pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Photographer Makes US$15,000 In Just One Day By Selling Prints On Instagram  (Read 7393 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: March 11, 2014, 11:43 »
+3
http://designtaxi.com/news/364284/Photographer-Makes-US-15-000-In-Just-One-Day-By-Selling-Prints-On-Instagram/

Interesting article. I wonder how true it is. And did he have model releases?


« Reply #1 on: March 11, 2014, 11:47 »
+4
... I wonder how true it is.

One thing for sure - good marketing for Inst...  ;D

« Reply #2 on: March 11, 2014, 11:57 »
0
this needs to be a joke/marketing campaign, not judging his work but I don't see anything beside outdoor snaps of people, ok with a few interesting ones in the middle, not to mention he didn't decided to sell prints from one day to another, nobody gets 380k followers in a day unless you are Rihanna

regarding releases I am sure a big fat zero, anyway we are the only guys concerned about that once we are stock photographers, FAA is a mess regarding this as well, again nobody cares, life goes on until someone complains, after that he removes that picture but the other will continue to show up and "selling"
« Last Edit: March 11, 2014, 12:00 by luissantos84 »

« Reply #3 on: March 11, 2014, 11:58 »
0
.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2014, 23:41 by tickstock »

« Reply #4 on: March 11, 2014, 12:01 »
0
this needs to be a joke/marketing campaign, not judging his work but I don't see anything beside outdoor snaps of people, ok with a few interesting ones in the middle, not to mention he didn't decided to sell prints from one day to another, nobody gets 380k followers in a day unless you are Rihanna

regarding releases I am sure a big fat zero, anyway we are the only guys concerned about that once we are stock photographers, FAA is a mess regarding this as well, again nobody cares, life goes on until someone complains, after that he remove that picture but the other will continue to show up and "selling"
You need releases to sell art prints?

I will rephrase: can you take a picture of a person in public and sell it commercially? (editorial you can)

Ron

« Reply #5 on: March 11, 2014, 12:16 »
+2
You dont need releases for POD.


But I think Luis is right, its a hoax, just create a buzz and everyone will start dumping their files on Instagram.

Uncle Pete

« Reply #6 on: March 11, 2014, 12:25 »
+1
One day special, he has an established collection. Tomorrow he's back to toast and water and cheap low price sales. It's all a bunch of hype.

Remember the updated terms of Instagram Agreement: "To help us deliver interesting paid or sponsored content or promotions, you agree that a business or other entity may pay us to display your username, likeness, photos (along with any associated metadata), and/or actions you take, in connection with paid or sponsored content or promotions, without any compensation to you," (my emphasis) Which turned out to be clearing up the fact that they could already do this, and it was just spelled out in plain English.

Instagrid.me (a 40,000 member and counting site which creates a space for Instagram galleries)will pair advertisers with influential Instagrammers, giving them incentives to feature brand-related photos in their streams. Down for construction...

and finally the answer:

With a few clicks, artists and photographers can import their Instagram photos to Instaprints.com and sell framed prints, canvas prints, greeting cards, and more to a global audience of art collectors.

http://instaprints.com/ take a look. Does this remind anyone of FAA. OK is there anyone who doesn't see the resemblance to FAA?  :)

Oh and the real story: "Hello, I just turned 34 this second. For one day only I am selling 46 prints of whatever you want from my Instagram archive for $150 each. I swear I will never sell anything this cheap again. If youre interested, send a screenshot of the photo(s) of your choice to (email removed by me) and I will send a paypal invoice, followed by a signed print. Easy peasy. Happy my birthday. I love you"

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffbercovici/2014/03/07/this-photographer-made-15k-in-one-day-on-instagram/

22,000 followers and more than 1,300 photos in his stream. "Been looking for photo work but in its absence i spend most days walking around the city taking photos (iphone and 35mm) for up to 8hrs a day. His mode is what you might call humanist urban voyeurism: street scenes, faces on the subway, people having un-self-conscious moments.

« Reply #7 on: March 11, 2014, 12:31 »
0
who told you that Ron? FAA moderator? a lawyer? FAA doesnt know anything about this, they enjoy the risk of staying borderline, actually they might dump us all the responsabilities, how would you feel if I was seling prints of you without your consentement?

creepy subway 'photographer'

http://bullettmedia.com/article/daniel-arnold/
« Last Edit: March 11, 2014, 12:34 by luissantos84 »

« Reply #8 on: March 11, 2014, 13:07 »
+4

Ron

« Reply #9 on: March 11, 2014, 13:10 »
0
who told you that Ron? FAA moderator? a lawyer? FAA doesnt know anything about this, they enjoy the risk of staying borderline, actually they might dump us all the responsabilities, how would you feel if I was seling prints of you without your consentement?

creepy subway 'photographer'

http://bullettmedia.com/article/daniel-arnold/


Who is talking about reselling?

