• Who is Strumpet101
  • Follow me
  • Ask me anything
  • Archive
  • RSS
  • Giving Art Away For Free = Creating a Starving Artist?

    I continually go back and forth on the issue. Is it better that my photos are being seen, or better to protect them? I cannot help but feel that I am stealing someone’s opportunity to actually be paid what their art is worth when I let websites have my art for free.
    Should I keep them totally protected and out of Flickr groups?

    The following brought rise to my worrying about this today:


    Currently, the “Your Coromandel” section in the bottom third of the page, features six of my photos.  

    I know that this is a link to The Coromandel group on Flickr. And they don’t shy away from that - if you click on the photo for a bigger version it is stated that it belongs to the Flickr group.

    I can’t help but feel, however, that this is a violation of my copyright - although I am probably legally wrong. No one contacted me to ask me if the photos could be featured on their Tourism website (I would have said ‘yes’ by the way, because I find it flattering and kinda cool to show my husband’s Kiwi family. 

    They have, actually added a note at the bottom of the group description that says 
    “And then, voila http://www.thecoromandel.com”

    I know that it is perfectly up to me to submit my photos to the group.

    But I can’t help but feel that something is wrong with this scenario. I love the fact that my photos are getting this exposure. I get lots of clicks a day from them. But, say I was trying to actually make a living as a photographer: how are you supposed to get exposure when websites, even tourism websites can go right on ahead and use free photography that is on par with the paid stuff.

    April 8, 2012
    1. snappostvlog reblogged this from strumpet101-blog
    2. strumpet101-blog posted this