Comments on: WFPK Wants Your Photos (for free)

By: tiffany

tiffany — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 22:57:00 +0000

Agreeing with Jason here and adding the following: How is this different from Letters to the Editor?
This is a long established media practice. While I agree that WFPK’s terms are not favorable to professional photographers, they’re following a long-established model. If you disagree with the terms — and I understand why a professional would and should — don’t submit.

By: Michelle

Michelle — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 20:32:55 +0000

Steve, it’s absolutely great that you want to do this the right way from the beginning. I think just a caveat on your submissions page saying that you reserve the right to refuse any images, list exactly how you’re going to use the images (in the rotating banner), make sure to tell people where their photo credit will be found if their image is used and expressly acknowledge that all ownership belongs to the photograph’s creator should have you covered.

By: Michelle

Michelle — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 20:28:49 +0000

Jason, I appreciate and understand your points, thanks very much for sharing them. I would counter though that “The fan or hobbyist” who “likely has no interest in maintaining ownership of their work or sees more value in the participation than that ownership” could very well come to regret that lack of ownership later on. One thing we’re seeing in this age of user generated content is that people are really beginning to enjoy creating content and are getting deeply involved with it. These people are building their own websites, starting writing/blogging careers, picking up freelance work as photographers, etc. So just because someone is a hobbyist now that doesn’t mean they’ll always be one. We are agreed that no one who considers themselves a professional would submit to this kind of UGC promotion.
Thanks for the input on the blanket ownership issue. It does make sense but I still don’t agree with it and I think it can be covered in this instance in setting a time frame for how long WFPK can retain rights to use the image.
You’ve given me a lot to think about though and I really appreciate it.

By: Steve Magruder

Steve Magruder — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 19:57:52 +0000

At Louisville History & Issues (http://www.historyandissues.org), I would also like to accept Louisville area images from various contributors to place in the randomized banner (only — no other uses will occur). I have a Photo Credits blurb in an administrative topic that lists the contributors, with links to their websites. The only caveat is that I would have the right to not use some of what is submitted — not all pictures work in the format with which I use them.
If there’s anything else I should consider in asking the public to submit photos, please let me know. I want to do it right.

By: Jason

Jason — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 18:42:44 +0000

As someone who works in MSM and is constantly in the thick of UGC conversations, I think you’re right in challenging the way that WFPK is handling this promotion but can understand how it happens.
I’ll talk about one specific part, the blanket ownership part of the TOU in the promotion. From a legal perspective, most lawyers would argue that the company has to do that to protect themselves from potential litigation. It’s more likely with an entertainment media company but even in this case, it is possible that someone could submit something today and then argue later (maybe much later) that an unrelated work – a story, a show, a program, a promotion, a likeness – was inspired by something they submitted. The cost of battling that kind of claim generally outweighs the operating costs of having more nuanced terms of use.
This isn’t uncommon. Movie companies don’t accept unsolicited scripts for exactly that reason. And when they do accept open solicitations, it usually comes with a blanket release for those submitting. In Reality TV, an open casting call comes with a blanket release for your likeness. Even in your music example, there are times when this is not the case. In the early days of radio, “jingle” contests would’ve come with this kind of blanket release to protect the company from liability.
The onus is on the content creator to protect their work. If you find greater value in your work than what some companies TOU grants you, don’t submit. That company is protecting it’s self-interest so you have to protect yours. They quite simply aren’t going to do that for you.
If you’re a professional, there’s absolutely no reason to submit work into a UGC space. In truth, most companies don’t want or expect you to be the target audience for that kind of promotion. Especially because even with their blanket releases, a professional’s work is likely to come with liability if used.
The fan or hobbyist, however, likely has no interest in maintaining ownership of their work or sees more value in the participation than that ownership and is the target for UGC material. That user is going to look at more pages on the website, is going to stay on the site longer searching for their work, is going to make the site viral and bring more eyes and foster community, and is ever more likely to click on ads or recognize sponsors.
And, if a company has real success metrics behind their UGC promotion, it’s probably that.

By: Michelle

Michelle — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 18:17:05 +0000

“But they don’t quite “get” that our words, images, thoughts, etc. have the same value if not more than those on their payroll. If you’re making a buck off of my content, I need to have more say in how things go down.”
Love, love, love that quote J. Brotherlove. You are so right, as always.
incuein, thanks for the support and really good examples about drawing and singing. In their call for photography WFPK refers to the photographs as “your work” so they are in fact acknowledging that more than just one snap defines photography but I think you’re so right that many people think of it as something disposable because anyone can do it. Anyone may be able to do it but that doesn’t mean everyone can do it well.

By: incuein

incuein — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 18:09:49 +0000

Amen, sister! Speaking as both a semi-vocational and avocational photographer, I see the medium undervalued all of the time. I think it has a lot to do with photography being such a democratic medium – starting with the Kodak Brownie, just about anyone could take a snapshot. Unlike music or some other form of visual art, there is the perception that good photography is achieved through the right equipment rather than some skill set or aesthetic choice, and whereas many folks say “Oh, I could never draw,” or “I can’t carry a tune,” most anyone can pick up a camera and at least make an exposure.
I’m not sure what the solution to this problem is, and I actually think the fact that “anyone can take a photo” is part of what makes photography so fascinating, but I think your suggestions to WFPK are a step in the right direction.
Love the blog! Keep it up!

By: j. brotherlove

j. brotherlove — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 18:06:27 +0000

Yes, yes and yes!
“User generated content” is going to be huge in 2008 and the users generating that content will need to be the ones to show harvesters (that’s what I’m calling them) how it’s done. Clearly, MSM is attempting to embrace social media (they have no other choice). But they don’t quite “get” that our words, images, thoughts, etc. have the same value if not more than those on their payroll. If you’re making a buck off of my content, I need to have more say in how things go down.
Your suggested policy should be framed!