My photographs are copyrighted. All rights are reserved. Copyright infringement of any sort, specifically including, but not limited to, website or internet usage, "derivative use", or any commercial "fair use", is prohibited; and infringement will be pursued. I have a contract wth a copyright firm with international reach. These images, either as a group, individually, or in toto, may not be used without contacting me first, in writing or by e mail.

 

The following canned letter describes my general thoughts and position regarding licensure of my images. Following this canned letter is other information about my image stream on this site. Please be so kind as to read this as well.

 

Canned letter is as follows:

 

Dear Colleague and Fellow Creative:

 

I wish to explain – though this should be unnecessary – why I make it an almost invariable practice to charge for use of images.

 

I am a full time photographer. I shoot 5-7 days per week, usually on assignment for news entities, sometimes not. When I shoot for publications, in all but extremely rare exceptions (called “work for hire”) I invariably keep copyright of my images, and allow (or "license") use to the news entity or wire service. (Even when I “work for hire”, I usually negotiate some residual non-exclusive rights to myself, though this is a small minority of my work.) When I cover a sport or performance event for a service or publication, the quid pro quo **is not** “images in exchange for admission” to the event; photojournalists will almost always decline coverage under those conditions. The journalistic coverage is entirely independent of and irrelevant to the value of the image.

 

My work -- the images I produce -- is valuable, not just to me, but to someone who wants to use it. It provides “value-added” to the subjects, whether those subjects are performers at stage or music venues, or the authors of articles needing accompanying images, or spot news, etc, etc. Importantly, these are professional images: they are not what we call “GWC” (guy with camera) snapshots nor are they the ubiquitous iPhone dross. These images are almost invariably “deliberate”, or calculated, and represent the accumulated skill of having made well over a million images over decades. By analogy, the songs, music, or declamations of a stage performer or actor are not the basement noodling of an amateur musician, or of a guy who “sings in the shower.”

 

My specific reasons for charging for licensure are that:

a) The work is intrinsically valuable;

b) Constantly giving away high-quality images devalues the work of other photographers and degrades their own income stream;

c) giving away imaging ultimately devalues imaging per se; and

d) There is no rational explanation for everyone in a production team being paid, except the photographer whose image is the subject of production.

e) I periodically need to replace or upgrade the $10-20,000 cost of photo equipment that I use on even the simplest of assignments.

 

While I usually give away images for purely personal use – if your grandmother wants a print, for instance – use of my images for commercial uses, such as advertising, promotion, self-promotion, or displays, by definition is a “value-added” event.

 

You wouldn't want to use my image if it didn't add value to, for instance, your display, website, brochure, or funding campaign, would you? Of course I adjust licensing costs according to the breadth of use and the entity using the images – fees for an image for Starbucks in a world wide campaign are considerably different from those for an image in a website promoting a band (except if it is the Rolling Stones.)

 

If I use your music for background on my iPod while exercising, that's one thing; but if I download your music to accompany my web ad for my commercial exercise studio, you should be compensated for that value-added. So should I.

 

Absolutely do not offer me 'photo credit' or 'exposure' in exchange for free work. This is an affront; it is a dishonest business model; and I (like most photojournalists) take photo-credit for granted, and expect it. If I find my images on your website or ad campaign, the damages have been done, and we will then negotiate payment; 'taking them down' is merely locking the barn door after stealing the horse.

 

I sincerely hope you understand my position, and will emulate it in your own lives and work. Giving away valuable work for no recompense devalues our work and it devalues the works of our colleagues.

 

With best regards,

 

John Rudoff

 

Other information about this website and image-management:

 

Please be circumspect and restrained about making comments. You are welcome to comment, but obscene, hateful, or even remotely threatening comments will result in my blocking you permanently and at once . (This will, by the way, also immediately remove your comments retroactively.)

 

If you want to become a "contact", or if you make a photo a "favorite", please note that I will **invariably** check your profile, sets, galleries, and your other favorites, to make sure you aren't a creep or wacko.

 

NOTE: If your setting is that "nothing is available to [me]", I will block you immediately.

 

If you are a pornographer, creep, or pervert (and really, you know if you are), please do not post, favorite, gallery, contact, or comment on my photos. I will immediately and permanently block and remove you. (This will also be retroactive.) I do not want you to be a contact. Please don't waste my time or yours.

 

If you have some type of reservation about my photos or my subjects, you are welcome to send me a polite e mail privately.

 

FULL DISCLOSURE REGARDING IMAGE MANIPULATION: I edit in Lightroom. I am very, very sensitive to and aware of journalistic requirements for the integrity of images, especially digital ones. I am familiar with the AP worksheet on 'Principles' of image integrity. For the great bulk of my images, I do only the usual edits: cropping, changes in exposure, white balance or color temperature, and bringing up details in foreground or background. These are standard wet-darkroom techniques, all of which I have done. Also, the more any individual set of images is intended for publication as journalism, the less I manipulate even these variables.

However, I note for the record that when I am shooting artistic work--often of theatrical or musical performances-- I will very, very occasionally introduce 2 variables: increasing or decreasing exposure intensity of highlights or shadows, and occasional slight vignetting to increase the prominence of one person. I will also occasionally 'heal' or 'clone' skin to get rid of acne (though I will not get rid of permanent facial characteristics such as wrinkles or scars.) Also, very rarely, I will excise background distractions such as lit 'Exit' signs, wires, etc. This will only be done in the context of artistic or editorial shoots, and never, ever in the context of journalism. If my RAW files are requested I will be happy to share these.