National Geographic ''your shot'' is it safe or advisable

[sanfairyanne]

I'm considering adding one of my pictures to the National Geographic ''your shot'' public area of their website. If a picture is really successful it may find its way into the magazine which of course would bring wide spread recognition to your work.
However, Nat' Geo' insists two things which worry me.

* Images must have no watermark

* Images should be uploaded with the highest resolution possible.

Now I only have to do a basic search to find dozens of my Flickr images have been stolen and are being used in ways without my permission. That slowed down since I watermark. It seems idiotic to send images to Nat' Geo' without a watermark, sending full res' files would seem even more risky.

Does anyone agree.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

...If a picture is really successful it may find its way into the magazine which of course would bring wide spread recognition to your work...

Seriously!? Wide-spread recognition? Maybe 10-15 years ago you would have gotten Andy's 15 minutes of fame. Today, you would be lucky to get 15 seconds, if that, in an era of ADHD, encouraged by Facebook, Tweeter, Vine and the likes.

Besides, who reads NG anymore? Scratch that... who reads?

If I remember correctly, NG is the ringleader of rights grab, i.e., sending them any photo, not just the winning one, grants them all the usage rights under the sun forever.

[sanfairyanne]

Well that pretty much answers that, maybe I should just not care a less if anyone see's my pictures. I should just keep them entirely for my own viewing.

[SunnyUK]

Or accept as a fact of life these days that anyone who sees your picture also shows them

[Iluvmycam]

OP, I agree. I will only send in hi res to museums that have one of my prints in their permanent collection.

Metadata branding and renaming file with your name and photo title may offer something. Shooting iconic photos is another help. Many of my photos are iconinc and not confused with anyone elses work. If you download these 2 pix you can see how I name them.

http://www.artslant.com/ny/works/show/691523-hakenkreuz-in-a-dress

http://www.artslant.com/ny/works/show/691522-makes-me-grateful-for-my-bed

Even when I name files, my name gets removed from the downloaded photo like Tumblr does. But a Google image search will eventually lead  back to me for the creator.

[sanfairyanne]

Daniel I see what you mean, that makes sense thank you.

[Iluvmycam]

Let me add a note to my previous post...

Photography today is very cheap for the most part. The world is polluted with photographers and photographs. If you don't offer your pix for free...a zillion more photogs are right behind you eagerly willing to give them away.

Sad state of affairs for many of us. But everyone with a cell phone and $50 Walmart inket printer is a photog nowadays.

[Iluvmycam]

Seriously!? Wide-spread recognition? Maybe 10-15 years ago you would have gotten Andy's 15 minutes of fame. Today, you would be lucky to get 15 seconds, if that, in an era of ADHD, encouraged by Facebook, Tweeter, Vine and the likes.

Besides, who reads NG anymore? Scratch that... who reads?

If I remember correctly, NG is the ringleader of rights grab, i.e., sending them any photo, not just the winning one, grants them all the usage rights under the sun forever.

Yes, well spoken post.