I do the same with my 300s :)
Printable View
The copyright of any photo automatically belongs to the person who has taken it. That is basic copyright law.
A photographer can (and would be silly to) hand over all rights to an image he/she has taken to a publisher. However, most photogaphers would only license an image for use. For example, every invoice I send to a client states the fact the image is for a single, non-exclusive, copyright use for a particular purpose the licensing stipulates.
Recently, I was paid multiple times for the same images by Australia Post. Once when an artist used them as basis for his artworks that ended up on stamps and once when post reproduced them in cards and a third time for one image in a calendar.
The bottom line is it is naive to even give away images to magazines and other media rather than get at least a basic licensing fee. After all, magazines and publishers have paid staff. Why should a photographer end up without any compensation for adding value to a publication? Of course, not-for-profit organizations are a different kettle of fish, but in general most media will try and suck as much freebies as they can. No thanks.
A well-known professional bird photographer I know once said: A picture is worth as much as the buyer is willing to pay for it. So if you give yours away for free to magazines and other similar entities, that's exactly what yours are worth in the end. Nothing.
you have bascailly said what I meant except I didnt use the word license
some of what you said was already my understanding such as any photo taken is automatic copy right..
but the rest of the info is very informative thank you :)
as for charging...I agree with what your saying I dont charge because I dont have the confidence to do so..I give them away to people because it makes them happy.
maybe one day I will who knows