Have you Ever found Your Bee Pics in print or the web?

[beemaster]

This is a subject I have strong mixed feelings about. Over the years I have found my photos all over the net, mostly just grabbed up and used for whatever reason, mostly good (the betterment of our hobby) but here are my thoughts:

1) I believe unless otherwise stated or protected, any web image is public domain - if it is there, use it.

2) If an image is purposely protected (kept to a small size, notified as copy-protected, watermarked, etc.) because this person is making money from these then they should be respected then going out of your way digitally removing or cropping out watermark or not giving credit to the photographer or graphic artist is wrong.

I have found my images in publications, web-pages, one actually used in an ad in a magazine and even formed into a phony national magazine cover. I never have gone in a litigious way to recover any damage because in my case no damage was done - although without compensation, why should someone else receive monies from my content when I don't?

As I say, I have mixed feelings. But today most of us take photos. I'm lucky enough to say one of my photos has been sold in print over 1 million copies to date - making the book author rich and getting me mild notoriety at best.

But to date, I know of over 40 photos that have been in print and dozens more copied onto websites, all of which are mine - I'm wondering if other members have had this same problem and what they think of it.

I enjoy to hear from people asking permission to use images and often get a printed edition to add to my collection of "15 minutes of fame". None of which I hold prouder than the success of this forum and the wonderful friends I have made here.

The web is for the taking I guess - it is a major part of its success. Peer to Peer downloading has cost musical artist billions, but then again, many of these artists say it actually helps promote CD sales and especially concert sellouts.

What do you think and have you had your stuff, images, sound, writing, etc. used online or elsewhere without your permission - and what did you do about it if anything?

[Cindi]

John, now that is some very good food for thought.  There are some pretty nice pictures that members have posted, and I mean really nice.  I am not too worried about mine, they are just average, but I really do think that it should not be an allowed thing to "steal" pictures from sites and use them elsewhere.  Not morally correct in my eyes.  Greatest of days.  Cindi

[beemaster]

Cindi:

The funny (strange funny) thing is that all photo of bees kinda all look alike, with few exceptions, but we all recognise our own stuff after processing, cropping, webpage building, uploading and proofing. I guess it's like telling the difference between your kids if they are triplets, to you it is a no brainer.

Beekeeping for Dummies was a unique adventure, but there was a project used in schools in a mid-western state about six years ago where I was asked to read the content THEN choose which images I had that I was willing to donate for the cause. I took a lot of pride in that one, and I have the book here - a small paperback sized 40 page book with about 20 photos of mine in it.

The best part of course was they knew I had some good photos and not only asked permission, but asked me to format the photo layout - that was a really good combination, everyone should have such a chance.

The book was published and used in the schools throughout their library system. I don't know how many books in all, but I'm sure it was a short run at the printers, enough for a book or two on each library reference shelf. It's little things like that which make a mark in the future of our hobby, I'm sure a few kids saw the images and got the beekeeping bug :)

[Understudy]

As a geek and a photographer. It was very interesting my switch on this. When I started doing photography I very protective of how pictures were released. I had long legal documents models and clients had to sign. It was interesting because I wanted to make money with the photography and not have the pictures degraded by misuse.

Then I started into my geek side. Programming code which is much more difficult in some ways was either free or not there was very little middle ground. The fights that started up with the MPAA and the RIAA made me take a good look at myself. I did not want to be like a nasty cooperation. I understand wanting to have a product to sell but I see no need to be nasty. I understand how patents and copyrights were designed to protect the person who made the product. However at what cost? I don't think theft is right but is harder to steal when it is free. Also it seems that things get stolen a lot less when they are free. Also there is no reason not to make money. Time, effort, and having to purchase raw materials to make a finished product justify charging someone for the finished product. I still download music but if I like the songs I buy the album. Also the level and quality of service is also a factor for me in reguards to certain purchases. Why should I have to deal with ignorant theater managers when I can download the movie. I remember going to see one the recent star wars movies. The theater was a pig sty. I paid for this when I can download it off the web. I like the theater experience but not enough to wade through ankle deep popcorn and butter. 

So I simplified the matter for me. I do not publish on the web or in major publications any of my proffesional photos. I still believe that trust between myself and my models and clients is vital to my reputation. My reputation is as good at getting me work as the quality of my work is also. If a client wants to use it on the web and for commerical purposes that is fine. The only thing I ask is that authorship of the original image maintain my name. If someone wants to alter or morph the photo that is fine. Sometimes they are very good, sometimes they are very funny, sometimes they are pretty bad.

Also I learned the level of emotinal investment I put into omething is directly proportinal to the level of frustration it can cause me when something goes wrong. I put pride into my work. I want to make an excellent product but if I put to much emotinal attachment into it and something happens is when I find myself frustrated.

I like doing my photography but I haven't picked up my camera other than my point and shot in a while because my main job has me running around so much.

My wife keeps asking me to get my butt back into my studio. I think she wants me out of her hair. :)

Sincerely,
Brendhan

[Kathyp]

boy, this is a subject that has been fought over for a while.  youtube really brought it to public awareness.  here is the way i read it.

if you publish your pictures in the public domain, they become public property.  public domain would be something like this web site. 

if something is published on a proprietary site (ABC, LGF, etc) it belongs to them.  the exception is when THEY get something from the pubic domain and publish it.

the gray area is when things are published on personal blogs.  technically, the blog does not belong to the blogger unless they own the address.  it belongs to the site hosting the blog (MSN, etc.)

if your pictures are sold for publishing, you lose control of how they are used.  if you give permission without limitations for use of your pictures, you lose control.

i guess i'd figure that if i wanted control of my photos, i'd  not put them on the web.   :-\

[Michael Bush]

I have found my photos on web sites all over the world.  I've even found entire copies of my web site (quite outdated and not linked correctly) on other sites.

It would be nice if people would at least ask permission or give credit or, better yet, both.

[Ruben]

How about Beekeeping for dummies, would this fall into what you are talking about or did they ask for permission for your photos?

[beemaster]

Beekeeping for Dummies was a collaborative effort, I was paid for my photos from the publishers who also approved (with the strong suggestion of the author) of the cover image. The other images of mine (no other color ones) throughout the book were also offered for submission and payment rendered.

The rear inside image (Bee Culture Magazine) is MY IMAGE TOO but had NEVER APPEARED in Bee Culture or any other publication. It was fabricated without my permission and I made a bit of a stink about it and was compensated for that image.

Funny thing was, I submitted that image to Bee Culture for a possible cover image and THEY turned it down, only to use it in this means in the Dummies book. The image was an interesting shot - I just happened to have my camera with me at work one day and notice a worker hopping from tiny flower to tiny flower. I was jumping all over and got this and a similar shot. I submitted it for the Dummies book, but not to be used in the way it was to advertise Bee Culture Magazine.

So, yep - I got paid well, of course Howland Blackiston gives my cover GREAT CREDIT toward the remarkable sale of his book - he said it really catches interested eyes and adds great insight to the value of the contents. They were his words, not mine - but when I took that cover image, I knew it was going to make the cover, there was no doubt in my mind. Howland had expected some "A-Typical" queen shot or maybe a pollen loaded worker lighting onto the entry board, but this one blew him away as did it the publishers.

I guess in the photographic world, this was my 15 minutes of fame, although the Bee Forum has brought me endless entertainment and wonderful friendships - sometimes you can not put a price on things, this is one of those times.