13005513:RileySnyderPhoto said:
Maybe it was just from a few years back when I was told not to watermark for anything used in articles. We obviously have changed since then. As for the long side I keep it at 1000 because it is less likely for someone to use an image in print 3 inches on the long side for monetary gain. The web is a different deal and two big ones that have used my images without permission for gain would be FD Wear and Bolle. I ran into this huge issue when I was the photo intern for Windells when they wanted no watermarks. I do watermark and did back then but they made me not do it for their web use which I understand. As for posting on their own site, that makes sense and mine will be higher resolution on my site too. I just limit it where I don't have control over it as much.
Stuff in articles would be covered when we pay you for that stuff. I'd imagine that you got contracted by Jeff to cover something, and in that case yes he would ask for no watermarks and this would be part of that coverage contract. Anything you are contributing to the user-generated content pools on the site is completely yours to do with what you please. I think massive watermarks are dumb, but its completely up to you. You use those systems for whatever reason you wish, whether to work towards a monetized photo in the yearbook, work towards monetizing on Newschoolers or to self promote as a photographer.
Its a great issue to bring up about photo theft. Its a massive problem all across the internet - as is the problem that photographers don't realize their signing over the rights to their photos when they upload to services like Facebook and Instagram. Rights management is a disaster, and we all need to wake up and work towards a system that pushes compensation vs. paranoid hoarding of photos that never go anywhere.
Do you ever pirate software? Have you ever stolen music? Ever watched a pirated movie? If so, then you've done the same to other content creators and collectively we need a new model. The right answer isn't to hoard though and do nothing - we must face the new reality of an open sharing internet.
13005976:Sklar said:
Absolutely, the program was flawed and we all know that.
I have more thoughts, but I'll share those later and privately when I get the chance to put them into writing
Please, lets open up this discussion in the photographer cult. Exactly what its for. I've got great ideas for all three programs, and I think we can fix them up and have everything launch in a nice timely manner for next season.
13006198:Ito said:
It's up to NS to figure out how to monetize the website in the way they see fit - the people generating content should not take the hit because NS failed to figure out how to do so in an effective way. If those of us in the content creation programs are being paid based on how much that content is seen, it shouldn't matter as to what page it is seen on.
On that note, I honestly don't care about being paid for creating photo content. I don't know how other people in the content creation areas feel about this, but it certainly isn't a reason that I get out the camera.
MASSIVE mis-conception here. These programs are not direct payments for views, they are revenue share based off of advertising that runs on your content. We split the rev we make 50/50 with the content contributor - so when ads don't run on a page there is no rev split to be paid - just like we don't make any revenue off the page.
Also note, views on the Splash page do count. The difference is whether the splash page is displayed to all visitors by default or not - that what is accounting for the major discrepancies. Most of you guys probably have this setting chosen in your account so you never notice the difference. Note, just yesterday it was re-enabled by default so view counts will jump immensely.
Also finally the splash page views were paid last year. We put that in as an incentive and basically said the same logic - where we needed to figure out monetization and we wanted compensation for the guys who got the gold.
Do also note the biggest reason that the photography program was on hold this year is that photographers got paid the lions share of the yearbook contributor budget. Every time you put a photo in the system, its a contribution towards the yearbook and if you get in there you get paid pretty good. I admit, this was flawed overall logic, and something we'll address.
