farnz Posted January 10, 2008 Share #1 Â Posted January 10, 2008 Advertisement (gone after registration) I decided to have a book of my M8 shots printed (yeah, appalling vanity, I know ) and an acqauintance steered me towards a product called Photobook at CeWe Photo Books | Photobook | Photo Albums | Digital Photo Albums | Digital Photo Prints - Your digital photos in a real album where you download their software, insert your images, format the book to your liking, upload the finished article to them and they will print it, bind it and post it back to you for a modest sum. There's a number of sites offering these services, no big deal. Â However, after I downloaded the software and ran the setup file I read through the terms and conditions before agreeing them (okay, I'm sad in that way! ) and I noticed that by agreeing to the Ts&Cs you are granting them a royalty-free, perpetual licence to use any or all of the images you upload in any way and for any purpose they choose! I chose "not" very swiftly. (Not sure how this would work with releases for the people in your photos.) Â Has anybody noticed similar conditions tucked-away in similar photo book printing software? Â Pete. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 10, 2008 Posted January 10, 2008 Hi farnz, Take a look here Beware Photobook!. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
rob_x2004 Posted January 10, 2008 Share #2 Â Posted January 10, 2008 Eh. Odd one huh. Guess they have to protect themselves. Doubt they would actually want to use any of hte uploaded images. Imagine the job of skimming through all the crpa they must get. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotografr Posted January 10, 2008 Share #3 Â Posted January 10, 2008 That is a total scam. In no way do they need royalty free marketing rights in order to print your photos. Anyone signing on to an agreement like that is not only screwing themselves, they are screwing any other photographers who try to make a living selling stock images. You did the right thing by not agreeing. Â Thanks very much for the warning. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob_x2004 Posted January 10, 2008 Share #4 Â Posted January 10, 2008 Yea but the site wouldnt be used by working pros would it? I mean most of these places are 200dpi on magazine paper arent they? For one off printing for ma and pa kettle? Neither your assignment work or stock photos would ever wind up in there would they? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
farnz Posted January 10, 2008 Author Share #5 Â Posted January 10, 2008 Happy to be of assistance, Brent. Â It seems a very underhand way of setting up a backdoor photo marketting site. Sure, most of the photos will be only of personal interest like Aunty Ethel and Uncle Bozo opening their Christmas presents and therefore of little marketable value. But a reasonable proportion is also likely to be submitted by enthusiastic amateurs who have a degree of skill and may submit marginally marketable material. Â Caveat emptor ... Â Pete. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotografr Posted January 10, 2008 Share #6 Â Posted January 10, 2008 Yea but the site wouldnt be used by working pros would it? I mean most of these places are 200dpi on magazine paper arent they? For one off printing for ma and pa kettle?Neither your assignment work or stock photos would ever wind up in there would they? Â Maybe and maybe not. I have used a local company twice to produce books like this from theatrical productions I shot. Regardless, this is how someone can build a file of royalty free (translate, CHEAP) photos which are marketed on CDs. The rights granted from a one-time purchase give the buyer the right to use the photos in any way they see fit for as long as they like. This practice is ruining stock photography because it is making it nearly impossible to make a living in that field anymore. The books I had made were done from 300ppi images at full size from a Canon 5D, and the printing was on a heavy, rigid page with glossy finish. The quality was extremely high. It doesn't really matter what kind of paper they are printing on, however, because they still have the original digital file which it seems they want to be able to sell without paying the photographer a damn thing. Â The point is really that there is no reason whatsoever for this company to get free use of anyone's images when they are already charging the person a fee for producing photo books. If they want to buy images, that's fine. In this case, they are trying to STEAL them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stnami Posted January 10, 2008 Share #7 Â Posted January 10, 2008 Advertisement (gone after registration) Their paper is low grade and colours are all over the place as all these internet publishers are........want a good job, be prepared to part with those golden ducats or a pound of flesh. Select a quality printing mob, ie talk person to person, you know real life stuff. Eventually the publishers cut corners and quality is on top of the out the door list. I see it in all the art texts books I wrote as well, after a few years you can really see the changes in reprints Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
farnz Posted January 10, 2008 Author Share #8 Â Posted January 10, 2008 Yea but the site wouldnt be used by working pros would it? I mean most of these places are 200dpi on magazine paper arent they? For one off printing for ma and pa kettle?Neither your assignment work or stock photos would ever wind up in there would they? Rob, Â Stock images are stock images are stock images, which is to say that the right image is ultimately marketable in virtually any format and resolution. For example, I've heard of camera phone images going for silly money because they were snapped by someone at the right place and the right time. The gutter press will offer silly money for the lowest quality shot of the right celeb's knickers as she gets into a car for example. Â Pete. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob_x2004 Posted January 10, 2008 Share #9 Â Posted January 10, 2008 I agree with you to an extent. And I agree "This practice is ruining stock photography because it is making it nearly impossible to make a living in that field anymore." Its the trial of the digital age. Cheap stock is here, like it or not. Maybe they rely on image trade to offset costs to enable them to produce teh cheap books, but I doubt it. I also wonder if it is jsut a legality. Photographic equivalent of parachute school getting you to sign in quadlupicate before you ever go up, that you wont hold them responsible even if they throw you out with no chute. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted January 10, 2008 Share #10 Â Posted January 10, 2008 Rob, your last hypotetis can have a sense... a legality... my company offers some kind of on line service (in all another field) that involves trasmission of data to us, and our lawyers suggested us that it would be useful, to strongly avoid us any possibility of litigation, that we make customers accept that we can use the transmitted data as we like : in our business, it was impossible to propose such a condition and we didn't do it, but surely it's a way to free you from whatsoever kind of problem that can arise from the Internet Provider, the Hosting Center, the Backup Facility... all "virtual - but - real" entities that stand on the route between you and your customer and theorically can disperse the data, can be hacker-attacked, can be thieves by nature... Â Or, simply, it's one of the usual phenomenons in the Net Economy : establishing a certain service, you try to catch some kind of "collateral" (in this case, the rights on a bunch of pics) : maybe one day it'll have a value... . Internet entrepeneurs discovered this years ago: before that, in several countries, certain rules on data privacy were established, many of the earliest Internet Service Provider made money simply reselling the data of their subscribers to various marketers... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
photogdave Posted January 10, 2008 Share #11 Â Posted January 10, 2008 Everyone who has a Flickr account has agreed to similar terms, whether they know it or not. In most cases it's just legalese for permission to host the images on the website. I can't say if this is the intention of Photobook or not since I haven't read the terms. Personally I've been quite happy with the quality of Apple's iPhoto books. The program is easy to use, and if you own a Mac you already have it, the images looks just like they do on screen, paper quality is decent, and the book arrives quickly and is inexpensive. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
spylaw4 Posted January 10, 2008 Share #12 Â Posted January 10, 2008 snip ..................../snipPersonally I've been quite happy with the quality of Apple's iPhoto books. The program is easy to use, and if you own a Mac you already have it, the images looks just like they do on screen, paper quality is decent, and the book arrives quickly and is inexpensive. Â Only had one done but I agree the quality is really surprisingly good. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
amigadave Posted January 10, 2008 Share #13 Â Posted January 10, 2008 Everyone who has a Flickr account has agreed to similar terms, whether they know it or not. In most cases it's just legalese for permission to host the images on the website. Â In the Flickr case, the permission is only granted for the photos to be published on the Flickr site. Any other publication is not incuded, and subject to whatever licence your images are placed under. There is no reason why this cannot be the situation with other services such as Photobook. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.