Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Pro Business Discussion => Topic started by: Nick Walker on May 03, 2015, 03:45:54 pm
-
http://www.theguardian.com/music/2015/apr/19/garbage-pat-pope-photography-you-sold-17-million-albums-and-you-want-to-pay-me-nothing
“Garbage have been incredibly vocal in the past about how everybody should pay for music and how artistry should be respected,” he adds.
I know, nothing new, and this wont be the last time it happens.
-
You guys got to understand, photography is near worthless. But, if it is in your blood you do it for love and not for $.
Now, some of you will be lucky and get half a mil for your tricycle pix. But for the rest of us, no, nothing of that sort.
-
You guys got to understand, photography is near worthless.
Actually it's not...it's worth what you think it's worth and if you personally assign near zero value, that's what it's worth.
I've experienced a lot of "can we use your image for free/credit?". I usually nicely say "no"...but I can see where somebody might get a bit tired of that and take a strong stand as this photographer did. I applaud him for standing up for the value of his images. The band screwed up by first asking for free/credit and then pushing back against the photographer. The book project should have had a budget to include some compensation unless the entire project was a not-for-profit effort for a charitable cause. I have allowed free/credit use for some causes...but it's very clear here that this was a promotional effort and thus not a not-fot-for profit project.
-
Don't worry exposure is now legal tender (http://petapixel.com/2015/05/02/exposure-now-legal-tender-for-photographers/). ;)
-
Well done Pat Pope..
-
Don't worry exposure is now legal tender (http://petapixel.com/2015/05/02/exposure-now-legal-tender-for-photographers/). ;)
Thank you. I forwarded that link on to some friends who struggle to pay the bills. They'll be relieved to know this.
-
I think Harlan Ellison covers this best re: "For Profit" enterprises offering exposure instead of cash:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mj5IV23g-fE
Best regards,
Bob
CEO CFO EIEIO, Ret.
-
You guys got to understand, photography is near worthless. But, if it is in your blood you do it for love and not for $.
Now, some of you will be lucky and get half a mil for your tricycle pix. But for the rest of us, no, nothing of that sort.
Actually it's not...it's worth what you think it's worth and if you personally assign near zero value, that's what it's worth.
I've experienced a lot of "can we use your image for free/credit?". I usually nicely say "no"...but I can see where somebody might get a bit tired of that and take a strong stand as this photographer did. I applaud him for standing up for the value of his images. The band screwed up by first asking for free/credit and then pushing back against the photographer. The book project should have had a budget to include some compensation unless the entire project was a not-for-profit effort for a charitable cause. I have allowed free/credit use for some causes...but it's very clear here that this was a promotional effort and thus not a not-fot-for profit project.
Completely agree here. Photography is still critical for communications, pr, advertising, and journalism. A lot of people recognize this value and good photographers are still finding ways to connect with these people in order to make a living.
What I see is a lot of naifs (Pat Pope not being one of them) who haven't put in the time and work to figure out the business complaining about how the entire industry is flawed because they haven't found success. It's a hard business, and it's always been hard, but the value of good photography and photographers is still very strong. There's plenty of people supporting themselves with it; some quite well.
-
Pope made a mistake. Not for refusing to give them his work for nothing. But for publically embarrassing the group. Why did he openly publish his complaint letter first? He should have responded to them initially, but privately, to give them a chance to consider his concerns. But he went public without any discussion with the group.
A lot of groups will now not hire him because he seems like a "loose cannon" blowing off steam publically when he doesn't get his way.
-
Pope made a mistake. Not for refusing to give them his work for nothing. But for publically embarrassing the group. Why did he openly publish his complaint letter first? He should have responded to them initially, but privately, to give them a chance to consider his concerns. But he went public without any discussion with the group.
A lot of groups will now not hire him because he seems like a "loose cannon" blowing off steam publically when he doesn't get his way.
I agree Alan. A private note would be much better.
-
to give them a chance to consider his concerns.
I am sorry - what kind of concerns at all ? is there a law prohibiting asking ? note that the group did not use the image, did not threat to use the image, did not even hint that they are going to use the image w/o his consent... they just asked non publicly and in a proper manner (the price or "credit" is just a business proposition)... it is not a reason for a hysterical public reaction/tantrums... just answer no in the same manner and move on.
-
Why did he openly publish his complaint letter first?
“Your two choices are to give them the permission, valuing your work at zero, or to refuse permission, in which case they will quietly remove you from the list of freelancers they work with so you won’t get any future work.”
-
“Your two choices are to give them the permission, valuing your work at zero, or to refuse permission, in which case they will quietly remove you from the list of freelancers they work with so you won’t get any future work.”
no, there are many choices - one of them is to behave yourself properly and he didn't
-
no, there are many choices - one of them is to behave yourself properly and he didn't
Behave yourself properly?
This is a band that has been publicly vocal about the value of artists when it suits their interests only to demonstrate privately that they don't really value artists when it doesn't suit their interests. Quietly saying 'no thanks' just sends them off to the next schmuck and the cycle continues. If you've worked in the business you've been there, you understand, you have been asked to work for free or 'credit' constantly, even when everyone else is being paid. You can quietly complain and nothing will change or you can speak out. Pope did us a favor on this one. He may have sacrificed future work for it, but I suspect he weighed the consequences and decided it was worth the sacrifice.
It's never behaving 'properly' to speak truth to power. But people do it because it's often the only way to bring change and to focus public attention on issues. And there will always be a appeasing contingency that thinks trouble makers should just keep their head down, do their work, and be quiet. I am happy they don't; I wish there were more trouble makers like Pope.
-
This is a band that has been publicly vocal about the value of artists when it suits their interests only to demonstrate privately that they don't really value artists when it doesn't suit their interests.
you are not getting it... they tried to conduct a business in a professional manner - privately offered him some price - in that case a "credit" (note that apparently he was happy to either conduct business with them for some time and/or make money off their photos = "... One act with whom he has worked several times are 90s indie titans Garbage..."), he didn't agree with that offer and found it insulting ? ok, that's just his emotions ... he is a businessman, not a kid in a kindergarten... being childishly emotional in a very public way about the offer from somebody off whom you were happily making money before is not the right way to behave.
-
That Harlan Ellison video is a classic.
