Making Your Work Hard To Find Isn't A Feature

from the promotional-value dept

Thu, Mar 6th 2008 4:08pm — Timothy Lee

Wired has a write-up of PhotoShelter, a site that helps "protect" photographers from the scourge of their work being too easy to find. They cite Lane Hartwell, the photographer who got bent out of shape when one of her photographs appeared briefly in a popular viral video, as an example of the kind of photographer who would benefit from the site. I can understand why she'd be unhappy that she didn't get credit for the use of her photo, but I don't see how switching to PhotoShelter would have improved the situation. Most of the money in photography is going to be from commercial clients. Companies tend to be pretty good about paying for photographs (and other content) because they've got deeper pockets and less plausible fair use claims. On the other hand, non-commercial uses of photos aren't going to be very lucrative; most individuals and smaller non-profits will use a lower-quality free image rather than pay to license a professional photograph. Certainly the creator of a viral video isn't going to pay royalties on a product he's planning to give away for free. So the smart way to handle things is to treat non-commercial uses of your photographs as promotional opportunities, seeking credit rather than compensation. That should build your reputation as a photographer and hopefully get more commercial clients interested in your work. PhotoShelter appears to be a solid site for professional photographers looking to catalog and market their photographs. But the fact that the site makes it more difficult for people to find and use a photographer's work isn't something photographers should be cheering about.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: copyright, photographers, promotional value, protecting work
Companies: photoshelter

6 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Hellsvilla, 6 Mar 2008 @ 4:51pm

I read her article...
I read her article, and my conclusion was: She's too stupid to have a real job. Hiding your portfolio is the fastest way to achieve obscurity.

Nothing against PhotoShelter mind you, it does look like an excellent resource for Photographers. It's just that any photographer that thinks the two are mutually exclusive is a photographer that does not want clients.

/shudder
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Joe, 6 Mar 2008 @ 4:57pm

Paragraph breaks please
Please please please start breaking up your text into smaller paragraphs. Those big blocks are very tough to read and impossible to scan.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Uncle Deercamp, 6 Mar 2008 @ 5:42pm

What a complete tard. Most people would kill to have their picture/art in a viral of some sort.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ben, 6 Mar 2008 @ 8:58pm
  
  Re:
  Yeah it's great to have all that exposure, except that nobody knew who's picture it was because there was no credit given.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cynic, 6 Mar 2008 @ 6:25pm

Right, I imagine most families and businesses in the world have a budget for photographic images. Duuhhhh, not in this universe.

The way to get anything sold for which there is not a darn pressing need in this world is to establish relationships with your customers or prospects.

Maybe this new site will help photographers, but I'm a cynic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rose M. Welch, 6 Mar 2008 @ 9:53pm

You know, if it was private information...
...everyone would be screaming that it was thier fault for putting it online. Because nothing online should be considered safe or private, right? The photos that I don't see used are ones that are marked with the photgraphers or companies name, like the Istock photos that come up when I do a Google search for images. It would be very hard to use them, because it says Istock right across the front, and it's very easy to do that with Photoshop, while still allowing potential clients to see the quality of work. It's much easier to say, do a Flickr search for photos that have been marked 'Don't care what you do with it.' by way of Creative Commons.

Am I saying it's okay to steal unmarked artwork? Nope. But it is going to happen and when these people throw a fit, they just look like noobs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]