google, not very frequently, with various versions of my name to check to see if my images have been purloined--which admittedly is somewhat of a different matter--but has some connective threads in that my images are taken from Flickr or from my image gallery website. The worst offenders seem to be websites for birders, since I have a huge collection of bird photos. Again, I know how Fair Use works--basically, it describes the conditions under which you can use material that is copyrighted by someone else without paying royalties. The birding websites never ask permission and sometimes don't acknowledge the source even if they use my screen name. So it's more a matter of ethics and personal responsibility rather than a tort injustice, but still...
This probably portends another blog post--some examples of mine with commentary on copyright and fair use issues, as there are many misconceptions about both. Maybe I will do it as a blog annex, since I can't imagine many would be interested in it as a blog per se--which ironically helps perpetuate some of the issues involved. I have a Keynote/Powerpoint document that I've used in classrooms that could be adapted I think.
I think it would be too much, too long a comment here and now to thank each individually, but please know that your comments and responses mean the world to me. Thank you very much.
Lauren/pretend_farmer, yes, you can use my images that I left with you to make a remembrance album, but with all the stuff you're currently doing for other people, I don't know where you'd find the time. The next in my Road to Rancho Laurena series, the one finding myself at your doorstep is a post or two away.
Lonnie, that's a great response letter, thank you so much. That's gone into my photo files here on my computer. You said no charge, but I'd be happy to barter something, and I do have something that's been waiting for a while to send to you.
dynomyte, I've commented too on the OS TOS proprietary claims. I'm not concerned as long as Joan and Kerry are involved in OS as I trust them implicitly and completely, but it is a business after all and all things tend to change. I've come to look at is as an appropriate and beneficial, at least to me if not also to OS, quid pro quo. I get an amazing amount of return on my OS investment.
Lea, the book is due out in another month or so, thanks for asking. And for those that wouldn't know, most of you, Lea is involved in my book. I haven't seen the final flap copy yet, but I'm hoping that Lea's blurb made it on there--she's at least in promotional copy.
Papalaz/Derek, your stuff is amazing, and it requires some investment, but what a return. Beautiful writing my friend. You have a glorious talent.
metalcollector, I did send a copy of the final correspondence with everything threaded to the editor of the publishing company now some five days ago--no response.
psychomama, your comment is thought provoking, and one reason I'm thinking about doing a post to a blog annex about copyright and fair use issues, thank you.
Sandra, thank you for those amazing words, lovely compliments. I feel like you and I are OS partners that go way back, so that affirmation means a lot to me.
Again, thanks so much to all of you for your incisive commentary.
You, sir, are a gentleman artist. I agree with Duane. Why is the artist the least compensated?
Great post on an interesting subject. I learn a little something every time I read one of your essays.
Rated & Cheers!
She was showing us a calendar one day (of lighthouses) and I asked how much the pictures cost, because some of them we really good.
Her reply was "we just grab them off the internet after doing a search."
The sad part is she is an aspiring artist in her 20's and had no idea (and didn't care) that someone owned the pics.
Her attitudes on music downloading is for crap too.
The business went under recently because of the economy... but not because of overhead costs for paying artists.
(FWIW, I went to the trouble of setting up a flickr account even if I don't consider my photos worth sharing. So you can call me a browser instead of a harvester ;-)
Cerro, the linking is not necessarily an OS feature. I host my images on Flickr instead of the OS servers because it's easier for me to compose my posts offline and Flickr provides link html and embed information for my images. I then get that info and place it inline on my word processor to compose my posts the way I want them to display. It's just easier for me to control the pixel dimensions instead of using the OS Compose HTML button/window.
As for the link, because it comes from offsite of OS, it does show a link symbol when you hover your cursor over the image. There are various reasons why I designate an image on Flickr as "private" or "friends and family" but it's not just because I wish to prevent casual browsing. Sometimes I keep an image private because it's a duplicate of a previously uploaded image that might have some additional adjustments from the original RAW file that was converted to jpg for that original upload. There's no real rhyme or reason for my methods. I do try to protect my images from unauthorized use, but in this case it's just a matter of convenience for me on which image/html to use. If you do a search on my images on Flickr for "Prada" you'll get about a dozen returns. There is also a link in the body of my post to a previous blog about Prada Marfa.
Thanks for stopping by.