3 ms·

I thought this article was rather interesting especially this line: Also, it can be difficult to persuade a talent photographer to go along with that approach

I thought this article was rather interesting especially this line: Also, it can be difficult to persuade a talent photographer to go along with that approach [of supplying a CC licensed photo] because one free photograph can drive out all the others,... I would think it would be relatively easy to hire a talent photographer to explicitly take a series of photos to be released under creative commons. Even if for some reason many of the traditional talent photographers refused, if they were so keen on getting a better photo for use on wikipedia it seems like it would be easy to hire talented amateurs or lower tier professional photographers that would love the exposure that would come with having it used for wikipedia, even if they had to lose control over it to get that.

RK 17y ago
Try getting the copyright to wedding (or similar) photos. If the photographer doesn't flat-out refuse, that will be be an extra x% charge (somewhere around 50-100%) to make up for the lost gouge they normally charge for "reprints". And even though one photographer might hire another under "work for hire" terms (i.e. the second photographer holds no copyright to the photos they personally take). Don't expect that you can hire the photographer to work under those terms directly for you at the same rate.
- timwiseman 17y ago
  Yes, almost all professional photographers are reluctant to relinquish their copyrights and will as you say "be an extra x% charge". But if these people, who literally make their living on their appearance and reputation, are serious then they should be happy to pay that extra money. If they are unwilling or unable to do that but still care about their picture on wikipedia, then they can certainly get a talented amateur to do it for a very reasonable fee. It (probably) will not be as good a professional photographer, but it will be better than what wikipedia likely has now and will be cheaper even with relinquishing copyright.

RK 17y ago

Try getting the copyright to wedding (or similar) photos. If the photographer doesn't flat-out refuse, that will be be an extra x% charge (somewhere around 50-100%) to make up for the lost gouge they normally charge for "reprints". And even though one photographer might hire another under "work for hire" terms (i.e. the second photographer holds no copyright to the photos they personally take). Don't expect that you can hire the photographer to work under those terms directly for you at the same rate.

timwiseman 17y ago
Yes, almost all professional photographers are reluctant to relinquish their copyrights and will as you say "be an extra x% charge". But if these people, who literally make their living on their appearance and reputation, are serious then they should be happy to pay that extra money. If they are unwilling or unable to do that but still care about their picture on wikipedia, then they can certainly get a talented amateur to do it for a very reasonable fee. It (probably) will not be as good a professional photographer, but it will be better than what wikipedia likely has now and will be cheaper even with relinquishing copyright.