I dont need a release for my own work to sell as print. I can take a photo of a Ferrari and sell it on FAA without any issues.

And yes, I spoke to a person who is an advisor on copyrights.

« Reply #10 on: March 11, 2014, 13:25 »
-1
No, you don't need releases for "art prints".

http://petapixel.com/2013/05/16/new-yorkers-upset-over-photographers-secret-snaps-through-their-windows/


Daniel's pictures have fully visible faces so he may have some issues, curiously he is friend of the forbes article writer

FAA isnt just fine art, they are also selling greeting cards and iPhone cases, same goes with Zazzle, Cafepress etc

in fact you can sell prints of people in ny acordding to a law, that doesnt mean the all world follow that same law

Ron

« Reply #11 on: March 11, 2014, 13:30 »
0
No, you dont need releases for people either.  As Sean pointed out as well.

« Reply #12 on: March 11, 2014, 13:30 »
0
who told you that Ron? FAA moderator? a lawyer? FAA doesnt know anything about this, they enjoy the risk of staying borderline, actually they might dump us all the responsabilities, how would you feel if I was seling prints of you without your consentement?

creepy subway 'photographer'

http://bullettmedia.com/article/daniel-arnold/


Who is talking about reselling?

I dont need a release for my own work to sell as print. I can take a photo of a Ferrari and sell it on FAA without any issues.

And yes, I spoke to a person who is an advisor on copyrights.


plate numbers as well? selling pictures of my neighbor car doesnt look good I guess

selling a person elbow might be ok, the face is another thing

Ron

« Reply #13 on: March 11, 2014, 13:31 »
0
Its not like stock, its completely different, you are not selling licences, you are selling prints. You dont need a release for that.

I am selling my Skylines with logos et all, I am selling images with people, I am selling branded stuff, all without any releases, and its all ok. I know in Holland it is for sure.

« Reply #14 on: March 11, 2014, 13:33 »
0
an iPhone case isn't a print

Ron

« Reply #15 on: March 11, 2014, 13:52 »
0
How is it not?

Uncle Pete

« Reply #16 on: March 11, 2014, 14:00 »
+1
OK Boys, settle down.  ::)

Anyone want to discuss that he didn't Sell Prints on Instagram? The subject and the article are somewhat misleading. And the facts are slightly different.


creepy subway 'photographer'

http://bullettmedia.com/article/daniel-arnold/


Yeah that kind of covers his version of "street photographer".


He asked people for money and offered to sell prints of images that were hosted ON Instagram. He wasn't selling prints "on Instagram". I know it's the same words, just a different meaning.

Whatever, good for him. Yesterdays news. Glad he could finance his artistic expression and social voyeurism. He'd probably think that taking photos of cars, motorcycles or racing is dull and lacks any interesting shots. To each their own.


« Reply #17 on: March 11, 2014, 14:10 »
0
How is it not?

I see a print as something you hang up on the wall, oh what . do I know when you guys are all fine art artists right?

into the next 15k $ selling other people faces as fine art

can we sell people eating inside a restaurant? Daniel can so its all good!

Ron

« Reply #18 on: March 11, 2014, 14:17 »
+1
No need to get upset Luis, its just a discussion. All I know is you dont need a release for prints. If you say you do, thats fine. I am not taking my stuff down. I have gotten advice about it, and its ok what I am doing. YMMV.

« Reply #19 on: March 11, 2014, 14:18 »
0
No need to get upset Luis, its just a discussion. All I know is you dont need a release for prints. If you say you do, thats fine. I am not taking my stuff down. I have gotten advice about it, and its ok what I am doing. YMMV.

even on a private place?


« Reply #21 on: March 11, 2014, 14:28 »
+2
No need to get upset Luis, its just a discussion. All I know is you dont need a release for prints. If you say you do, thats fine. I am not taking my stuff down. I have gotten advice about it, and its ok what I am doing. YMMV.

even on a private place?

No, you don't need a release for prints, art or not, cases or posters or plates.

