What are everyone's thought's on licensing your photos versus not licensing them? Anyone ever get burned from licensing an image? Personally, since my goal isn't to sell my images after they have been taken, all of my photos are released under a Creative Commons (Attribution 2.0 Generic, http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/deed.en) license. So basically anyone can do what they want with my images as long as they give me credit. I also never watermark my photos, and always provide them at full resolution. My thoughts behind this are that if my photos were not openly licensed, people would likely skip over them if they wanted to use them, and find something that was. I am sure that since I started getting serious about photography a year and a half ago, my images on Flickr would have made no money had they been "All rights reserved". Now by having all of my photos under Creative Commons, I have gotten a ton of exposure I think I otherwise would have missed. I've had pictures appear in blog articles on major websites, in travel guide books, various websites, educational guides, as album covers, etc. I get at least an email or two a month about people telling me they are using an image of mine for something. In the end, I likely have no less money in my pocket (I do have some, cause people will still buy prints of mine), but my photos are getting out there which has got to count for something I'd love to hear some other opinions on this. Anyone have similar experiences? I understand that if you make a living off selling your photos, this likely doesn't apply, but it would be interesting to hear your thoughts on it as well.
I suggest you brush up on the Canadian Copyright Act where it pertains to photographers. Your assumptions on what copyright is are incorrect. The image is copyrighted the moment you release the shutter. http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/ShowDo...//en?page=2&isPrinting=false#codese:10-ss:_2_ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_copyright_law
I don't shoot for stock purposes..... (Mosher is going to smack me)...and shoot almost strictly newborn/toddler and family portriature. That being said, if I didn't watermark my work, I would never sell a thing. I also don't provide full res files to the clients. HOWEVER, I have started providing websized low res files with my watermark for them to upload to FB, email, etc.
I'm constantly amazed at how low-quality, watermarked, otherwise ruined images still get pilfered. I see my Targa shots all over the place with my nasty watermarks all over them, if you post it it any form its going to be 'good enough' for some people. My Targa images are the only ones I sell so they're really the only ones I care about the licensing for, the rest of my images I would consider to be more of a Creative Commons licensing although I don't explicitly state that anywhere. I probably should spend some more time thinking about this.
Correct. Just be aware of who owns the copyright. Because in Canada, of all the places in the free world, if you're commissioned to take a photograph, then you don't own the copyright unless you have a signed contract with the person who commissioned the job stating that you "retain" the copyright of the image, they do.
