Enhancement of Photography Section

[Debbi]

I agree. The photo, illustration, and video sections have a huge potential but don't seem to be as well-developed or well-tended as the article section. I'm sure it is a challenge though because how does CC authenticate the photos as original work? One thing that needs improvement is the rejection email. I and others I know have received rejections for photos that had no explanation of any kind about why they weren't chosen. Evena simple "This photo is not in the correct format" or "This photo is not up to CC's quality standards" would be helpful.

[SuzanneBosworth]

Hmmm tricky one. Mind you, there's always TinEye.com which has gone through the beta stage now and is able to track down many images already on the web. I'm a member of a photographic community and Tin Eye has managed to cough up a lot of plagiarisms on the web so that we can email the webmasters or blogs and ask for them to be taken down.

Another way might be to also upload the original file, which will show the shooting details, so that each photographer has a bank of files - originals for verification, and pics for customers. Although, that would need a big jump in web space.

[canywriter]

If I'm not mistaken, most photo agencies require the photographer to certify that they hold the copyright to the photos they upload - it's a one time certification - and that they will indemnify the agency(CC) against any claims arising from fraudulent usage. That covers them from the risk of having copied images posted.

I am not sure, however, if this has changed recently.

Cany

[SuzanneBosworth]

Cany I think you're right - or at least, some do. The contracts I've seen do say that the photographer should hold the copyright to images. There's no verification process though. There are always some clowns who try to submit other people's photographs to agencies but with the higher end ones you'd have a cat's chance in Hades because of the QC.

Odd isn't it, that there are still people who think if it's on the web it must be fair game to steal, whether that's other people's articles or photographs. Thankfully sites like CC take no prisoners and hopefully in time copyright laws will have stronger teeth.

I don't think it's possible to put CC's "silent code" into images, is it. Unless a transparent code is embedded into a layer and the image flattened. I might try that actually and report back! No point putting copyright on them as they can just be cloned or cropped.

scampers off to do some playing in PS ..

[REason]

One suggestion is this - for writers who are also photographers to illustrate their own articles and to present the whole thing as a package.

The old Constant Content website had a search function where article buyers can search for articles with images. Unfortunately, this no longer exists. It is a great idea to package image and article together and I have done this in the past, only to discover that there was some kinks to be worked out. My mistake was made when the buyer wanted full rights to the article (which included the image) and I didn't want to sell full rights to the image. In the end I gave up my rights to the image to sell the article. It turned out that the buyer didn't know how to display the image correctly on the web so they didn't even use it. The image was of print quality. To, me that's like throwing an image into the trash. I didn't make any money off of it at all and I will never have a chance to. I wasn't happy and I'm sure that the buyer wasn't either.

The case that I described is an example of different agencies licensing policies. It is standard practice in photography to never give up full rights. Which is why other photographic stock agencies don't have full rights for sale. There is Royalty Free images but the photographer doesn't give up copyright. Since then I have never offered article and photography package.

[Markk]

Excellent suggestion by Suzanne Bosworth:
"One suggestion is this - for writers who are also photographers to illustrate their own articles and to present the whole thing as a package. A price with photographic illustration, and one without. Access in a pop up viewer to the set of photographs at a very low res, with added notes on file sizes and formats, plus any other info people think might be useful. The buying point is that buyers don't have to go searching for illustrations - this is a one-stop place for illustrated articles if they so wish. That would encourage them to visit us for further illustrations for other articles they may have, given that they're building up a loyalty with CC."

I'm new here. I had submitted three photos with captions but they were all rejected. I'm flabbergasted because those were good picture compositions that can be used as conceptual images for some relevant articles. Their reply to one of the pictures was:

"We have reviewed your content, "Shopping Mall." Unfortunately, this article requires revision before we can accept it."

I had supplied the caption and suggested how this picture can be used. But what do they mean by "the article requires revision...." Frankly, I don't get it.

Do we have to write an article to go with the photos we submitted? I don't see this mentioned anywhere in the photography section. Anyways, we are supposed to submit "good" pictures for sale. Articles come under a different section. That's why I think Suzanne's proposal is an excellent one for CC to consider. BTW, some of the photos in the gallery, as some members had commented, are just below standard. There's one I saw with only two words to it and honestly I don't understand them. And I'm told that I must revise the article for the images I submitted. I still don't get it!

Perhaps, somebody can throw some light for poor me who's groping in the dark.