« Reply #22 on: March 11, 2014, 14:32 »
0
So, if you're in a bar, or in an amusement park, or touring a winery, you are allowed to take pictures unless you're told not to while you're there. And if you do take pictures, you can sell them to any buyer willing to assume the risk, if any exists.

from Dan Heller

« Reply #23 on: March 11, 2014, 14:34 »
0
No need to get upset Luis, its just a discussion. All I know is you dont need a release for prints. If you say you do, thats fine. I am not taking my stuff down. I have gotten advice about it, and its ok what I am doing. YMMV.

even on a private place?

No, you don't need a release for prints, art or not, cases or posters or plates.

would you remove it if the person asked you?

« Reply #24 on: March 11, 2014, 14:38 »
+2
Well, I don't do that, because I don't want to deal with it, but obviously the creepy NY window guy has no issues.

« Reply #25 on: March 11, 2014, 14:54 »
+1
who told you that Ron? FAA moderator? a lawyer? FAA doesnt know anything about this, they enjoy the risk of staying borderline, actually they might dump us all the responsabilities, how would you feel if I was seling prints of you without your consentement?

creepy subway 'photographer'

http://bullettmedia.com/article/daniel-arnold/


Why is this guy creepy? Seems like a photographer producing interesting work to me.

He's certainly less aggressive than the critically acclaimed, world famous Bruce Gilden.

Last thing we need is other photographers bad mouthing a perfectly art form - photographing other people in a public space.

Ron

« Reply #26 on: March 11, 2014, 14:56 »
+1
So, if you're in a bar, or in an amusement park, or touring a winery, you are allowed to take pictures unless you're told not to while you're there. And if you do take pictures, you can sell them to any buyer willing to assume the risk, if any exists.

from Dan Heller
Yes, that is confirmation you dont need a release to sell prints.

Why do you keep arguing you do need a release? You dont need a release, accept it and take your advantage. Go nuts, sell stuff.  ;)


« Reply #27 on: March 11, 2014, 15:12 »
+1
who told you that Ron? FAA moderator? a lawyer? FAA doesnt know anything about this, they enjoy the risk of staying borderline, actually they might dump us all the responsabilities, how would you feel if I was seling prints of you without your consentement?

creepy subway 'photographer'

http://bullettmedia.com/article/daniel-arnold/


Why is this guy creepy? Seems like a photographer producing interesting work to me.

He's certainly less aggressive than the critically acclaimed, world famous Bruce Gilden.

Last thing we need is other photographers bad mouthing a perfectly art form - photographing other people in a public space.


where have you read here that I don't agree with that form of photography?

guess it comes down to our own opinion which I believe I can have, I don't think it is acceptable to sell our face just for the sake it is ART for somebody else, if you are fine with it, that is sweet!

the creepy term was said by himself on that interview

EmberMike

« Reply #28 on: March 11, 2014, 15:33 »
0

What's creepy to me is that people have such a high expectation of privacy in NYC of all places.

I guess it's just that technology has made it more obvious to folks that they really have no privacy at all outside of their homes (or even in their homes if they don't draw the curtains). They've always lived in a fish bowl, it's just that now everyone in that fish bowl with them has a camera in their pocket at all times and easy access to share photos with the world.

« Reply #29 on: March 11, 2014, 16:05 »
+1
someone just sent me an email regarding FAA, subject were graffitis

You may not post, distribute, or reproduce in any way any copyrighted material, trademarks, or other proprietary information without obtaining the prior written consent of the owner of such proprietary rights.  It is the policy of FineArtAmerica.com to terminate membership privileges of any member who repeatedly infringes copyright upon prompt notification to FineArtAmerica.com by the copyright owner or the copyright owner's legal agent.  http://fineartamerica.com/termsofuse.php

It is each artists responsibility to make sure they have the permission and rights for uploading work to the site.

Abbie Shores
Technical Support

Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #30 on: March 11, 2014, 16:36 »
+2
technically you don't need a release but nobody can stop people from sueing you anyway, what about the notorious "Obama Hope" painting that was taken from an Associated Press photo ? the photographer sued the painter, no idea if he won or not.




OM

« Reply #31 on: March 12, 2014, 18:28 »
0
One day special, he has an established collection. Tomorrow he's back to toast and water and cheap low price sales. It's all a bunch of hype.

Remember the updated terms of Instagram Agreement: "To help us deliver interesting paid or sponsored content or promotions, you agree that a business or other entity may pay us to display your username, likeness, photos (along with any associated metadata), and/or actions you take, in connection with paid or sponsored content or promotions, without any compensation to you," (my emphasis) Which turned out to be clearing up the fact that they could already do this, and it was just spelled out in plain English.

Instagrid.me (a 40,000 member and counting site which creates a space for Instagram galleries)will pair advertisers with influential Instagrammers, giving them incentives to feature brand-related photos in their streams. Down for construction...

and finally the answer:

With a few clicks, artists and photographers can import their Instagram photos to Instaprints.com and sell framed prints, canvas prints, greeting cards, and more to a global audience of art collectors.

http://instaprints.com/ take a look. Does this remind anyone of FAA. OK is there anyone who doesn't see the resemblance to FAA?  :)

Oh and the real story: "Hello, I just turned 34 this second. For one day only I am selling 46 prints of whatever you want from my Instagram archive for $150 each. I swear I will never sell anything this cheap again. If youre interested, send a screenshot of the photo(s) of your choice to (email removed by me) and I will send a paypal invoice, followed by a signed print. Easy peasy. Happy my birthday. I love you"

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffbercovici/2014/03/07/this-photographer-made-15k-in-one-day-on-instagram/

22,000 followers and more than 1,300 photos in his stream. "Been looking for photo work but in its absence i spend most days walking around the city taking photos (iphone and 35mm) for up to 8hrs a day. His mode is what you might call humanist urban voyeurism: street scenes, faces on the subway, people having un-self-conscious moments.


Instaprints is FAA...just another outlet. See logo top left, that's FAA.

ShadySue

« Reply #32 on: March 12, 2014, 20:03 »
0
So, if you're in a bar, or in an amusement park, or touring a winery, you are allowed to take pictures unless you're told not to while you're there. And if you do take pictures, you can sell them to any buyer willing to assume the risk, if any exists.

from Dan Heller
Yes, that is confirmation you dont need a release to sell prints.

Why do you keep arguing you do need a release? You dont need a release, accept it and take your advantage. Go nuts, sell stuff.  ;)

One thing to be wary of is that Dan Heller talks only of US law. (Just in case any newbie is reading this and hasn't realised.)

Ron

« Reply #33 on: March 13, 2014, 01:51 »
+1
You dont need a release in the Netherlands either.

And anyone can sue anyone at anytime, doesnt mean they have a case.  :)


stockphoto-images.com

« Reply #34 on: March 13, 2014, 02:44 »
+1
No, you don't need a release for prints, art or not, cases or posters or plates.
This is not working on Zazzle. The Olympic Comittee and other large companies (Disney etc.) do not appreciate their IP being offered as prints, cases etc. on Zazzle.

So this is still a very confusing issue whether something requires a release or not. And how would Zazzle be different than FAA for example?

Ron

« Reply #35 on: March 13, 2014, 03:33 »
0
There is a difference between taking a photo of something, or copying someones IP.

ShadySue

« Reply #36 on: March 13, 2014, 08:00 »
0
You dont need a release in the Netherlands either.
I'm pretty sure that's also the case in the UK (and celebs seem to be a special case).
But I'd be uber-careful with photos taken in e.g. France. Who needs the hassle?


Uncle Pete

« Reply #37 on: March 14, 2014, 20:38 »
0
He lost: "The government outlined in its court papers that the deal required Fairey to pay the AP $1.6m" although there are some other circumstances. But the case was AP vs Fairley.

Also he was given two years probation for destroying evidence.

http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2012/sep/07/shepard-fairey-sentenced-obama-hope-poster

However, taking someones photo on the street is not the same. And stealing IP from Disney or others is not the same. Using a celebrity image can be a difficult decision. Even dead people are claiming rights to their personal image. (well their money grubbing estates are...)

technically you don't need a release but nobody can stop people from sueing you anyway, what about the notorious "Obama Hope" painting that was taken from an Associated Press photo ? the photographer sued the painter, no idea if he won or not.


Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #39 on: March 16, 2014, 02:57 »
0
He lost: "The government outlined in its court papers that the deal required Fairey to pay the AP $1.6m" although there are some other circumstances. But the case was AP vs Fairley.

