User talk:Ragesoss/Muhammad

1
Do consider yourself a professional photographer? Do you rely on photography income to get by?


 * The quality of my pictures is comparable and in some cases better than those produced by professionals. But I wouldn't call myself professional. It is and has never been something I do just for money. It's more of a hobby then a job. The money that I make from photography goes towards furthering my hobby. --Muhammad (talk) 16:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

2
Do you market your photos elsewhere? Where else do people interested in licensing your work directly from you find it? What's the balance between people finding it through Wikipedia/Commons and finding it elsewhere?


 * Initially, I registered on some microstock websites but the price offered there was minimal and it required a large amount of time spent uploading and categorizing the pictures. Since then, I have joined a website which acts as an agent allowing buyers to send requests to photographers who can then submit work. I also maintain a website for my photography. This allows buyers to see a sample of my work and contact me, and it also allows me to display my work to news organizations in case I require a security/media pass when VIPs visit my place.


 * I get a large number of request from wikipedia but most of these are from students and professors who wish to use my work for their lessons. Understandably, they can not afford to purchase the pictures. --Muhammad (talk) 18:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

3
What has your sales record been like? How many photos do you make money from through Wikipedia/Commons, and how much do you typically make from a photo?


 * I hardly make any money from wikipedia for reasons mentioned above. The stock website I contribute to allows me to make a minimum of $40 per image. Average price is around $100. --Muhammad (talk) 18:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

4
What license do you use on Commons, and why?


 * For all my recent images, I use a GFDL-1.2 only license. In my opinion, this license allows me to restrict use of my images since it requires the user to include the license where the image is used. I usually waiver this requirement though if I get a request where the intended use is non-commercial. I do not mind my pictures being used by those who can not afford to buy them. What I despise is rich organizations who can afford to buy pictures being cheap and using them.--Muhammad (talk) 18:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

5
How do you think releasing your work to Wikimedia Commons, under a copyleft license, affects your ability to make money from it? Does increased visibility compensate for the commercial uses that are made permitted for free under the Commons licensing?


 * A large number of my pictures are being used by various websites. I doubt these people would be using them had they been required to pay for them. Those who wish to use my pictures are usually willing to pay. I would say visibility from wikipedia has been good but this is not the sole reason for contributing. As I mentioned, photography is my hobby and there are few better feelings then sharing with others the great sights one has seen --Muhammad (talk) 18:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

6
How big of an issue is piracy/appropriation/license non-compliance? How do you deal with people and companies who use your photos without respecting the license requirements? Do you ask them to release their derivatives? Ask for money? How much of that do you do?


 * Illegal use of my pictures is quite vast. There are those who only partly follow the license and others who completely ignore everything and consider the images PD. Just today, I was informed that a picture of mine was entered in a photography competition by someone ;-)


 * I usually write a stern letter to those who violate my license requirements. Some of them take the picture down and others just ignore me. To give you an example, after the release of the 2012 (film), some news websites ran a story that the Director had refused to show demolition of the Kaaba. They used File:Kaaba mirror edit jj.jpg in their stories. Even after writing to them, the picture is still being used by some of the sites. --Muhammad (talk) 18:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

7
How do you think featured pictures affect your business? Do you get more inquiries about featured pictures than comparable non-featured pictures? Do they fetch a premium?


 * Featured pictures give more traffic to my userpage and my website but they don't affect sales just because they are featured. Most people who ask about images usually find them whilst reading articles. Usually, featured pictures are the most encyclopedic and highest quality pictures in the article and so it is natural that they are usually the most sought for images. --Muhammad (talk) 18:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

8
Feel free to share anything else you think Wikimedians ought to know about the intersection of commercial photography and Wikimedia projects.


 * Many wikimedians are strictly opposed to sell of images and believe pictures should be free. While this is admirable, it is not feasible, especially if wikipedia expects professional quality images to illustrate articles. To produce professional results one needs to purchase high end gear which is expensive. Selling our pictures allows us to earn money to buy better equipment and travel to different places to produce excellent pictures for wikipedia at the end of the day. There are many professional photographers out there who don't contribute to wikipedia in the fear that their images will be used outside wikipedia or misused and their income cut short. Were wikimedia to adopt a non-commercial license, we could court these photographers into donating their pictures as well. --Muhammad (talk) 18:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)