User talk:Ragesoss/Diliff

1

Do consider yourself a professional photographer? Do you rely on photography income to get by?

Technically yes as I do derive an income from photography, but I'm loathe to describe myself as a professional as I don't see myself in the same league as the elite professional photographers. It's not my primary source of income, no. :-) At best, it constitutes perhaps one-tenth of my overall income. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 18:22, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2

Do you market your photos elsewhere? Where else do people interested in licensing your work directly from you find it? What's the balance between people finding it through Wikipedia/Commons and finding it elsewhere?

Yes, I do use a number of stock photography sites and that is where the bulk of my income comes from. I believe that most of the interest in my work on Wikipedia find it either from searches on Commons, or from the articles that they are used in. I would say that most people actually find my work elsewhere (mainly stock sites) in terms of sales, although it would be fair to say that I earn more on a per-sale basis from Wikipedia, as I am able to negotiate a better price than I get from stock photography sites. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 18:22, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3

What has your sales record been like? How many photos do you make money from through Wikipedia/Commons, and how much do you typically make from a photo?

Not bad, although it has been better in the past. My stock photography sales volume peaked in 2008 despite having a lower number of images available for sale. Sales via Wikipedia/Commons have always been irregular. I can make anything from £25 (USD$40) to £200 (USD$300) depending on what the images is, who is interested and what their use/requirements are. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 18:22, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

4

What license do you use on Commons, and why?

I use GFDL and CC-BY-SA. I know that some have insisted on using GFDL 1.2 only because it forces any re-user to jump through unrealistic hoops to satisfy the license terms, and in effect blocks the image from re-use. I can certainly sympathise with the reasoning behind it, but I'm not quite as heavy-handed as that.
I use both licenses because it's the 'standard' licensing arrangmenet. I don't see the point in rocking the boat by forcing people to use only GFDL. I'd feel somewhat embarassed if I had to explain what they had to do to use the image legally. ;-) CC-BY-SA treads a fine line between being simple to understand and implement, and restrictive enough that it gives photographers some control over the use. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 18:22, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

5

How do you think releasing your work to Wikimedia Commons, under a copyleft license, affects your ability to make money from it? Does increased visibility compensate for the commercial uses that are made permitted for free under the Commons licensing?

I have always been loathe to allow big-shot corporate, commercial entities to take advantage of what Wikipedia offers to the public, so when I get enquiries about whether the intended use of one of my images would be okay with me, I do remind them that they must provide attribution and refer to the license text (ideally with a hotlink or URL), but if they are gracious enough to do that, I am happy to let them use the image without paying for it. I will happily remind them, though, that if they want me to waive these conditions, they would have to pay for the privilege. :-)
Most of the people who are prepared to honour the CC-BY-SA license are not high-end commercial entities anyway. The sorts of people who want full unrestricted commercial use of my images tend to be quite willing to pay to do so, and I've found that some will offer in the first instance.
I don't think that the licenses restrict my ability to make money too much for the reasons mentioned above. The visibility is both a positive and a negative, but mainly a positive. I'm grateful that Wikipedia gives my photography commercial visibility, but I see it is a two-way street. Wikipedia/the public benefit from higher quality images than they might otherwise have had, and I receive commercial interest from people who might have otherwised used stock photography sites to find what they wanted, so I don't feel like either Wikipedia or myself is being exploited. We're in a happy symbiosis. :-) But I'd also like to stress that it is not my primary reason for contributing. I'd almost certainly still be uploading my photos if they weren't attracting any commercial interest. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 18:22, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

6

How big of an issue is piracy/appropriation/license non-compliance? How do you deal with people and companies who use your photos without respecting the license requirements? Do you ask them to release their derivatives? Ask for money? How much of that do you do?

To be honest, I'm not actually sure how big the issue is as I think what we're aware of is only the tip of the iceberg. I have contacted a number of sites that have misused my photos and generally they have offered to take the photos offline. I have never received any compensation for misuse. My biggest regret is that I didn't do more to contact Apple in 2007 regarding a fairly blatant misuse of my Colosseum image in one of their advertisements for OSX Leopard. Although a settlement may have been rather... 'financially rewarding', really, I just would have liked to have seen Apple apologise profusely. What frustrates me most of all is the fact that people just don't put enough effort into understanding what the license does and does not allow you to do. Unfortunately most people seem to think that Wikipedia = free to do whatever you want with the content. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 18:22, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

7

How do you think featured pictures affect your business? Do you get more inquiries about featured pictures than comparable non-featured pictures? Do they fetch a premium?

I think featured pictures probably has minimal impact on my income. I think they tend to reflect my better photos, and so inherently attract a premium, but I don't think that the FP star itself gives them a sales boost. I can't say that I've had any sales as a result of my photo being on the main page. I think most interested parties will actively search for what they want, not 'stumble across it'. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 18:22, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

8

Feel free to share anything else you think Wikimedians ought to know about the intersection of commercial photography and Wikimedia projects.

Well, I don't think that Wikipedians/Wikimedians should feel threatened by the idea that some photographers may be receiving commercial inquiries and possibly income. As long as the image pages/user pages are not overtly commercial and don't misrepresent the licenses that the images are released under, I don't see the problem at all. We should be doing everything we can to encourage high quality photographers to upload their images to Wikipedia. There are some considerations regarding licensing that are yet to be addressed and may put some prospective contributors off (I would prefer a non-commercial license option and I'm sure I'm not the only one), but I think that overall, my contributions to Wikipedia have helped, not hindered, my photographic income. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 18:22, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]