I think Curator's job is to bring to limelight anything that's not yet seen by a wider community. In this regard, I think @photo-trail is doing their job.
Also by asking you permission to post this image and giving credit/ link to your main post I think they are maintaining a level of decorum as well. I could see in that comment that the moment you rejected their offer and they did not hustle you further, there seems to be certain standards in their approach.
All this being said, their work can come into scrutiny if:
- They continue using your images despite your objections
- They have used any of your images without prior permission
Taking a neutral stance, I don't think I'd completely agree with your thoughts on revenue sharing - it is their post after-all! Although, in my own opinion what you have mentioned would be the best (and right) thing to do by @photo-trail.
In case you have not already done this, can you please try to open a discussion with them either in discord or steem.chat or however possible to tell them why this revenue sharing will work out much better than what they are currently doing. I think if they offer to share their revenue, they would be able to get much more quality pics featured and hence higher chance of revenue.
I think using their follower power to feature your work should be reciprocated both ways; the terms can always be mutually agreed upon. If they disagree, I see an opportunity here! You can consider setting up a trail and make the most of this situation.
Apologies if this view of mine does not sound appropriate to you. But thought I will chip in anyway ;)
I see what you mean, but you should consider the difference between attribution and copyright.
Atrribution always has to be given, otherwise it's considered plagiarism. This is not what we are discussing.
Using other people's content without their consent is only OK under "fair use", e.g. using a couple of screenshots from a movie, because you are reviewing a movie.
Since @photo-trail is not using photographers' content under such circumstances, but reposting their work in its entirety, he should ask for their permission. He didn't used to, but now he does.
Now comes copyright - he cannot take profits for other people's work, unless he has a contract with them.
He can, however, post links to other people's work. Would he receive hundreds of dollars for a page of links? I don't think so - but he may try, and if he is successful, then all is legal and he has earned his money.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
This is not what copyright is.
If they already have a permission to publish, it doesn't matter if they make money from it.
If as an artist you want to get a share, you negotiate your price and then sell the publishing rights for that price.
A free publication (which photo-trail essentially is) is not legally obligated to share their revenues with you (or even buy the publishing rights from you), especially if you have already given them permission to publish your photos. Copyright simply doesn't automatically entitle anyone to royalties, it is only a tool to help you negotiate those royalties.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Who is "they" in "If they already have a permission to publish, it doesn't matter if they make money from it."? If you mean @photo-trail, then sure - if you don't care someone is making money from your work and you've explicitly allowed it, all is fine. However, I and the photographers here did not allow republishing of our work for other people's profits, yet @photo-trail is republishing our work for personal gain.
"If as an artist you want to get a share, you negotiate your price and then sell the publishing rights for that price." - I don't understand your point here, either? You don't sell your copyright - this work is yours. You only negotiate others using your work for profit - be it shared profit, or them making money on your back.
"A free publication (which photo-trail essentially is)..." - yes, @photo-trail is not taking my money to publish my work (is this what you call "free"?), but is making money from my work, without my permission. This is illegal.
"...is not legally obligated to share their revenues with you (or even buy the publishing rights from you), especially if you have already given them permission to publish your photos." - I've not given permission, and they do not have the right to make money from my work. Even if I give permission, which should be in the form of a written contract (and I dare you to find one), they are obligated to share their revenue with me, unless I've given them permission to post my work for their own personal profit. Which I and the other photographers, haven't given to them.
"Copyright simply doesn't automatically entitle anyone to royalties, it is only a tool to help you negotiate those royalties." - Copyright means you have the right to this work of art. If there's someone interested in your work (like @photo-trail), they should engage in negotiations with you. If you like what is offered, you agree with them reposting your work. You can agree to share the profit, you can also agree to have them take all the profit, which is what you are obviously keen on doing.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
@@ -553,16 +553,17 @@
ou give
+@
photo-tr
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit