800px Print Quality / Flickr rant!

.Longshanks.

I checked my flickr updates this morning and found the following comment for the pic below;

“I'd like your permission to use this photo in a graphic.
I'm a production artist for a newspaper in the United States and I'd be happy to send you a copy of it when it prints.”

I wrote back saying im interested, but could you give me some more details on the usage and said maybe you could make me a payment offer for a full resolution version….

I only upload 800px sizes @72 dpi to flickr in the past few months. However I just noticed this person also added me as a contact moments after. As I had previously had my flickr set to allow my contacts download my pics, this means the above person more than likely already downloaded the 800px version :mad:

So do you think the 800px version would be high enough quality to be used “in a graphic” ?



By the way I’ve now changed my flickr settings. I know there are ways around this, but it’s a start at least….Maybe they will come back to me with a nice cash offer, but id say my chance is gone.

Brady

Hey, Regardless he cant use the image without your permission, so i wouldnt worry to much. Even if he has downloaded the higher res he cant use it unless you have given him rights. So perhaps find out what paper he works for?


... Thats a really sweet image!

Longshanks100 wrote: »

I checked my flickr updates this morning and found the following comment for the pic below......

.Longshanks.

Brady wrote: »

Hey, Regardless he cant use the image without your permission, so i wouldnt worry to much. Even if he has downloaded the higher res he cant use it unless you have given him rights. So perhaps find out what paper he works for?

....in a perfect world...!
If he/she downloaded it, they only have a 800px x 500px @ 72dpi version. Question is, is this a high enough quality to be used in print?

Brady wrote: »

... Thats a really sweet image!

Thanks

DaireQuinlan

I'd say the very fact that he contacted you at all probably means that he's on the level. He could have just 'yoink'ed it without a by your leave, safe in the knowledge you'd never find out.

Cameraman

Longshanks100 wrote: »

So do you think the 800px version would be high enough quality to be used “in a graphic” ?

I suppose it depends what 'in a graphic' means.

The rule-of-thumb for average sized high quality prints is about 300 DPI. On that basis, the max. size would be under 3" x 2" - however, you can get away with much lower values of DPI depending on the usage, and whether or not some form of 'upsizer' or interpolation is used.

(The 72 DPI number you mention is irrelevant and makes no difference to anything).

stcstc

you would be sooooo suprised at how well low res images would print


i just did a friend a favour and printed a picture from a mobile phone 640*480 as a 6" * 4" print and framed it, now to me i doesnt look great. BUT the friend was sooooo over the moon with it and loved it

.Longshanks.

To follow up on this, i got the following reply today

Hello,
I work for a small newspaper near San Francisco, California called the San Mateo Daily Journal. We have a circulation of about 58,000 daily readers. Our web site is WWW.smdailyjournal.com.
I work making graphic elements and in this regard I wanted to use your photo for a movie poster type graphic for a section called our 'athletes of the season.'
While the image is excellent, unfortunately it is our policy not to pay for any images.
If payment is what you seek then I'm sorry and thank you for your consideration. Good luck with your photography. No doubt you are very skilled.

Respectfully,
JULIO LARA
SAN MATEO DAILY JOURNAL PRODUCTION

My initial reaction is to email back along the lines of;
Your paper aint free, I assume you dont work for free, so why should i give my image free of charge? (but in a more polite manner)

Anybody any thoughts / suggestions?

DaireQuinlan

Longshanks100 wrote: »

To follow up on this, i got the following reply today



My initial reaction is to email back along the lines of;
Your paper aint free, I assume you dont work for free, so why should i give my image free of charge? (but in a more polite manner)

Anybody any thoughts / suggestions?

I think you should do just that, but yes, in a more polite fashion. He was courteous enough so a bit of reciprocity is never a bad thing.

58000 readers might be small fry in the states, but I think it's about half the circulation of the Irish Times ? Or am I way off there ?

joeKel73

While the image is excellent, unfortunately it is our policy not to pay for any images.

That's an awful attitude on their behalf, definately wouldn't allow the use of the image.... unless they maybe offered to link back to your website or give details on how people could order prints from you.

eas

Without sounding overly pessimistic, there is a 99.9% that nothing would come out of a link / credit that's of any use to you.

I don't think you should feel a need to be polite about their "policy" of not paying for images, on the contrary, I think you should be extremely offended about it.

AnCatDubh

I think you should let the matter rest and not let it upset your (or their) Christmas. Your terms v their terms aren't compatible. Simple as that. Enjoy Christmas knowing that you don't have to consider it further. It would be one thing less to worry about.

Any further communication to tell them how cr*p their policy on never buying images, at best would be met with stone silence, or at worst be met with a rebuke which wouldn't be very nice for either of you if they were that way inclined.

But if you let the matter rest, forget about it, safe in the knowledge that you haven't given any consent and that legally they can't use your image, then no harm done to anyone. Yer policies are simply incompatible.

btw - I feel your pain on this one. I just don't think it is worth getting into a row over. They will simply move on and find someone who will be chuffed to have been asked and bend over onto all fours while the paper does their worst to them... that's all that will happen.

Good luck no matter what you decide in going forward.

.Longshanks.

Will think about the above suggestions and reply tomorrow. 6 months ago i would have been delighted to have been considered bent over, but not anymore

Ghost Train

Their forum isn't very good, banned me before I went in

http://www.smdailyjournal.com/forum/index.php

Sorry. The administrator has banned your IP address. To contact the administrator click here

Anyone else get that?

AnCatDubh

Ghost Train wrote: »

Their forum isn't very good, banned me before I went in

http://www.smdailyjournal.com/forum/index.php



Anyone else get that?

Yup. It's probably a locals only thing based on a crude ban the entire interweb except for a limited range which covers their circulation district.

Borderfox

Reminds me of this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2KbQsdj5VY

.Longshanks.

Borderfox wrote: »

Reminds me of this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_n2KbQsdj5VY_

LOL, maybe i should just send back that link!

tororosso

Ghost Train wrote: »

Their forum isn't very good, banned me before I went in

http://www.smdailyjournal.com/forum/index.php



Anyone else get that?

If you try a proxy server you might be able to access the forum! I googled for proxy servers and pasted the link above in and it let me see the site. I then clicked on the sports section and I could access that page no problem :pac:

Yeah I guess the attitude to photographers has deteriorated with the increase in the number of people that take photographs (at all levels) since the digital cameras took off...sucks but the amount of photographs that newspapers (locals) receive for free (e.g parents/coach of local sports team) must be very high and very prevalent these days...

tororosso

Borderfox wrote: »

Reminds me of this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2KbQsdj5VY

Thats Brilliant reminds me of a conversation I had with someone from the gazette a while back LOL