What do you think about photo sites that ask for donations?

Grant applications are fine; panhandling not so much.

 

+1

 

Ken Rockwell is always asking

 

Which can and is promptly ignored, at least by me.

 

I like the type of projects you work on and do so myself.

 

I paid him once or twice because, I used his info get over a hump with my work.

 

I always pay Butkus http://www.butkus.org/chinon/ because he provides free camera manuals as a service. I often throw in extra money to make sure he stays around for others to use.

 

A while ago, I sent him a few bucks in an envelope to show my appreciation. The least I could do for all the times I've downloaded a manual from his site.

 

Interestingly Butkus claims to have copyright of what he publishes, what he does not.

 

He provides a much needed service at a modest requested donation. Such a service to photographers deserves our gratitude and support. Others may make more money as businessmen providing somewhat similar services, but Butkus is my first (and almost always last) go-to source.

 

PBS type is much tacky. It is less then person is asking at the end of the article. It is not taking my time and on-air time as with PBS.
And it is less snobby as some "experts" with for subscription only. Then I read those who were fooled by the "expert", I feel sorry for a fool and his money. Here is nothing new this "expert" by subscription only will tell you these days.
But if you are not capable of data mining (using Google search) then it helps. .
Surprisingly even at this day and age where are many of those who can't commit Google search.

 

im guessing he notates, earmarks and tallies up all the $$ being sent to him in manila folders separated by manufacturer
and at the end of every year he sends a large check to the manufacturers
im guessing companies like ansco, kodak, ilex and argus could use the cash

 

yes, very useful - i've paid him multiple times and each time got a note of appreciation from him.

 

I see nothing wrong in asking and/or providing mechanisms for contribution. It may be that as a commercial photographer one must come to terms very early about how to manage issues of fees, their payment; one cannot be shy. In kind, touting ones accomplishments and abilities in a commercial venue is felt very differently in the academic or community realm.

 

Wrong - look again, he claims copyright to the opening page of his site, he does not claim copyright over anything else.

 

No, on each manual there is a header, saying "This page is copyrighted by M. Butkus" etc. And then there is only one page to scroll along to read the manual.
His header itself would not even be copyrightable as such.

 

I do not know copyright laws in the US, Germany or indeed any other apart from UK. And even here it is not always clear, but in general copyright stays with the original writer, photographer, or corporate body for 70 years after his/her death. (How they came to the arbitrary figure of 70 years escapes me) With corporate bodies this is a very grey area and not one that I would care to challenge with certainty of winning.In addition so long as any document/image copied is not used for monetary gain or is defamatory to the originator, then using it is usually safe for personal use.

However, as a lot of the information Mr Butkus provides is from manufacturers who are no longer in existence or their original instruction manuals/information is no longer available, then I think that using them or selling them is pretty well safe.

Although that is not to say copying them however old they may be, necessarily transfers the copyright ownership to a new owner, so Mr Butkus if he were to claim copyright for say a manual for a Nikon F6 then he could very well find himself entangled in a legal argument

 

+1

 

IDK i know of some "figurative photographers"
some students, some students of life
who have patreon pages like everyone else
and they constantly ask for donations &c
as as your "free gifts"
you get to read about a variety of lewd things that happened
behind the scenes before or after the shooting sessions and perhaps see
some "unregulated NR17 content"

 

I make a point of opening Acrobat and stripping that bullshit "copyright" nonsense from all the butkus manuals I download. Then I usually put them back up online on my own site, free, with no request for anything.

 

Mr. Butkus cannot claim copyright to the manuals, but can claim copyright to the scans or photographs of the manuals which are considered derivative works. In other words, he has no copyright on the contents, but the images created from that content are protected.

 

He's helpful with what he's helpful with. I pay people who are helpful. Jerks don't .

 

Not over here:
a pure photo-reproduction in a scanner does not yield any new rights. I doubt it is different in the USA.

 

I don't have a problem with donate buttons if you're not a dick about it. Mike Johnston at The Online Photographer comes to mind as someone who uses ads and donations tastefully, and offers quality content in return. It seems to be working for him.

And I just visited Rockwell's page and I'm reminded of why I don't go there. Giant buttons for supporting his family, claims of "no ads" on pages with eleven advertisements scrolling down the side of the very same page, weird pronouncements of how you definitely must have a certain lens but you have to buy it only from his approved sources or you'll get ripped off, demands of $5 if you want to print one of his reviews for yourself (why would anyone ??) etc etc. What a tool.