I appreciate the hard work that you put into each photo, we know that often they just don’t come out like Jiffy-Pop like snapshots of Uncle Ralph’s 60th birthday party.

I don’t download other people’s work because, well, it is stealing. See, I live in Ukraine (USA expat) and here EVERYONE steals software off the net…everything. Seriously.  I have had a hard time explaining to my friends and family that it is wrong because the artists need to get paid. To which they reply “This is Ukraine, we are poor, we can’t afford that DVD so we download it off the net.” This goes for software also. “So it is okay to be a thief??”  This argument goes round and round and I have finally given up even commenting on it to them. But they know how I feel.

I would gladly order several of your prints on canvas no less because they are worth it. I once paid $2000 for a photo of Australian Gum Trees in Hawaii … which my ex-wife got in the divorce! But, I will have to scrimp and save my money for a D700 or D3s (wildly expensive here — you don’t wanna know what they are pricing the D800 and D4 at …) and enjoy your photos as you post them daily!

Thanks for sharing and thanks for all the great information and broadcasts you do. My favorite website!

Your comments are so true Trey. I am not even dust under your feet and I share with my workers and friends,family that they to can enjoy the sights of the world around them. WhenI do think I have a winner no one seems to like it they like the ones, I feel that are just OK. These 4 of yours can hang in any gallery around the world and people will come and see,and admire your work. Not me ,but most of the artists out there not every one ,only become famous when they are dead, so its hard work that one has to put in now to reap the rewards later. “Your Children”
Thanks for sharing and bringing the world into our homes.

Trey, your philosophy is as always the one I would always adhere to (if I was also a successful photographer). As someone as yourself who lets people download your images, it is of course not stealing at all; I have downloaded some of your images for wallpaper on my mac and they look stunning. If people wanted to print them as well, well you have let them have that choice. It would only be morally wrong I think if that person  then began selling prints of your work. But then that says a lot about how little they believe in their own ability to create their own success. Anyone who wants your work whether they choose to acquire it buy money or not, is still helping spread your work around and I believe that that ‘letting be what will be’ will come full circle and contribute to your success. The fact that other photographers fear this so much is very disappointing. It makes complete sense to me. 

Those glaciers look unbelievably cold and dude that photo of the great wall is unreal!  I just want to walk to that sunrise.  As far as stealing goes I don’t have a wall big enough in my house to do these justice. Would I be stealing if I left my photography website for you to check out?  http://www.photobotos.com  

Trey,

I love the images that you share with the world.  This article has made me think (and re-think) how I want to proceed with my personal policies on my photography.  (I am looking at becoming more than a hobbyist that does get paid from time to time.)

I do have a couple of questions tho.  Firstly, when you say limited edition, how many is the limit and is it by print type/size, and is the product marked as limited?  Secondly, you mentioned buying from you gives a better product, how so? Is it better quality printing, resolution?

Thank-you for all you do, say and share with us as we all travel the path of photography.

~Steve

I have different limited series at different price points.  For example, I sold a 2011 series that is no longer avail – and those will be more valuable than the 2012 and 2013 series.  I also have an artist-proof – a series of 50 – and those start at $2000 or so.

Yes  ”stealing” is a strange word with bits, isn’t it?  I guess the only thing to think about is if you are benefitting from my hard work in a tangible way without giving me any compensation.  But, you know, like I say – it is not a big deal…  I think that there will be room for a “transaction” some day.

Trey mate, I love your laid back, relaxed attitude. There’s already too much to get your panties in a knot over in this stressful, overcomplicated world. I’m telling ya, you’re gonna fit right in with those “she’ll be right” Kiwis in New Zealand.

Making a print for personal use has never been “stealing”. In fact, it is perfectly legal in the US as it falls squarely within “fair use”.

I understand wanting to support the artist, or get something directly from him, but I am not entirely sure why someone would consider such prints to be “limited edition”  when anybody with a access to a good printer – and these days such services abound -  can produce an identical print.

This resonates, feels like a good way to go…I would like to hear a bit more or read if there’s already a post about it – your take on limited editions as there are so many ways and notions on this. 

(cue up “He’s Gone” by The Grateful Dead) I’d rather “steal your face right off your head” and move to New Zealand m’self.  

I’ve already taken to heart a fair bit of what you’ve shared, spoken to and modeled my initial push to get me to get more of my imagery out in front of more eyeballs to tickle synapses and pump up endorphins. 

e.g. imagery for an upcoming art exhibit:

http://heurich.smugmug.com/Art/Aquatigraphica/21632174_CxbmSw

Hello,

I (almost) completely agree with you, really commend you on your approach and I find your opinion very valuable. Your attitude has actually encouraged me to start putting my photographs under a creative commons license as well. However, in comparison to you I am somewhat cowardly as my license is  different from yours and so far I have not made the original full resolution files available.
Most of the uses that the creative commons license permits I would have allowed anyway and therefore I am happy with this solution. In my opinion besides “stealing” one reason to somehow restrict the use of a photograph is to control what it is being used for.

Florian.

I’m happy just seeing them on my screen.  More inspiration , please!  8^)

Like so many others, I used to try watermarking etc but it made me paranoid – a feeling I have never really had before. I’m now licensing under Creative Commons Non Commercial and I gotta say, it makes life so much easier. You can live your life for what ifs, but at the end of the day you spend more time worrying than enjoying the amazing things there are in family, nature, music, technology – whatever gets you going! I’m not saying everyone should do what I do, but you can if you want to!

Thanks Trey! 

