Doesn't posting to FB or Instagram revoke the "first rights" that many publishers require?

.

I think I should clarify something now and note that in the following post I am not talking about people who sell photographic services (such as photographing weddings, portraits, etc, etc, etc).
I am talking about photographers who make a living by selling image usage licenses to publishers and advertising agencies.

_______________ _______________ _______________ _______________ _______________


Thanks to some recent threads & posts here on POTN, I have just become aware that using Instagram can be an excellent revenue stream for photographers.
And for a couple of years now, many have told me that being very active on Facebook can result in a lot of revenue for photographers.

But I see a really major flaw in the whole process of posting images to social media. Doesn't that mean that your "First Rights" for the posted images are now spent?

I mean, when we license images for use by major leading publishers - magazines, calendar companies, book publishers, etc - they almost always have us sign a contract that says that any images we submit for publication will have "First World Rights" or "First North American Rights" in tact. What this means is that you are signing a legally binding contract that ensures that any photos you license to the publisher will be an image that has not appeared or been published anywhere else. They want to be the first and only one to use the images they buy.

The same thing goes for many traditional (macro) stock agencies - you sign a contract saying that any images you submit to them will be images that have never been published anywhere else. If they find out that you have submitted a photo that once appeared on FB or Instagram, then you are in breach of contract and will be subject to a lawsuit.

So, I am wondering, for those who advocate making revenue from social media sites, how do you do this without compromising the first rights on the photos you post online?

These successful "social media photographers" who have huge enormous followings on Instagram, when they post a photo to Instagram, are they content to just accept the fact that they now can not ever license that image to a publisher that requires First Rights? Aren't these photographers shooting themselves in the foot? (figuratively speaking, of course)

.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #17915648
But I see a really major flaw in the whole process of posting images to social media. Doesn't that mean that your "First Rights" for the posted images are now spent?

1. No. Companies are concerned with commercial use. They just don't want some other company to have used it previously.

2. By "revenue stream" what most photographers mean is that Instagram is a good portfolio to attract clients who then hire you to shoot. It isn't so much that they buy/license the image you have on Instagram (though I am sure some do) but that you get work by being seen.

3. The other Instagram revenue stream is sponsored posts. People with large following get paid to include products in pics they post - product placement basically.

I follow a lot of photographers who's business model seems to be what you are describing, image licensing. They often post "Here's a shot from 2014 I took when..." I assume the initial license on that has run out. I also see a lot of "here's an outtake from..." these are normally a "keeper" that's not good enough to sell.

Well, wouldn't posting the images on your own website be considered as publication as well? What about Flickr or Smugmug?

Alveric wrote in post #17928251
Well, wouldn't posting the images on your own website be considered as publication as well? What about Flickr or Smugmug?

An editor told me, about 5 years ago, "we only want to provide fresh content, and we want to make sure that our readership hasn't seen the images anywhere already".

So yes, that is why I have always avoided submitting anything that is on my website (or Flickr) to any publisher that has a strict "First Rights" clause in the contract that I've signed.
It also prevents me from posting my best stuff here on POTN

.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #17928465
Yes, that is why I have always avoided submitting anything that is on my website (or Flickr) to any publisher that has a strict "First Rights" clause in the contract that I've signed.
It also prevents me from posting my best stuff here on POTN

.

What concerns me about such approach is this: how then would publishers (those who haven't worked with you) buy my photos if they can't see them in the first place?

Aw, man, all this legalese is a real quagmire of sticky goo.

Alveric wrote in post #17928469
What concerns me about such approach is this: how then would publishers (those who haven't worked with you) buy my photos if they can't see them in the first place?

They assume (rightly so) that anyone who is selling usage licensing to their publication will have thousands of solid stock images, and therefore they use one's website when they are first introduced to a photographer, and are considering whether or not they will accept submissions from him/her. They merely use the website as a way to get an overall feel for the caliber & style of the work that the photographer produces, to assess whether other work from that photographer will be a "good fit" or not.

.