-
Who's going to sign a contract with this guy? What if you have a disagreement about the payment terms afterwards? Is he going to complain publicly about something that should be attempted to be settled privately? No one's going to hire him in the future.
-
The final objective of the photographer is to make the band see the value of photographs and pay a reasonable amount for it.
So I think his first choice is to say privately "Pls. don't do to others what you don't like that others do to you. You want to be payed for your music so why don't you pay for my pictures"
If they do, case closed.
If they don't it's still early enough to "expose" them publicly if you want to. It still might be bad for your business, but as a businessman you can still decide it's worth it for you (or the community) and take your losses.
In my mind skipping the first step turns this into a lose-lose situation.
-
you are not getting it... they tried to conduct a business in a professional manner - privately offered him some price - in that case a "credit" (note that apparently he was happy to either conduct business with them for some time and/or make money off their photos = "... One act with whom he has worked several times are 90s indie titans Garbage..."), he didn't agree with that offer and found it insulting ? ok, that's just his emotions ... he is a businessman, not a kid in a kindergarten... being childishly emotional in a very public way about the offer from somebody off whom you were happily making money before is not the right way to behave.
Asking someone to give you their product in exchange for something that both parties understand is worthless, is not conducting business in a professional manner. When someone asks to use your work 'for credit' they are not trying to 'conduct a business in a professional manner,' they are trying to take advantage of you.
I would probably agree with you if the band's request was a fluke or an outlier — something that happened rarely — but is isn't, it happens to almost every decent photographer almost every week. And the reason it happens so frequently is because there are so many clueless people who think "credit" counts as "some price."
Also, your description of him being 'childishly emotional' makes it sound like you didn't read his actual letter, which is a model of respect and civility. Maybe take another pass: https://www.facebook.com/patpope/posts/10153132085765568:0
-
Mark, I am with you on this one.
-
His publicly published letter is addressed to the individuals by their first names who make up the band. He then complains to them that their management company is offering him a bad deal that is against their personally promoted ideal of fair play and pay for artists.
OK. So why didn't he send the letter privately first and see what his friends could do for him through the management company? By going public first and embarrassing his "friends", he shot himself in the foot. If he wasn't so high and mighty, he may have gotten their respect and help financially. After all, if they are promoting fair play for artists, they wouldn't want to be known as people who abuse artists. Now he destroyed any possible relation with them in the future and may have destroyed his career to boot.
-
... OK. So why didn't he send the letter privately first and see what his friends could do for him...
If that would be an issue surfacing for the first time between him and his friends (and them only) and the goal is to ultimately get paid, that would be a preferred approach indeed. If, however, the issue is much wider and pervasive (as it is) and deserving a public debate, than he did the right thing.
-
If that would be an issue surfacing for the first time between him and his friends (and them only) and the goal is to ultimately get paid, that would be a preferred approach indeed.
There's nothing that I read that this previously occurred with this group and him. Since it was the first time, he should have tried to resolve it privately first. He had plenty of time to go publicly if the group did nothing.
-
If, however, the issue is much wider and pervasive (as it is) and deserving a public debate, than he did the right thing.
That's very noble of you. So the public debate will benefit other artists. Meanwhile, this guy just sacrificed his career. What did these other artists sacrifice?
-
There's nothing that I read that this previously occurred with this group and him. Since it was the first time...
Perhaps I phrased it wrongly. I meant it is not an issue that was just discovered between them, it is already a wildly known and pervasive issue, surely known to both sides. There are tons of debates, examples, rants, satires even, on the subject already.
-
That's very noble of you. So the public debate will benefit other artists. Meanwhile, this guy just sacrificed his career. What did these other artists sacrifice?
I assume he is a grown up, capable of weighing pros and cons of his actions on his own. I wasn't (nor was anyone else) telling him what to do or encouraging him.
-
There's nothing that I read that this previously occurred with this group and him. Since it was the first time, he should have tried to resolve it privately first. He had plenty of time to go publicly if the group did nothing.
So you haven't actually read the open letter (https://www.facebook.com/patpope/posts/10153132085765568:0) that you've been commenting on?
PS: Just so you know, this is actually an improvement on the management of your "Absolute Garbage" album where the record company just used my work without even asking. I only found this out when I went into a shop and bought a copy, which, when you think about it, has a certain irony.
-
OK. So why didn't he send the letter privately first and see what his friends could do for him through the management company? By going public first and embarrassing his "friends", he shot himself in the foot. If he wasn't so high and mighty, he may have gotten their respect and help financially. After all, if they are promoting fair play for artists, they wouldn't want to be known as people who abuse artists. Now he destroyed any possible relation with them in the future and may have destroyed his career to boot.
Alan, here's the situation: you are trying to make a living and are constantly bombarded with "offers" to use your work for credit as though they're doing you and the world a favor. You have probably been ignoring or quietly dealing with them for years. But it's become so pervasive and is coming from people who should clearly know better, that it is no longer a simple string of business decisions, it is an unjust system that you want to change. If you want to smooth over the isolated instances one at a time, your advice is sound. Deal with it quietly, nobody has to know. Normally you are just wasting your time with people, but on rare occasions you'll talk them up from nothing to something. But you're usually wasting your time.
Eventually you will have had enough — you will want to deal with more than the isolated instances and change the system. You'll want to let young photographers know that credit doesn't pay the rent and rarely even gets noticed. You'll want to tell people that this isn't the path to success and you don't need to put up with this. The only way to do this is to publicly stand up and make yourself heard. That's how change happens. And yes, the people who stand up and insist on change sometimes sacrifice a lot. We call these people heroes. Having said that, I don't think Pat Pope has sacrificed his career for this. There are plenty of good clients who pay photographers and these people will very likely understand why he felt he had to do this. They will likely also resent somebody who thought publishing a photography book without a photography budget was a good idea.
By the way, it's not just photographers that deal with this. Nate Thayer made a similar move a couple years ago when the Atlantic wanted him to write for free. He also took it public: https://natethayer.wordpress.com/2013/03/04/a-day-in-the-life-of-a-freelance-journalist-2013/
-
Alan, here's the situation: you are trying to make a living and are constantly bombarded with "offers" to use your work for credit as though they're doing you and the world a favor. You have probably been ignoring or quietly dealing with them for years. But it's become so pervasive and is coming from people who should clearly know better, that it is no longer a simple string of business decisions, it is an unjust system that you want to change. If you want to smooth over the isolated instances one at a time, your advice is sound. Deal with it quietly, nobody has to know. Normally you are just wasting your time with people, but on rare occasions you'll talk them up from nothing to something. But you're usually wasting your time.
I understand and agree with some of your points. However, the group had the expectation of courtesy that he should have tried to resolve his issue with them privately at first. If the group continued to insist on free services, then he could have gone public if he wanted to make a point of industry abuse. By doing that first, it appears he used the incident as an excuse. In effect, he abused them as he's complained the industry abused him and others. As someone who is neither in the industry nor a pro photographer, I understand the issues raised by many photographers about not getting paid. But the way he handled it does not make him a good spokesman. His lack of fair play to the group is similar to the lack of fair play he accused the industry of perpetrating on him. To me, he lost much the ethical high ground from lay people who would have otherwise supported him.
-
They may have insulted him but he just didn't handle it right.
In his public letter posted on Facebook, he said: " So I wanted to ask you a couple of questions, and I wanted to do it publicly because I think it's important that people know what your answer is." Why didn't he wait for their response to a private inquiry? Maybe they would have agreed with him and offered him real money. He didn't know what they would do at that point, yet he went public. He was stewing for a fight.
In the letter he also admitted: "I'm not accusing you personally of being hypocrites, I don't know how involved you are in this process, but I'm letting you know it's happening and it's happening in your name." If he didn't know what the musicians knew, he should have waited for them to respond before going public. It appears he was looking for a fight or for the publicity. Also, by going public first, he put them in an embarrassing position to defend themselves. Maybe they are "garbage". But he still lost his moral high ground by attacking them first in such a public way.
-
Does the band previously using one of his images for an album cover without permission change your opinion of his reply? Does it in any way make the nature of his reply more understandable?
This is an open, general question. It is not directed at anyone in particular.
-
They may have insulted him but he just didn't handle it right…
Alan, if his goal was to change the mind of the next person thinking about asking for free or 'for credit' work, what should he have done?
If he was less concerned about sealing this deal than he was about changing the business climate that many photographers find themselves in because so many people assume that a credit line is a form of payment, how should he have handled this?
If he wanted to make it clear to young, inexperienced photographers that no, we don't have to take these deals, what then would be the right way to reply.
-
Mark: He could have made all those points later in a public exposure if they responded negatively to a private inquiry from him. That would have made his position stronger. If they responded positively, then he couldn't use this incident publicly. Now it looks to many as a temper tantrum of someone aching for a fight who didn't want to find out if it could be resolved privately and adequately.
-
Isn't the real problem the other photographers who agree for"credit"? If enough of them would say "no" people would stop asking to use their work for nothing. Maybe his open letter should have been aimed at them.
-
After 20 years as a professional photographer I don't think he needs anyone on this forum to tell him how to run his business.
I agree with that, but don't think Pope is looking for "advice" from anybody (and certainly not from the LL community ;) ). However when you write an open letter making your point there will be opposing opinions around (both on method as well as content) and I don't think there is anything wrong with that.
-
After 20 years as a professional photographer I don't think he needs anyone on this forum to tell him how to run his business.
just like one mr Bush does not need to be scolded for WMD, right... everybody makes mistakes - this is the case
-
Maybe his open letter should have been aimed at them.
then he should stay away from disclosing the client's name, etc... you can perfectly write an opinion w/o pointing fingers publicly
-
Mark: He could have made all those points later in a public exposure if they responded negatively to a private inquiry from him. That would have made his position stronger. If they responded positively, then he couldn't use this incident publicly. Now it looks to many as a temper tantrum of someone aching for a fight who didn't want to find out if it could be resolved privately and adequately.
absolutely...
-
Does the band previously using one of his images for an album cover without permission change your opinion of his reply?
but they didn't - moreover it was a mutually profitable business before that... so your question is a loaded one - when did you stop beating your wife ?
-
Maybe they are "garbage". But he still lost his moral high ground by attacking them first in such a public way.
so he had perfectly good business with them many times before and now they are "garbage" - looks more like he had a particularly bad day and did not think before taking it to the internet.
-
The lapse of manners was the groups not the photographers. To say that you want someone's work but don't find it to be worth compensation is insulting.
no, they did not use that wording, you are putting your words in their mouth to achieve a rhetorical point to paint them bad... where did they say that they "don't find it to be worth compensation" in their first proposal to him ?
-
I understand the issues raised by many photographers about not getting paid.
but it was not the issue in his case... he did not happen "not getting paid" by the group - he just received a proposal - nobody stole his work and nobody was going to... there were no indication that group did something illegal or was going to do something illegal
-
I agree with Mark also. I can't believe the people who ask us for free work. Realtors who had seen us at work with a room full of lights, cameras and computers asked if they could use our photos free (with credit of course) to sell a 5 million dollar house! When I gave them our price for photos they said that was too rich for their blood. Their client decided it was worth the money and they bought the photos. The house sold. I wonder if the realtor got paid in cash or if they did it for credit.
Sharon
So Sharon - did you immediately upon being asked go public and vent for all to know that realtor's name ? or you negotiated, made your position known not through Facebook and achieved the proper outcome in a business like manner w/o public tantrums ?
-
I agree.
-
Does the band previously using one of his images for an album cover without permission change your opinion of his reply?
but they didn't - moreover it was a mutually profitable business before that... so your question is a loaded one - when did you stop beating your wife ?
Again, I will suggest you read the actual piece (https://www.facebook.com/patpope/posts/10153132085765568:0) where he points out that they did:
PS: Just so you know, this is actually an improvement on the management of your "Absolute Garbage" album where the record company just used my work without even asking. I only found this out when I went into a shop and bought a copy, which, when you think about it, has a certain irony.
-
but they didn't - moreover it was a mutually profitable business before that... so your question is a loaded one - when did you stop beating your wife ?
Read the open letter again, or for the first time.
-
As i read it it all depends on the copyrights Pat sold in the first place.
Apparently it did not cover this use for the book. So Garbage should pay something for it...
It seems like a very simple case and Garbage facebook respons is even disliked by Garbage-fans..
