rdubreuil Loc: Dummer, NH USA

I've posted this to the UHH Published stream, but am also looking for a general consensus from the rest of the UHH community.

Submitted to my fellow UHH members as to whether this constitutes one being able to say they're published or not. I joined UHH a couple years ago shortly after getting into photography as a beginner looking to learn the art/craft of photography. I've learned a great deal by being a member here and appreciate all the help I've gotten from my fellow hogs. Here's my quandary, I've recently in the past few months begun submitting my images to various stock photography sites in the hopes of making a few dollars to help support my "photography habit" and frequent "gas attacks".

Never really expecting to even be accepted into any collections I was amazed to be lucky enough at this point to have over 60 images accepted by Adobestock and have made some 15 or so sales of various images. So I got to thinking I should put more out there in more places and recently began submitting to Shutterstock and Getty Images through 500px. Here's the thing that has me wondering what constitutes being published. To my absolute shock and amazement my images are being featured here on UHH as well as several other photography sites/blogs that I frequent in Shutterstock ads. Not just one which would still have been a giant shock to me but in this case five of my images appeared here this morning. These are of an arrangement of Peonies shot on a black velvet background and one of a seascape taken in Maine. Here's a screen shot taken a few minutes ago of that ad, so fellow hogs; what's the consensus?

Can I consider myself as having had something published?

Thanks in advance for any and all comments.
Ron

(Download)

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Interesting question.
Would that mean that my images on my website have been published?
I tend to think that published would be more like included in a publication for distribution. Like a magazine, township newsletter, magazine, book, etc..

Stardust Loc: Central Illinois

Depends on whose definition wish to use - per UHH just needs to be in a publication even if it was free. I think of "published" as having been paid or compensated for my photo versus it just showing up somewhere, otherwise almost EVERYONE has been "published" as simple as when someone shares a Facebook photo of mine or places their own on their FB, blog or website. Google "flower picture" and click Images. Do we consider those thousands of photos published? As for you, having been paid for photos, which I assume was used in some publication other than advertising your photos for purchase, I say "yes".

rdubreuil Loc: Dummer, NH USA

I was tending to think that too but, our portfolios/websites are under "our" control. This is being presented by a third party in public advertising, that's why I'm not so sure. Thanks for the feedback.

rdubreuil Loc: Dummer, NH USA

Not when the original post or posts are by the individuals themselves, I would agree. But, being by a third party in public advertising; then what?

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

The image could also be donated (ie. local news letter), with a by-line.

Stardust Loc: Central Illinois

Then you were compensated (as I stated) with recognition.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Stardust Loc: Central Illinois

As stated your question depends on whose definition. Let me pose this question to you: I volunteer for a non-profit Honor Flight and send out news releases to over 300 publications with a group photo of the trip's Veterans at a Washington DC Memorial after each flight. On average 75-100 newspapers use that photo with their article. Can/should I now brag that I have been published in 100s of publications?

User ID

"Web publishing" ... it's a word [OK a compound word].
If your stuff is published by a third party, especially to
benefit their interest, you are published, pulp or pixels.

A third party's personal social media use is NOT web
publishing even tho you're benefiting a third party. A
truly commercial social media page would be pretty
much same as web publishing.

If you make the local TV news you're published same
as if you make the local newspaper if there still is one.

While all the above is perfectly fair and rational ideas,
if you must be published to qualify for a membership
or other credentials, the only definition that matters
is whatever the issuer demands.

If your agent "publishes" your work in hopes of selling
it, you are not published until your agent sells it to a
buyer who then actually publishes it. Work seen in a
stock photo catalog is therefore not "published", even
tho it's displayed by that agency to make money for
their own gain.

TBerwick Loc: Houston, Texas

I used to worry about being published until all of a sudden a bunch of my photographs were used in various shooting sports magazines. I'm involved in competitive shooting of black powder cartridge rifles and began submitting photos with short articles to several publications. Many were used although I never asked for compensation other than photo credit but did receive a few "freebies" for my efforts. I'm about to restart my web site with photos for sale and available to license. Everything I put on that site will be fully copyrighted with the US Copyright office which adds real clout to pursuing those who would use photos without compensation & credit. So, yes I've been published in a limited market but not really paid. Looking to change that dynamic.

AlohaJim Loc: Retired. Hawaii >> N. Arizona.

You can or cannot consider yourself as a published artist/photographer depending on who is being told and the standards they keep,.
Photographers with works "published and sold":
In Art Galleries, sold and generate revenue. (paid)
On the cover of Vogue and high fashion, or photography magazines. (paid)
Wedding photographer (paid)
Personal website (not for sale or for sale with no $$$ made)
Microstock with 90% sales and high revenue $$
Forum postings/uploads.
And so forth.

Perhaps what should matter more is the passion and dedication in the pursuit of excellence and the recognition of peers, whether beginner, amateur, or pro, toward that journey.

j

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

Hmmm, I’m gonna go with, if you don’t even know you’re being published, then no, it’s not published!!!
Things are listed and reposted all over the internet with NO help from ourselves.
More like critical mass!!!
SS

Stardust Loc: Central Illinois

Could make the case you were compensated (paid) because you received the photo credit byline you requested as your "price". Maybe the answer to the OP question is we each set our own standards of what we consider published unless submitting to an organization that sets their standard for submission or use of "published".

rdubreuil Loc: Dummer, NH USA

I would say sure, you'd have bragging rights if you're cited as the photographer.