I just love your work!  I love your attitude as well.   I do think if someone were to download them to  print the images themselves then A. they’re being disrespectful (especially of your time and effort) in not being willing to pay you for your work and B.  They’re not going to get the quality.

Love your point of view on this. I take the same view with pics I post to Facebook. In a lot of cases, I’ve already been paid for the work by a client who doesn’t mind me promoting their event/business via my social network. If people that were involved want to lift a copy, so be it. But I do have one issue to pick. A print (or anything else) can only be unique if there is just one of it. A Limited Edition print, by definition, means there is more than one. Five, or 10, or whatever you define as a limited edition. So, you see, unless you define a limited edition as a single print, then a Limited Edition print being unique is a contradiction in terms. #grammarnaziatwork

Those are crazy awesome snowy mountains. great shot.

Hi Peter,

You might be interested in my reply to another commenter below, talking about the difference between Creative Commons and copyright and the like.  We do offer an option to just buy a license to have a photo commercially printed.  Sometimes this can be a cost-effective way of getting a print, but honestly we really try to steer people to the official route through the site, because we have more of a hand in the quality that you get. 

To clarify, in short: to have a copyrighted image printed professionally (by a business or on a non-professional printer machine that is used for business), a license is required.  That is the only way that money changing hands has been authorized.  Otherwise, the person who prints it for a person as well as the customer themselves are liable.  The license fee covers that. 

We are in the midst of a move but once we get settled in the new house, I’m really looking forward to dropping some cash on a couple SIC and RC prints for the new casa de my peeps.   My wife and I haven’t been able to agree on just one and it would be rather silly hanging in my rental

 Luke, we’ve had this discussion with Dan where he explained better than I could do how you are trying to re-define “commercial”, and now it looks like you are also trying to re-define “limited edition” beyond what is traditionally accepted in the fine-art world – not to mention some US state laws such as California.

Why do they need a license to have a Creative Commons licensed image professionally printed ? As for quality, why would a licensed image yield a better print ? And what does CMYK has to do with that ? Most printing devices, ranging from inkjets to lightjets are RGB for color management purposes.

Limited edition is just that – an edition of the print that is limited in some way.  This can range from Trey’s numbered and signed metal prints, where we know we will only do a very specific predetermined amount, to the prints offered on the links below the photos, where we’re not sure what the amount is, but they won’t be available forever.  They both fall under the criteria of limited edition – I’m not sure what your criteria are. 

The images are creative commons to allow people to use the work noncommercially – that’s a key distinction.  Normally a work protected by copyright cannot be used noncommercially without written consent.  Creative Commons allows people to do so without obtaining that consent, provided they adhere to the Creative Commons attribution criteria.  Commercial use very much includes a professional print shop making money by printing Trey’s images.  A license is required for that transaction to take place.

As for why a licensed image yields a better print, the answer is in support and that color conversion.  Inkjet printers are RGB, sure, but professional print houses do not use inkjets. (and if they are, you aren’t getting a good-quality print.)  Commercial printing is effectively 100% done in CMYK, and when we get a request for a license and conversion, I spend hours doing the color conversion to make sure it’s just right.  Then I hang on to that file and use it for future requests.  Even a pro print house simply does not have the time to spend hours on conversion before they print, so you get a better print when you get it from us.

Remember: making a print for personal use is covered by Fair Use, but you have to print it on your personal printer in your own home, and it cannot be a printer you use for any business related to making photographic prints.  Also, a friend of yours who owns a print shop cannot simply print the image for you and not charge you for it.  It’s still a commercial transaction – just one where the dollar value was $0.

This is a little more detailed than we typically get, and these factoids are not necessary for the majority of users, whether they want to purchase a print or just print it off from their desktop, but I provide the clarification because you’re asking about the details.

Thanks for the precisions, but it’s not “my criteria”. For instance, from New York state law Article 11 – § 11.01 (NY because it’s the largest art market in the US), others are similar. Emphasis added:

“Limited edition” means works of art produced from a master, all
of which are the same image and bear numbers or other markings to denote
the limited production thereof to a stated maximum number of multiples,
or are otherwise held out as limited to a maximum number of multiples.

One may have differing views about substrates, but inkjets deliver the best gamut and sharpness of any digital printing devices. Both them and Lightjets are used in commercial labs, so I don’t understand where the 100% CMYK comment comes from. What are the devices you have in mind that produce fine art prints in CMYK ?

Always happy to be of help. I don’t have any more questions, since your last precision has sufficiently made it clear that we are not talking about the same thing (me and the article: fine art prints – you: commercial mass reproduction), probably because you are the “commercial licensing guy”.  Far from being too detailed, there is actually one piece of information from that conversation that may be useful to Trey’s readers, since he has given permission to make personal prints:  their modest photo inkjet printers often produce much better prints than the printing presses you are referring to.

As always, awesome pictures and wise words. 

thanks

Trey – you are on the “pay it forward” model when it comes to this kind of thing, and I think it is a fundamentally healthy thing for you and Stuck in Customs.  Your open and trusting stance certainly makes me want to support you as an artist and your company.

Honestly, I don’t see why fair use is so hard to understand. 

(BTW – wish I could use my WordPress or Gravatar ID to comment here)

I agree with your philosophy. I just cant seem to get past that final hurdle of posting a hi res pic without a watermark. I think your take on the issue is admirable and I support you by buying products such as your tutorial (wonderful teaching technique btw) I will make the compromise of posting my pics in Hi Res but will continue to put a discreet watermark along the edge. Maybe one day I will become more of the glass half full type you always seem to be. Its a character flaw of mine I acknowledge.

Great shots!  Like the word “confluence” and now I know what it means.