(fans of garbage; flying garbage)
-
Ok, so the photographer's approach was against his self-interest, against best business practices, against good manners (throwing a public temper tantrum). In one word: unreasonable.
George Bernard Shaw: "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world. The unreasonable man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. All progress, therefore, depends upon the unreasonable man."
-
Probably needs to go back and do Marketing 101. Lost opportunity. It is called Negotiation. A first offer is seldom their best offer. All sorts of things could be discussed, like a royalty per image sold. Instead he blew that opportunity and raise a red flag on future business elsewhere.
-
I was going to suggest what Bob suggested. Pope should have gone back to them and said, "OK. I hear your "credit" offer. But I got a family to feed too. How about I sell you the entire copyright so you can use it anywhere and everywhere, forever?" Then ask for, say, $1,500 or whatever. If they felt his image was really important because it defined their famous album, they would have offered something. Otherwise maybe it wasn't worth more than a "credit". The reason I suggest to offer the entire copyright, so that way the group could tell other photographers who gave them their photos for "credit" in the book only, that their deal with Pope was for the entire copyright. That would avoid them playing favorites.
But frankly, I think Pope was really interested in just making a public case out of it, for publicity or other reasons he's not talking about, and wasn't really interested in making money.
-
Bob Shaw's marketing suggestion is even better than mine. That is with a slight modification, all of the photographers could have been offered a royalty. In fact, now that I think of it, that should have been Pope's retort to the group's public response. He should have said that I understand the limited availability of funds. So provide a royalty to me and all other photographers who provided their photos for "credit". He would have been a hero to other photographers, given the group an out from negative publicity and maybe start a trend for similar situations.
In fact, the group still can make the offer now to eliminate the negative publicity they have received. They should say they reconsidered the whole affair and make that happen. Everyone will become a winner.
-
... the group still can make the offer now to eliminate the negative publicity they have received...
If the photographer is so wrong in your opinion, how come the group also ended up with the negative publicity?
-
But frankly, I think Pope was really interested in just making a public case out of it, for publicity or other reasons he's not talking about, and wasn't really interested in making money.
If you'd read the links people have provided in this thread, you would learn that he IS talking about his reasons, and that, yes, he IS more interested in making a public case than making money. Here, one more time: http://www.patpope.com/new-blog/ There's even a header that reads: "Why did I write an Open Letter?"
Also, $1500 for the copyright of a photo like this is absurdly low. Your pricing tells me you have never spent any time trying to make a living as a photographer and don't have any real-world experience with the business side — at least not at a serious level. Without this experience it is hard to really understand how prevalent the requests for free work are and how bent out of shape people get when you're not flattered by their offer. Seriously, I'm not trying to be insulting or rude, but I think it's hard to fathom the level of frustration unless you have experienced it. It is common — really common – for people to "offer" to publish work for credit and when you say you'll need to be paid, you get responses like: "get over yourself" or "your not that good" (although good enough to publish) or "thanks we'll keep looking [for free stuff]."
Imagine trying to run a restaurant and people keep coming in, sitting down, and "offering" to eat for free as though they're doing you a favor. The first time, you think, 'that's crazy' and maybe try to explain that you're running a business, but the hundredth time you think "get the f**k out of my restaurant and don't come back." That's really what it's like in certain sectors of this industry.
You and Bob can keep talking about Pope's lost opportunity for not trying to negotiate, but you don't get it. It's almost never worth negotiating with people who make it clear from the beginning that they are looking for free, especially when the photographer or the writer is the only one who some how didn't get a line in the budget. It is totally unethical for Garbage to try to produce and sell a photography book without budgeting for content and they were rightly called out for it.
-
It is totally unethical for Garbage to try to produce and sell a photography book without budgeting for content and they were rightly called out for it.
There it is. On top of unethical, it was hypocritical given their public stance on artists being paid for content / work. They should be called out.
Also, we don't know the nature of the long term relationship between photographer and band here. It appears Pope did their first official band photo shoot for pay. It appears that later the band, or the band's management, used one of Pope's images for an album cover without permission. He says he didn't know about it until he saw it in the store. No mention about how this was resolved. Might be more to the story than what is known from the open letter.
-
. . . $1500 for the copyright of a photo like this is absurdly low. . .
When I read the comment above, this is immediately what came to mind. And then I read down and found Mark's comment. All I can add is never sell all rights, unless you're paid handsomely and $1,500 is not near enough. I do some work under a work for hire contract for a company that is very innovative in several different engineering disciplines. I wouldn't have the work without the work for hire contract and I would never be able to use the images again as they are all covered by a nondisclosure agreement. There wouldn't be any market for them anyway. But anything else I shoot, I would never sell all rights.
-
If the photographer is so wrong in your opinion, how come the group also ended up with the negative publicity?
I never said the group was right. But what I did say was that the photographer should have tried to resolve it privately at first. I also added that the Group could have tried to resolve it after it was made public as well. I think both parties handled the whole thing unprofessionally. Each side damaged themselves. The Group comes off as cheapskates taken advantage of another artist. And the photographer won't be trusted and hired by other future clients who will fear him going public if there's ever a disagreement with him.
-
Also, $1500 for the copyright of a photo like this is absurdly low. Your pricing tells me you have never spent any time trying to make a living as a photographer and don't have any real-world experience with the business side — at least not at a serious level. Without this experience it is hard to really understand how prevalent the requests for free work are and how bent out of shape people get when you're not flattered by their offer. Seriously, I'm not trying to be insulting or rude, but I think it's hard to fathom the level of frustration unless you have experienced it. It is common — really common – for people to "offer" to publish work for credit and when you say you'll need to be paid, you get responses like: "get over yourself" or "your not that good" (although good enough to publish) or "thanks we'll keep looking [for free stuff]."
I never sold a photo. But I did have a non-photography business for twenty years. I lost it at the end for a number of reasons. One was I did not keep up with the times. Things were changing and I didn't change with them. It wasn't "fair". That's a useless complaint. Fans and family may agree with you. But purchasers don't care. Do you pay more by buying the way you use too? Or do you shop things on the web to get the best price? It's the way the world works. I also had a good friend who was an illustrator his whole life. Then came along Photoshop and programs like that and he lost 90% of his work. He never could learn PS. Fortunately, he switched full time to story boards for advertisers and finished the last few years of his career doing that.
