For the second time, an academic contacted me at BugGuide, wanting to use some of my photos posted there. This professor is writing a regional field guide to insects, to be published by a local chapter (near him, not near me) of a well-known nonprofit with a conservationist mission. He's supplying many of the photos himself and asking photographers to donate images for what's missing. He says that because the organization is nonprofit, the book is being produced on a shoestring and the organization "cannot pay photographers." I'd get a credit line.
To my mind, "cannot pay photographers" translates to "Someone decided not to include anything for photos in the budget." For a field guide, yet! Presumably the organization will pay for printing and binding, just not for illustrations. I suppose the prof will get something for his writing, although he didn't say.
When this happened before, I ended up agreeing to allow use of images in exchange for a donation to BugGuide, which was not offered originally, and a copy of the book, which was. That book was clearly a commercial project; it was to be produced by a trade publisher. Two things are different this time. (1) Although this book is also a commercial project (it'll be sold), the publisher is a conservationist nonprofit, and all profits will go toward its activities. So there's a "good cause" factor. I could consider my work a donation to the cause. (2) The images wanted are better. Some of them are good enough that someone someday might be willing to pay for them. I'm attaching the best one as a sample.
The prof says I'd retain the copyrights. It may not be that simple. If the product were text instead of images, allowing publication in his book would mean using up the first world print rights. Does it work the same way with photos? That is, would licensing some photos for this use reduce their value in the future?