Poll: Do photos decline in value after publication in books?? - Yr opinion pls

[markus]

Dear fellow photo collectors!

What is your opinion on the value development of original photos once they have been published in a book?

Do you think they

A) Increase in value being part of an (important) book on a certain subject? You would love evenmore to have
the original in your collection.

or

B) Decrease in value since they loose a certain appeal of interest (their "virginity") ?
"Why still pay for an orignal when you have an almost free copy in a book", so to say.

Thanks for participating!

Markus

[Akira Takiguchi]

It really depends, in my opinion. And to me anyway:

1. for exceptionally clear, even artistic, photos with historically important contents, I will pay a lot, no matter if published or not.
2. for blurry or detailless but historically important photos, I will pay quite a lot if unpublished, but not much if published.

What I will pay most is - whether 1 or 2 - for unquestionable large lot CONTAINING those fantastic images. To me, important images will increase its value when it is found in CONTEXT.

[isaluke]

Hi portraits or pictures that were published in books, etc.

are burned for me and would not want to have more

yes show is okay in the forum, but only with a good copy protection

greeting

[Jock Auld]

Guys,

Niether A nor B.

If it is only about value then you kind of missed the point anyway.

I don't watermark the stuff I post as I wish to share 'as is' with like minded people (can't post on here anyway).

I do state in my signature block that they are mine, that is unbutrusive and does not detract from the picture but would stand in court I beleive?

I accept that there are fraudsters out there but you will not deter them so why handicap the honest people?

I frequently download other images for reference (with and without copyright) as I thought this was the point of sharing. This should never be an issue as they will go no further than my hard drive and I am covered by 'fair usage'.

Jock

[Mil-Archive]

To me generally they would neither increase nor decrease in value by being published in a book. This would apply to Photographs as much as award documents.

It's an interesting subject. I can kind of see where both sides of this discussion would come from but to me the photo is key, whether or not it has previously been in a book or not is not that relevant so much as it's interest to me from a historical perspective and that it is an original wartime print.

Having said all of that, if for example the photo was in a very worthy, iconic book - an example would be the Husemann 'In good faith' books - then if the book was particularly impressive in that case I think it would increase the value.

[12thPanzer]

Hi portraits or pictures that were published in books, etc.

are burned for me and would not want to have more

yes show is okay in the forum, but only with a good copy protection

greeting

I fully agree a good watermark/etc should be used on the forum with Private period photos (non mass prdced). But I dont think it is a "bad" thing that a photo is published!! My opinion is that if it can help the collecting community or even help a particular subject to be explained better, then I dont see a problem with sharing it in a book or forum. Doesnt mean that the photo is now "ruined or Burnt" to me .....and I think the value should stay the same if not raise a bit

[jmark]

To me the photo is key, whether or not it has previously been in a book or not is not that relevant so much as it's interest to me from a historical perspective and that it is an original wartime print.

That's precisely what I think. However, I acquire photos with an eye to possible publication rather than just a personal interest, and reflecting upon my past purchases, I can't ever recall turning down a photo or paying less just because I have already seen it in a book. In fact, sometimes I've seen a photo in a book and actively track it down because I wish to use it in one of my publications.

This is a little bit off topic but is related: The "value" (I'm not talking money) of a photo in a book is more than just the image itself. A detailed, precise caption needs to accompany it. I believe that the more that is known about a photo, the more it increases in monetary value. For example, you see a photo of a panzer on Ebay but the seller hasn't done his homework. You recognise a unit emblem, location or a famous figure and get the photo for a low price. By adding the missing details, you have increased the monetary value of a photo.

Jason

[panzer1432]

Photos

What ? They increase in value. I always want the original !!

IMO,

Mike W

[jmark]

What ? They increase in value.

Neither of the poll's options conformed to what I believe, so I didn't vote. There needs to be a third choice: A photo's value is unaffected by being published.

Jason

[HouweTrouwe]

That's precisely what I think. However, I acquire photos with an eye to possible publication rather than just a personal interest, and reflecting upon my past purchases, I can't ever recall turning down a photo or paying less just because I have already seen it in a book. In fact, sometimes I've seen a photo in a book and actively track it down because I wish to use it in one of my publications.

This is a little bit off topic but is related: The "value" (I'm not talking money) of a photo in a book is more than just the image itself. A detailed, precise caption needs to accompany it. I believe that the more that is known about a photo, the more it increases in monetary value. For example, you see a photo of a panzer on Ebay but the seller hasn't done his homework. You recognise a unit emblem, location or a famous figure and get the photo for a low price. By adding the missing details, you have increased the monetary value of a photo.

Jason

[Jean-Loup]

I think it would be very sad, and completely against the spirit in which the photo was first taken, if people refuse to show or publish photos because they may decrease in 'value', and keep them to themselves.

Unfortunately, I know very well that many interesting photos are buried far down in the depths of private collections and will never see the light of day anythime soon. They are thus unusable for use by historians and authors. This is IMO an utter waste and rather selfish behaviour.

[Edgar Alcidi]

From a pure "value" view it increases to me after the publishing. Some factors can obviously change from book to book, like the quality of the book and the copies sold. If the book is for example heavily sold, then also the numbers of readers increase. This will increase automatically the numbers of potential buyers and with it the offers...(as in a kind of advertisement)................just my opinion, of course.

[N.C. Wyeth]

Guys,

Niether A nor B.

If it is only about value then you kind of missed the point anyway.

I do state in my signature block that they are mine, that is unbutrusive and does not detract from the picture but would stand in court I beleive?

I accept that there are fraudsters out there but you will not deter them so why handicap the honest people?

I frequently download other images for reference (with and without copyright) as I thought this was the point of sharing. This should never be an issue as they will go no further than my hard drive and I am covered by 'fair usage'.

Jock

Couldn't have said it better . . . if the bottom line here is all about cash, the point is really being missed.

I have some sense of respect for the guy that captures the original image and/or takes the original photograph, but the idea behind someone feeling they own the rights to (and have ultimate control of) an image derived from a print of someone else's photograph (especially one that is decades old) boggles my mind . . .

[PANZERPIONIERE]

Good agreeable input Jason, Steve

[W Petz]

I freely share my photos on the WAF Forum with watermark. I don't agree with the downloading of my photos without my permission. Meaning I share them with forum members on the forum only. Use of them anywhere else especially posting them in other forums or publishing them in books without my consent breaks the rules of common courtesy in my book and is a form of stealing those images outside of WAF.

I do understand there is no way to control this but I and several other members did experience an incident in which a member was selling our images on Ebay. We collectively stopped him from this practice. So there is no guarantee that someone will not use them beyond their own hard drive but I feel an agreement is in order for usage.

I do have quite allot of my photos published in books but that is only with my permission...either verbal or written. A great majority of them were previously unpublished.

Value depends on the situation....if you are a collector it becomes a personal choice on how much you want to spend for a particular photo or grouping of photos. To me it is the uniqueness and historical value and not the resale or thought of investment that others have in mind.

Bill

Guys,

Niether A nor B.

If it is only about value then you kind of missed the point anyway.

I don't watermark the stuff I post as I wish to share 'as is' with like minded people (can't post on here anyway).

I do state in my signature block that they are mine, that is unbutrusive and does not detract from the picture but would stand in court I beleive?

I accept that there are fraudsters out there but you will not deter them so why handicap the honest people?

I frequently download other images for reference (with and without copyright) as I thought this was the point of sharing. This should never be an issue as they will go no further than my hard drive and I am covered by 'fair usage'.

Jock