I'm sorry that the photo industry has changed. Prices usually go down either because the demand goes down or the supply goes up. With digital photography and good cameras, many amateurs are pricing down the business, I suppose. I'm sure there are those that still command good fees. I really don't know your industry. But I do know that you have to get past a changing market. You have to place yourself where you can command decent fees. Many will not be able to do that. It's unfortunate. Like I said, I've been there. But you have to get over it and move on and adapt.
Publicly trying to embarrass the purchasers because the market has changed will only damage yourself.
-
Asking someone to give you their product in exchange for something that both parties understand is worthless, is not conducting business in a professional manner. When someone asks to use your work 'for credit' they are not trying to 'conduct a business in a professional manner,' they are trying to take advantage of you.
Trying to take advantage of people seems to be what "conducting business in a professional manner" is all about? After all, "they" try to maximize profits, and so do you. The form in which negotiations happen may be different from field to field, but ultimately your company/salary/... depends on delivering something to some customer of better value and/or lower cost than your competitors.
Politely requesting someone to agree to a "bad deal" does not seem like a big deal to me.
Anytime you make someone an offer, there is a possibility that the public gets to know the details. Thus I would be sceptical about making a business offer that would make me look bad in public. This may well play out differently in creative fields than it does in e.g. plumbing.
In my country, negotiations between grocery franchises and their vendors are notoriously harsh. Our government is considering intervening and making the parties "be nice to each other". Judging from the outside, I think that is a bad idea.
-h
-
In the UK the creator/copyright holder has the legal & moral right to be indentified as the author of the work. So the 'offer' of a credit as payment is not any kind of offer.
...
If I spot an interesting old lady and ask kindly if I can take her picture without paying her, am I immoral?
-h
-
Probably needs to go back and do Marketing 101. Lost opportunity. It is called Negotiation. A first offer is seldom their best offer. All sorts of things could be discussed, like a royalty per image sold. Instead he blew that opportunity and raise a red flag on future business elsewhere.
A credit is called an offer! There was no 'offer' from Garbage.
-
What purchasers are you talking about? They weren't purchasing anything.
you again missing the point that they were dealing with him and he with them before for a mutual profit as we can assume... that is not to say that he decided to exercise a public hysterical tantrum instead of even attempting to do a sane negotiation about the prices different from "credit"...
-
The whole point of this thread is that they are not purchasers.....
they are
-
If I spot an interesting old lady and ask kindly if I can take her picture without paying her, am I immoral?
apparently so and that lady has to go public immediately to scold you !
-
Again, I will suggest you read the actual piece (https://www.facebook.com/patpope/posts/10153132085765568:0) where he points out that they did:
I think that there is a difference between a record company and the group...
-
Apparently, the band has its alter ego on this forum ;)
-
Publicly trying to embarrass the purchasers because the market has changed will only damage yourself.
What purchasers are you talking about? They weren't purchasing anything.
Of course they're purchasers. Let's say next year Garbage calls Pope and tells him they wanted to hire him again for their new album and all the still photos they needed for a video as well. "You did such a great job on our other album. And we appreciate the support for the book too." So he threw away that possibility for what, a 100 Pounds? He also threw away other bands hiring him because they think he's a loose cannon.
-
Very interesting topic and I heve the Popcorn and the Coke standing ready ;D
Now, I am not a pro photographer and I do not live from selling photos but so far I have sold about 500 framed photos in exhibitions as well as 2 photos for brochure and Company logo.
Averything went fine except with a German Agency which bought the photo for a brochure for a digital camera producer back in 2008
They saw somewhere my image and asked me how much for it. I asked waht di you want to use it for ? They told me that want to include it in a brochure for a digital camera and the printing would be sized A4 adn they gave me the quantity of the printing and I gave them a price.
OK a few weeks later they send me the brochure and for my surprise my image was printed in Double A4 size (first cheating from the agency). Maybe 2-3 weeks later they asked if they could again use my image for the presentation of the digital camera as Posters and flyers and decorating stands and I told them NO because you were not honest and it would cost them again. Never ever heard from them again. SO >I do not even know if they just ignored me and used it anyway.
The world is getting lest respectful day by day ;D
Here under this link http://tinyurl.com/nryee7o you can see on page 2 and 3 the image I sold to the german agency
Just as a note aside about the way of thinking of some people ...
-
I think that there is a difference between a record company and the group...
Well there is nothing to separate there. The group has an agent which is the link between the group and the printer and so the group has a responsability too ...
IMHO ;D
-
Apparently, the band has its alter ego on this forum ;)
well - I don't like public attacks when the law is not broken - no matter how cheap the business offer is it is a business offer, take it, negotiate, refuse it - don't cry like a baby... I see no difference between that photog. and "rev" Sharpton actually... I do suggest (like smb did here already) then that photographers start actually paying to people /and not what photogs think fair, but what subjects think is fair - or on the first offer that they don't like they shall go public/ on the street when they happen to end up on their photos (that will generate income for photogs) or if you happen to have a private house in your shot to pay his owner too for example...
-
Well there is nothing to separate there. The group has an agent which is the link between the group and the printer and so the group has a responsability too ...
IMHO ;D
IMHO no, the group has no hand in what the publisher did by using the photo (they might approve the photo on a cover, but business/legal side of producing the actual album is for the publisher to deal with... if the publisher will use something else /let us remove the picture itself as a component so dear to your heart/ - like for example some patented design of a plastic cover for a disc w/o paying are you going to blame the group too ?)... so that example is used just for publicity to smear the group
-
Very interesting topic and I heve the Popcorn and the Coke standing ready ;D
Now, I am not a pro photographer and I do not live from selling photos but so far I have sold about 500 framed photos in exhibitions as well as 2 photos for brochure and Company logo.
Averything went fine except with a German Agency which bought the photo for a brochure for a digital camera producer back in 2008
They saw somewhere my image and asked me how much for it. I asked waht di you want to use it for ? They told me that want to include it in a brochure for a digital camera and the printing would be sized A4 adn they gave me the quantity of the printing and I gave them a price.
OK a few weeks later they send me the brochure and for my surprise my image was printed in Double A4 size (first cheating from the agency). Maybe 2-3 weeks later they asked if they could again use my image for the presentation of the digital camera as Posters and flyers and decorating stands and I told them NO because you were not honest and it would cost them again. Never ever heard from them again. SO >I do not even know if they just ignored me and used it anyway.
