Many professional photographers have older work whose commercial value is almost nil. In fashion photography, for instance, the commercial lifespan of a photograph is extremely short.
Here's a featured picture of that type: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gotsiy3edit2.jpg These types of shots normally go into a photographer's portfolio as proof of their skills. Yet often they still have encyclopedic value and the photographer may have more to gain by relicensing them under cc-by-sa with a source link to their own website. -Durova On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 8:13 AM, Carcharoth <carcharot...@googlemail.com>wrote: > On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 8:38 PM, David Gerard<dger...@gmail.com> wrote: > > http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/20/arts/20funny.html > > > > One error on licensing. Claim that Wikipedia requires you to give up > > your copyright unchallenged. Otherwise, pretty good! And should have > > the right effect in terms of promo photo donations. > > The bit I found most fascinating was the professional photographer > explaining how Wikipedia can help his career, but can also reduce his > income (from resale of his pictures). > > "He said that having his work on Wikipedia has increased his online > visibility [...] but that the costs are potentially high. “This is the > lifeblood of my career,” he said, noting that photographers may get > paid very little for a celebrity shot for a magazine. They make their > money from resales of the image." > > Earlier in the article, his contributions to Wikipedia (Commons) were > described: > > "Jerry Avenaim, a celebrity photographer. He is unusual in that he has > contributed about a dozen low-resolution photographs to Wikipedia" > > It would be interesting to compare why low-resolution is considered OK > here, to support and encourage the revenue stream of a professional > photographer, but not in the case of the National Portrait Gallery > (where the underlying works are public domain), and the revenue stream > is (in theory) supporting the digitisation costs. > > I should disclose here that although I am not a professional > photographer, I do work in the photography industry, and I'm aware of > some of the ins and outs of how photographers (and others) earn money > from their services, skills, and the end products of photographs and > images. > > It usually comes down to access and opportunities, in this case to > celebrities, in the case of the NPG, to a collection of public domain > artworks. For news photographers, it is being in the right place at > the right time. For nature and landscape photographers, it is funding > trips to far-flung landscapes or having the patience and skill to > find, photograph and identify an animal or plant. And there are lots > if niche photographers as well, that specialise in certain areas, > which may require specialised and expensive equipment. > > Carcharoth > > _______________________________________________ > WikiEN-l mailing list > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > -- http://durova.blogspot.com/ _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l