It's like writer's block, but different. Mostly it means any photo you might come across that you'd like to borrow has a clear copyright notice on it. I'm paranoid enough about my own photos being stolen without credit, and I don't want that tarnish on a story I'm proud of.
Yes, it's a drag I haven't posted it yet. I apologize. I do not mean to string you along. I'm just understanding why I don't post more pictures here.
Tomorrow, one way or the other. I promise.
tags: copyright, photography
I can understand your concerns. But, for me, I will freely use stuff that looks like stock or catalog photography. After all, I'm not selling anything by doing it, so it falls in the realm of fair use.
ReplyDeleteBut, if it looks like something that someone painstakingly designed, I tend to give credit just because I feel they deserve it.
Hmm. Stock photography absolutely does not fall into the realm of fair use imo. A stock photographer makes her money by charging royalties for use of her shot. Even if you're not using it commercially, you're making it more accessible to others without its attendant copyright info. Most true stock companies watermark their photos though, so you may be using the term less formally.
ReplyDeleteThe 'painstakingly designed' argument gets me a bit too. An unaltered photo may seem simple, but it was someone's time and effort to take it, at the very least. Also, even basic quality shots of ordinary things like signs (which I looked for) are hard to find. A good sign shot may seem simple, but someone may have taken great pains to make it so.
I'm just sensitive to this issue because I've worked in film and shoot a lot of stills.