The world is getting lest respectful day by day ;D
Here under this link http://tinyurl.com/nryee7o you can see on page 2 and 3 the image I sold to the german agency
Just as a note aside about the way of thinking of some people ...
the difference is that if something was actually done - please by all means go public... in the particular case nothing was done... the hysteria was/is about the offer, not about the use of the image that did not happen in this case... and example what some publisher did - has to do with that publisher, so not relevant... certainly you can be guilty by association.
-
... I do suggest (like smb did here already) then that photographers start actually paying to people...
Which is already the case. If the photograph is to be used commercially, you need a model release. Here is a an example (emphasis mine):
"Whereas for valuable consideration hereby acknowledged as received, the Model granted the Photographer permission to photograph him/her and thereafter to use the photographs..."
-
If I spot an interesting old lady and ask kindly if I can take her picture without paying her, am I immoral?
iirc In African Journey (http://www.peteturner.com/Africa/index.html), Pete Turner made a point of saying that he paid those individuals to pose for photographs.
-
Which is already the case. If the photograph is to be used commercially, you need a model release. Here is a an example (emphasis mine):
with a model shot - what about street photography and the part about scolding photog right away is the offer is not liked... and where is what you pay to a model in that model release - what is the $$$ ?
-
iirc In African Journey (http://www.peteturner.com/Africa/index.html), Pete Turner made a point of saying that he paid those individuals to pose for photographs.
the devil is in the details of what he defines as "posing"
-
with a model shot - what about street photography and the part about scolding photog right away is the offer is not liked... and where is what you pay to a model in that model release - what is the $$$ ?
Not just a professional model... anyone, if it is going to be used commercially. Otherwise, while you are in a public space, you can be photographed freely. That's the law.
The term is "valuable consideration" and is whatever the two sides agree on. Dollars or prints or peanuts. The term is not just used in photography, but in many other legal fields, when it comes to contractual exchange (e.g., employer-employee).
-
Apparently you didn't look at the photos.
that requires me to look though all of his photos with people in the frame and know for each such photo whether he actually paid or not... then we can understand 1) what he thinks is "posing" for which he claims he paid (for each single case since the beginning of his career, right ?)...
-
Not just a professional model... anyone, if it is going to be used commercially. Otherwise, while you are in a public space, you can be photographed freely. That's the law.
but this is not about the law... no law was broken with the offer in question... the question is about the reaction to a legally correct offer.
The term is "valuable consideration" and is whatever the two sides agree on. Dollars or prints or peanuts. The term is not just used in photography, but in many other legal fields, when it comes to contractual exchange (e.g., employer-employee).
right... so you can offer a model a credit - just like model can offer you a credit... are you going to throw a tantrum right away if that happens, the model will approach you with such an offer ? are you OK with model right away scolding photog in a public manner is he/she offers a model just a credit ? I 'd assume when he took their photo he got such release and such wording was used - so it was perfectly ok for the group to offer him a "valuable consideration" of "credit" ... exactly the point
-
... a "valuable consideration" of "credit" ... exactly the point
You are grasping at straws. "Valuable consideration" is a known legal term and even if the subject is unaware, courts would throw away any consideration that a reasonable person (another legal term) would not consider valuable. "Credit" is one such consideration not considered "valuable" neither by courts nor by a reasonable person. Not to mention the already established fact that "credit" is already a legal obligation, therefore "offering" it is completely baseless and meaningless.
-
You are grasping at straws. "Valuable consideration" is a known legal term and even if the subject is unaware, courts would throw away any consideration that a reasonable person (another legal term) would not consider valuable. "Credit" is one such consideration not considered "valuable" neither by courts nor by a reasonable person. Not to mention the already established fact that "credit" is already a legal obligation, therefore "offering" it is completely baseless and meaningless.
and you
1) changing the subject - from inadequate reaction of the photog in question, because no laws were broken
2) being "completely baseless and meaningles" is not illegal and is not a reason to be behave like that photog did
3) reasonable person can consider credit valuable, even that is an obligation - the fact is that every "model" with the release signed are not all paid is good enough
4) as this photog based his outburst not on anything being illegal, but on something being "not acceptable" for him then you are OK with the said reaction from your models too.
-
Let's say next year Garbage calls Pope and tells him they wanted to hire him again for their new album and all the still photos they needed for a video as well.
Let's say next year Garbage calls Pope and tells him they want him to work for their new album and all the still photos they needed for a video as well, for credit.
-
and you
1) changing the subject - from inadequate reaction of the photog in question, because no laws were broken
2) being "completely baseless and meaningles" is not illegal and is not a reason to be behave like that photog did
3) reasonable person can consider credit valuable, even that is an obligation - the fact is that every "model" with the release signed are not all paid is good enough
4) as this photog based his outburst not on anything being illegal, but on something being "not acceptable" for him then you are OK with the said reaction from your models too.
Slobodan is right; you're really grasping at straws. Nobody said the band did anything illegal. This has nothing to do with model releases. The reaction from the photographer hardly qualifies as an 'outburst.' These are all red herrings.
-
Let's say next year Garbage calls Pope and tells him they want him to work for their new album and all the still photos they needed for a video as well, for credit.
No one including Pope ever suggested in any way that anyone ever asked a photographer to work on a new project like that for no pay. Nor am I aware that this is an industry practice at all. You're just creating a straw man or red herring.
-
The reaction from the photographer hardly qualifies as an 'outburst.'
it totally does - going to vent publicly right away and in such manner... he is taking his emotions out because he was incensed by a first offer... by that logic anybody who feels incensed can do the same... now you have all the rights to be "incensed", but going right away to complain urbi et orbi is childish...
-
Neither straw man nor red herring. The quote says "let's say next year..." thus is a speculation about a future. Meaning, the way things are going, who's to say it won't happen in the future? If someone told you yesterday that one day magazine covers will be done by phone cameras, or amateurs, or selected from penny stock libraries, would you've believed them? Or that one day we will be leasing software month-by-month instead of owning it?
