On Wednesday, I mentioned my plans to go to Philadelphia. I had several goals in mind. I met one of them, and then in a twist of fate, made a wrong decision and messed up my poor camera.
Here's what happened: I'd gone down to Penn and taken 200 pictures. My initial plan was to go to my hotel room, load the pictures on to my camera, and head back out. Instead, I found myself standing on Walnut Street Bridge, trying to replace my memory card with a larger one. I thought I could save myself some time, swap the cards, and go do my Philly buildings at night shots.
It didn't work out that way. :( I snapped off one of the heads in my SD card holder, rendering my camera useless. Fortunately, this happened to the empty card, not the full one with all of my pictures. At least I had a memory card backup strategy - it could have been much worse. I learned that lesson in Hawaii in 2005, when I lost my camera. All of my amazing pictures, gone. :( I still get upset every time I think about it.
I took the camera to Penn Camera. Prognosis - 6 week repair time, 255 dollars. Considering that I've owned cameras for 7 years without an incident, I can handle this. It happens. However, the next time I try to do anything with my camera, I'll try to do so seated - and I'll pay attention.
I did end up acquiring a backup plan from Penn Camera. More on that tomorrow. I'll also try to upload the pictures tomorrow, too. I'll need a card reader, but I can pick that up pretty easily, I think.
Till tomorrow!
Monday, December 6, 2010
Thursday, December 2, 2010
Here I am. On the Road again.
I'm in my home state of PA through Sunday. While I won't be able to post again until Monday, I have great plans lined up:
1) A do-over of my homage to Penn - I've packed every lens I own, and hope to get some interesting and good shots. Weather permitting, I'll spend most of Saturday on this.
2) (Time permitting) Philly at night - there are some tall buildings in the area. I thought I'd do a Philly take on building reflections - such as this one:
There is one building in particular that I'm eyeing. Fortunately, the sun sets early - if I don't have time to do this tomorrow (but I hope to), I can do this Saturday night before the work event.
Anyway, wish me luck! Till Monday!
1) A do-over of my homage to Penn - I've packed every lens I own, and hope to get some interesting and good shots. Weather permitting, I'll spend most of Saturday on this.
2) (Time permitting) Philly at night - there are some tall buildings in the area. I thought I'd do a Philly take on building reflections - such as this one:
There is one building in particular that I'm eyeing. Fortunately, the sun sets early - if I don't have time to do this tomorrow (but I hope to), I can do this Saturday night before the work event.
Anyway, wish me luck! Till Monday!
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
Commercial vs Editorial - Releases
As you know, I was in New York last weekend, and I took pictures of my sister, niece, and brother-in-law. Remember this?
Also, I have taken numerous pictures of private and public property, including ...
Hotels:
Gardens:
and places of worship:
So, this begs the question: if I want to sell these pictures, what is my obligation? First, answer this question: Is the subject recognizable? In other words, can you identify the person or the piece of property easily? If so, read on.
Let's start with the first and simplest - my niece. I'd already obtained permission from both her parents to post her pictures on Flickr and my blog. I would simply need to formalize that agreement by obtaining a release a writing. This would be needed for commercial use, which is in conjunction with selling goods, services, etc. (like a billboard or a magazine ad), but not for editorial use, which is used in conjunction with a story or piece of text (like a magazine article). I say better safe than sorry - I obtain model releases (or the promise thereof) for everything.
What about the gardens? In this case, this was public property (the US Botanical Gardens), so according to most sources, I don't (technicall) need one. However, I'm a cautious person and would likely only sell these for editorial use. I feel the same way about the church.
The hotel is a different story. Technically, it's private property. For non-editorial use, I would obtain a property release. Whether that is easy or difficult is another issue, obviously.
In the case of both types of releases, compensation is typically involved.
So why do I care? Well, aside from the fact that I want to sell my pictures without breaking the law, I have to think about:
1) Taking a mix of recognizable and unrecognizable pictures of property, so that I have at least something to sell.
2) Making sure NOT to take pictures of strangers unless they are silouhettes, unless I'm paid to do so.
3) Understanding that I'm limited to editorial use if a release is required, because I'm frankly not a fan of paperwork.
This is a very confusing topic to some, and I hope I've shed some light on it. For most of you, this doesn't matter very much. However, you never know what could happen - someone could want to buy your work. Make sure you don't limit yourself!
Till tomorrow!
Also, I have taken numerous pictures of private and public property, including ...
Hotels:
Gardens:
and places of worship:
So, this begs the question: if I want to sell these pictures, what is my obligation? First, answer this question: Is the subject recognizable? In other words, can you identify the person or the piece of property easily? If so, read on.
Let's start with the first and simplest - my niece. I'd already obtained permission from both her parents to post her pictures on Flickr and my blog. I would simply need to formalize that agreement by obtaining a release a writing. This would be needed for commercial use, which is in conjunction with selling goods, services, etc. (like a billboard or a magazine ad), but not for editorial use, which is used in conjunction with a story or piece of text (like a magazine article). I say better safe than sorry - I obtain model releases (or the promise thereof) for everything.
What about the gardens? In this case, this was public property (the US Botanical Gardens), so according to most sources, I don't (technicall) need one. However, I'm a cautious person and would likely only sell these for editorial use. I feel the same way about the church.
The hotel is a different story. Technically, it's private property. For non-editorial use, I would obtain a property release. Whether that is easy or difficult is another issue, obviously.
In the case of both types of releases, compensation is typically involved.
So why do I care? Well, aside from the fact that I want to sell my pictures without breaking the law, I have to think about:
1) Taking a mix of recognizable and unrecognizable pictures of property, so that I have at least something to sell.
2) Making sure NOT to take pictures of strangers unless they are silouhettes, unless I'm paid to do so.
3) Understanding that I'm limited to editorial use if a release is required, because I'm frankly not a fan of paperwork.
This is a very confusing topic to some, and I hope I've shed some light on it. For most of you, this doesn't matter very much. However, you never know what could happen - someone could want to buy your work. Make sure you don't limit yourself!
Till tomorrow!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)