Quote Originally Posted by Ken Nadvornick View Post
But they are offering a form of payment, aren't they?

It's just not in the form of money. It's a photo credit. Which perhaps could, in sufficient aggregate quantity, be eventually transformed into money down the road. Not all types of compensation take the form of money. At least not immediately. Value can be transferred in many ways.
Ken, this is not always the best argument to make especially when dealing with publishing. I personally don't like the idea of contributors receiving nothing in order to have their name in a book and like it or not but we live in a currency-based economy and not some sort of photographer's / publisher's co-operative where we all play our roles for free. Were we to all live on a commune together this might be a different story.

I understand the people who believe that payment should be made and not just credit given - it is very seldom that a person will receive a great deal of future business for having a photo on the cover of a small publication. Stating that a person's payment is in fact letting the publisher use their photo is not payment at all so I think that this was simply a poor choice of words or perhaps poorly interpreted. "Here's my photo for you to use" -"Thank you, your payment is that I'm using your photo"; and crediting the photographer is simply something that should be done always.

That being said I too don't see a problem with the idea of having a call for submissions and stating that there is no pay but that the photographer will receive a copy of the book and full credit for the submitted photograph.

Wildbill: if I had something to offer you could certainly have it! Best of luck with the rest of the process.