-
Neither straw man nor red herring. The quote says "let's say next year..." thus is a speculation about a future. Meaning, the way things are going, who's to say it won't happen in the future? If someone told you yesterday that one day magazine covers will be done by phone cameras, or amateurs, or selected from penny stock libraries, would you've believed them? Or that one day we will be leasing software month-by-month instead of owning it?
if somebody wants to wail about the trends it is possible to do this in a civil manner, not taking the details from the first offer right away to the public in such manner...
-
Neither straw man nor red herring. The quote says "let's say next year..." thus is a speculation about a future. Meaning, the way things are going, who's to say it won't happen in the future? If someone told you yesterday that one day magazine covers will be done by phone cameras, or amateurs, or selected from penny stock libraries, would you've believed them? Or that one day we will be leasing software month-by-month instead of owning it?
I knew I should have told my daughter to wait to get married. Maybe I could have gotten the wedding photographer for nothing. :)
-
I knew I should have told my daughter to wait to get married. Maybe I could have gotten the wedding photographer for nothing. :)
You sure can today, Alan. The latest trend: hiring no photographer, just giving all guests a link to upload their photographs taken during the wedding. Costs nothing and surely provides for variety.
-
by that logic anybody who feels incensed can do the same... now you have all the rights to be "incensed", but going right away to complain urbi et orbi is childish...
You do have a right to be incensed and you do have a right to speak out publicly. At least where I'm from you do.
Also (again), calling his measured, thoughtful response "childish" or an "outburst" is a gross mischaracterization. If you'd like to read a real outburst so you can compare and contrast, I suggest you read Shirley Manson's (Yes, that Shirley Manson — the lead singer of the very band we are talking about) open letter to Kayne West: https://www.facebook.com/shirleymanson/posts/10152927970266387
It seems most people here recognize that Pope was not trying to turn this "offer" into a paying deal, but his goal was to change the way business is conducted and hopefully show people that working for credit is not sustainable and planning projects centered on photographs with zero photography budget is a bad practice. If you agree that this is his goal, you have to see that quietly dealing with each of these requests one by one is a losing a battle. It's like quietly suggesting each telemarketer remove your number rather than trying to speak out about the problem and effect change on a larger scale. People speak out publicly all the time when they see something they perceive as injustice — it's why we have editorials in newspapers and why we have freedom of speech. People speaking out publicly, or as you call it having "hysterical public reaction/tantrums" is why women can vote, why we have a minimum wage, why we don't use child labor, why we have labeling on food, why we have representative government. For every small step we have taken toward a more just world there has been some outspoke hero that has made themselves heard over a chorus of voices, like yours, telling them they should just being quiet.
-
...For every small step we have taken toward a more just world there has been some outspoke hero that has made themselves heard over a chorus of voices, like yours, telling them they should just being quiet...
Very noble. Do you publish your complaints about your boss and try to embarrass him publicly? You certainly have the right to do that. How long do you think you'll have a job? All your ex-worker friends will pat you on the shoulder telling you what a hero you are.
-
Very noble. Do you publish your complaints about your boss and try to embarrass him publicly? You certainly have the right to do that. How long do you think you'll have a job? All your ex-worker friends will pat you on the shoulder telling you what a hero you are.
Sure. You might end up with a multi-million dollar whistleblower award and protection from retaliation. And your boss loses his job and most likely goes to prison.
-
Good point Slobodan. But I don't think Pope's going to get a whistle-blower award in this case. He just lost a chance to get a job from this group and others.
But you raise an interesting point. Could he have handled this publicly without embarrassing his clients? Was there a way he could dramatize the issue without naming names?
-
He just lost a chance to get a job from this group and others.
Others - Really?
-
Very noble. Do you publish your complaints about your boss and try to embarrass him publicly?
You've brought up the issue of him embarrassing his client several times, Alan. There are reasons you might want to keep business practices private, such as keeping an edge on competition or protecting trade secrets. But most businesses take pride in the way they conduct business, they advertise it, it's part of their brand, they want people to know about it and talk about it. If you are practicing business in such a way that public knowledge of that practice is embarrassing, it's a good indication that these practices are out of sync with your values and the values of your community. You can complain about the messenger or you can adjust your practices in such a way that they no longer embarrass you.
-
Any businessman who embarrasses his clients publicly isn't going to have any pretty quickly. And his big mouth will keep prospective customers away too.
-
Hi,
We are all humans and well sometimes comes a moment were the human can not stand all that nonsense created by other humans and a Fuse blows up and for me that was the case here.
If the others can not understand that, then they are all hipocrits ...
All this hollow faces without expression making business also makes me sick ... I prefer a face to face stab rather then a Hug and the other stabbing me in the back and that is what this is ...
Somebody showing openly his feeling be it in any situation is by far a better business partner then those hipocrits apoligizing wanting something but telling I can not pay you something
and the band Garbage of course knows what is going on ... The book is about them ...
Would YOU, yes YOU allow anybody to write a book about YOU and YOU do not know what is going on ...
They make a book and expect no profit ¿? WOW ... they should be canonised as Saints
He took a decision and now he must live with it. Is that a problem for us ? I guess no, unless we will help him. We can help him or we can let him live ...
-
Hi,
We are all humans and well sometimes comes a moment were the human can not stand all that nonsense created by other humans and a Fuse blows up and for me that was the case here.
yes, true - but it shall not be hailed as the right way to conduct the business, that's it - no matter how insulted you are... unless he thinks that it serves him well in terms of the name recognition...
Somebody showing openly his feeling be it in any situation is by far a better business partner then those hipocrits apoligizing wanting something but telling I can not pay you something
sure - so he can send his option directly to where the offer came from, but that is different than to go whining in public, don't you see :D ...
-
But most businesses take pride in the way they conduct business
yes, he takes pride in going public right away if he thinks that the offer is below his dignity...
-
Could he have handled this publicly without embarrassing his clients? Was there a way he could dramatize the issue without naming names?
absolutely...
-
;D
-
Sure. You might end up with a multi-million dollar whistleblower award and protection from retaliation. And your boss loses his job and most likely goes to prison.
only if the law was broken - in that case no laws were broken
-
You do have a right to be incensed and you do have a right to speak out publicly. At least where I'm from you do.
yes, he did not do anything illegal - but nobody was saying that he did, neither anything illegal was in the offer...
-
The latest trend: hiring no photographer
you might cross the line where you start thinking that market owes you anything, no - it doesn't...