Also he was given two years probation for destroying evidence.

http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2012/sep/07/shepard-fairey-sentenced-obama-hope-poster

However, taking someones photo on the street is not the same. And stealing IP from Disney or others is not the same. Using a celebrity image can be a difficult decision. Even dead people are claiming rights to their personal image. (well their money grubbing estates are...)

technically you don't need a release but nobody can stop people from sueing you anyway, what about the notorious "Obama Hope" painting that was taken from an Associated Press photo ? the photographer sued the painter, no idea if he won or not.



and that's the point, there are so many laws about IP but in the end anyone can sue you and the same case in different countries or with different judges can have opposite results, there's not much common sense going on especially if it's about famous photos or famous people, photographers can never be 100% sure that their as-s is covered, even if they've a signed release and all.





Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #40 on: March 16, 2014, 03:00 »
-1
http://petapixel.com/2014/03/15/taking-photos-without-permission-now-illegal-hungary-photographers-outraged/


that's another typical legal black hole : what if i shoot some hungarian model in Budapest and print or sell her photos in France or Japan, she could sue me because of the hungarian law but i could not give a sh-it and even escalate the case to the European Commission or whatever and good luck with that ... EU laws are a total mess now, even in UK they've UK-only laws which are probably illegal anyway and unconstitutional, but this would need a lot of time and money to be settled in court.


Uncle Pete

« Reply #41 on: March 16, 2014, 09:18 »
+2
No that's not the point and you are going off in all directions and have so many "facts" wrong that I don't even want to try to answer them all.

You had the Obama Hope wrong, it was AP not the photographer. Did you ever acknowledge that?

You are wrong again. If you have a signed release, you are protected.

True anyone can sue you for anything. The point is, can they win? What's your liability?

Your Hungarian model thoughts are absurd. Where did you take the photos? Where are you selling from, meaning what country are YOU IN? Do you have a release?

Berne convention laws are much easier to understand than US laws, in most cases and more universally accepted, around the world. Now if you are speaking of local regulations, yes, it's a mess and can potentially be different for every country or government.

Do you shoot in Budapest and sell in France and Japan often?  ::)

Stop throwing up random negative claims in hope one might land on something. You aren't making any sense at all and you are posting incorrect assumptions to support your invalid claims.

and that's the point, there are so many laws about IP but in the end anyone can sue you and the same case in different countries or with different judges can have opposite results, there's not much common sense going on especially if it's about famous photos or famous people, photographers can never be 100% sure that their as-s is covered, even if they've a signed release and all.

ShadySue

« Reply #42 on: March 16, 2014, 09:37 »
0
http://petapixel.com/2014/03/15/taking-photos-without-permission-now-illegal-hungary-photographers-outraged/


that's another typical legal black hole : what if i shoot some hungarian model in Budapest and print or sell her photos in France or Japan, she could sue me because of the hungarian law but i could not give a sh-it and even escalate the case to the European Commission or whatever and good luck with that ... EU laws are a total mess now, even in UK they've UK-only laws which are probably illegal anyway and unconstitutional, but this would need a lot of time and money to be settled in court.


Only the EU Directives have to be adopted in all, or some EU states. Other than these, each member state has its own consititutional law.
http://ec.europa.eu/eu_law/directives/directives_en.htm
And FI, there isn't really a 'UK Law' entity.
Wikipedia:
"The United Kingdom has three legal systems. English law, which applies in England and Wales, and Northern Ireland law, which applies in Northern Ireland, are based on common-law principles. Scots law, which applies in Scotland, is a pluralistic system based on civil-law principles, with common law elements dating back to the High Middle Ages. While England and Wales, Northern Ireland, and Scotland diverge in the more detailed rules of common law and equity, and while there are certain fields of legislative competence devolved in Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and London, there are substantive fields of law which apply across the United Kingdom."

Uncle Pete

« Reply #43 on: March 16, 2014, 10:14 »
0
http://petapixel.com/2014/03/15/taking-photos-without-permission-now-illegal-hungary-photographers-outraged/


Terrible law. And when I read the article I see why it was enacted. But it's vague and stupid. However. Considering how some governments operate, and don't want the truth exposed, not unexpected.

"In Hungary reporters already have to blur out police mens faces when they take their picture, something that many hoped this law would remedy by identifying police as public actors. Instead, the law makes it much easier for police and private security to keep photojournalists and even members of the public from documenting their actions."


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
4 Replies
3529 Views
Last post March 07, 2007, 17:50
by sim
7 Replies
2346 Views
Last post May 02, 2015, 01:43
by Hobostocker
3 Replies
1635 Views
Last post March 28, 2016, 12:37
by Copidosoma
3 Replies
1770 Views
Last post May 30, 2016, 05:37
by Aleutie
3 Replies
919 Views
Last post July 06, 2019, 11:06
by Not Today

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results