Believe it or not, I have a kept a new year's resolution so far into April, 2019. I mean, rules are meant to be broken, but I never really set it out as a rule. I am no longer giving away my photos. Occasionally I have had photos re-posted on Instagram, but it's become a case-by-case basis. It's a challenging and enticing problem to have. But, so far this year, I have turned down 11 requests to have photos considered for publication or for actual use. I find it challenging. I love print - I love the feel, the time to read and the separation from electronic devices.

At the same time, I dread the continued rise of print publications using free imagery to try and tell their stories. It's not only print. Explore Canada is the official marketing organization for Canada. On Instagram, they have partnered with CrowdRiff to implement an authorization process when they ask to re-post a photo on their platform. It's exciting the first time they ask - they have over 1.4 million followers - then you read the fine print of what you sign over to them. The value exchange is that if they post your image, they retain the rights to use that photo on a variety of platforms and in any number of ways. And of course, you get exposure. Getting exposure is an important part of the process of learning, and gaining validation for your work. The issue I have is that if you are an organization or company that is for-profit, the value exchange of exposure for media-use seems valid from their point-of-view. But I don't believe it's a just exchange. But here is one of the many problems with doing that. You end up with no long-term control over visuals on the 3rd-party platform and articles look can easily like shit.

Earlier this year, I read a great post by the crew over at Life Outside Studio. Hailey and her partner Ryan, are a cool duo from southern Ontario and currently have a few great projects on the go. You should take a minute and check them out. The post was about how companies are sneaking in 'user submission' policy guidelines that allow them to claim unlimited uses of your imagery when using their brand hashtag. It's quite a read, and was glad for it, because I will not ever be buying Fjallraven products anymore. I mean, what the fuck is there to say to this, from a supposedly-respectable company in the outdoor industry?

Honestly, I doubt the ability of these user-submission policies holding up in court as they are often buried deep in the website and are arduous to read. Unless you have copious amounts of time, money and energy to pursue a legal recourse, the only option seems to be stepping away from all tagging and/or hashtag use. As well, it tends to dissuade one from using $$$ to support them either. This is not an issue I considered until making the decision in January to go into photography full-time. I began this journey at the beginning of May. I wonder how hashtags, exposure and free shit in exchange for my work are going to pay my bills. This is nothing new that I am saying — photos and video are not free.

I understand how and why many companies, and especially tourism DMOs, are going this route. It's smart, even brilliant, how CrowdRiff is developing integrative platforms for tourism destinations to use, and utilize the staggering amount of content produced in their locations. I am not against this carte-blanche. There are definitely still times where I will give images and time away for free. But that is because I value relationship over exposure. If you offer something upfront, anything... then you are opening a door and it's at least a choice. Unless you are going to give me concrete stats on how, where and when I will benefit from this illusive exposure, I politely decline.