2 ms·
As others have said some organizations simply just want to pay you because it's easier for them legally. I and a friend of mine took a high-res photo of an ins
by avar 10y ago
As others have said some organizations simply just want to pay you because it's easier for them legally.
I and a friend of mine took a high-res photo of an insect and I uploaded it to my flickr account under a CC-BY-SA license.
I got contacted by some publisher of a textbook from the UK and the conversation went like this:
them> We'd like to pay you for your photo
me> no worries man, you don't need to, it's freely licensed, just
use it and credit us.
them> Uh, this really would just be easier if we give you money.
me> Ok, if you insist.
They ended up giving us a few beer cases worth of money for something they could have gotten for free, because their corporate processes presumably didn't jive with getting freely licensed work from some website.
Edit: The photos: https://www.flickr.com/photos/avarab/sets/72157611383366435/detail/ https://www.flickr.com/photos/avarab/sets/72157611383366435/...
- bitJericho 10y agoNow if you try to sue them they have correspondence and a receipt. Don't underestimate the power given by just paying for something.
- stordoff 10y agoI can see the other side of it though - (roughly speaking) money changes hands -> definitely a contract, non-monetary licence -> probably a contract. IF they don't use CC-BY-SA images often, it might be cheaper/less risky to just offer a token payment rather than getting their legal team to check the CC licence.
- avar 10y agoYes it makes perfect sense, not saying it doesn't. Just sharing my experience as a counterpoint to the other people in this thread who are surprised that anyone might ever pay for freely licensed content.