-
Any businessman who embarrasses his clients publicly isn't going to have any pretty quickly. And his big mouth will keep prospective customers away too.
Alan, you seem to be in agreement with Pat Pope -- "By writing this open letter (https://www.facebook.com/patpope/posts/10153132085765568:0), I'm obviously committing professional suicide when it comes to ever working with you again, and probably it won't do my reputation any good within the music industry to be seen as troublemaker."
-
Alan, you seem to be in agreement with Pat Pope -- "By writing this open letter, I'm obviously committing professional suicide when it comes to ever working with you again, and probably it won't do my reputation any good within the music industry to be seen as troublemaker."
Reminds me of the joke about the cowboy from the desert town in the Southwest. So he's sitting at a bar sipping some whiskey and suddenly jumps off the bar stool, strips down naked and runs out of the saloon down the street and into the desert. There he jumps bare skin and all into a huge, spiny cactus.
When the townsfolk catch up with him, they incredulously ask him why would anyone in their right mind do such a thing.
The cowboy, moaning and groaning, whimpered back, "Well, it seemed like a good idea at the time."
-
Please show that Pat Pope is moaning and groaning, and whimpering back.
What puzzles me is that you've made so many comments which afaict seem just to repeat what Pat Pope already acknowledged in that first open letter.
-
People speaking out publicly, or as you call it having "hysterical public reaction/tantrums" is why women can vote, why we have a minimum wage, why we don't use child labor, why we have labeling on food, why we have representative government. For every small step we have taken toward a more just world there has been some outspoke hero that has made themselves heard over a chorus of voices, like yours, telling them they should just being quiet.
Indeed, the people objecting to someone making a stand have all benefited in one way or another from previous principled people willing to stand tall and try and make a difference.
It also seems that those without any experience or knowledge of modern day pro photography are the ones complaining loudest about Pope's refusal to be exploited anymore.
-
Very noble. Do you publish your complaints about your boss and try to embarrass him publicly? You certainly have the right to do that. How long do you think you'll have a job? All your ex-worker friends will pat you on the shoulder telling you what a hero you are.
But if we all acted with the same courage of our convictions as Pope then there wouldn't be any need to go creeping round employers/clients as they'd know the score and we wouldn't be faced with this sort of situation on anything near as regular a basis. I doubt that it's done him any harm in the long run and may even have done him some good.
-
But if we all acted with the same courage of our convictions as Pope then there wouldn't be any need to go creeping round employers/clients as they'd know the score and we wouldn't be faced with this sort of situation on anything near as regular a basis...
Correct.
And here is another example how a multi-gazillion dollars company wants it for free:
Please Reply #yes to Give Us Unlimited Rights to Your Photo (http://petapixel.com/2015/05/15/please-reply-yes-to-give-us-unlimited-rights-to-your-photo/)
-
…and one more:
http://petapixel.com/2015/05/14/be-careful-when-a-big-brand-asks-for-your-photo/
-
I think using a non-pro photo for no monetary compensation is different than trying to use a pro's photo. An amateur may be very happy with the notoriety, thus companies can get away with it. You can complain about it. But as long as people are willing to do it, company's will continue to ask. This is where convenient, ubiquitous, digital and well captured amateur photos have taken us - for right or wrong. It's affected the pro market. But so has many other modern inventions. A good friend of mine, an illustrator, lost his job because of computers and Photoshop. Clients didn't want to pay him the high prices he demanded (and deserved) for decades when a computer nerd could do similar work digitally at 1/10th the cost.
Of course, this is making it hard on pros like Pope. But the discussion here is not whether Pope should get paid. I happen to think he should. It's just the way he handled it that could have been done better.
-
...But as long as people are willing to do it, company's will continue to ask...
I am going to remove my trained-economist hat for a moment and look at that from a simple, human, common sense perspective (or at least my perspective). There is something majorly obscene when a multi-gazillion company wants to exploit such a common human weakness (vanity). The company spends gazillion of dollars on advertising, but not willing to pay a microscopic fraction of it to the photographer?
There are companies with a social consciousness, a basic sense of morality, and a simple human decency, and there are those with none. Take, for example, Canon: they paid $10K for a license to use a single photo of mine, exclusively, for one year. That in itself is highly commendable. But look what happened next: they approached my agency for additional use of the same photo and paid $1.5K for it. What was that additional use? Internal marketing material. Internal. Which means I would have probably never found out about it. And even if I did, I would have assumed it is covered by the already generous original license. That is what morality is, doing the right thing even when no one is looking. Kudos to Canon!
-
I think using a non-pro photo for no monetary compensation is different
Really?
-
I think using a non-pro photo for no monetary compensation is different than trying to use a pro's photo. An amateur may be very happy with the notoriety, thus companies can get away with it. You can complain about it. But as long as people are willing to do it, company's will continue to ask. This is where convenient, ubiquitous, digital and well captured amateur photos have taken us - for right or wrong. It's affected the pro market. But so has many other modern inventions. A good friend of mine, an illustrator, lost his job because of computers and Photoshop. Clients didn't want to pay him the high prices he demanded (and deserved) for decades when a computer nerd could do similar work digitally at 1/10th the cost.
Of course, this is making it hard on pros like Pope. But the discussion here is not whether Pope should get paid. I happen to think he should. It's just the way he handled it that could have been done better.
How does one define a pro photographer nowadays?
Since I started calling myself a writer I've never been busier with the camera!
-
Quote from: Alan Klein on Today at 01:43:30 PM
I think using a non-pro photo for no monetary compensation is different
Really?
Yes. It's different to the photographer. A pro earns a living from what he does; an amateur does not. So the amateur may be more concerned with vanity or other non-monetary reasons for getting their picture published. If they're happy, who are we to judge? Of course, I understand that waters down the market for the pro. But that isn't the company's fault. The industry and technology and market have changed.
How many here cried about all the Kodak and independent film processing company employees who lost their jobs because of digital photography? Did you run out and get a film camera and buy film? Or do you use a digital camera so you can get "free" shots so you didn't have to pay film manufacturing and film processing companies? Haven't you acted in your own best interest too? Not that you were wrong either. Again, it's because the industry and technology has changed.
-
Yes. It's different to the photographer. A pro earns a living from what he does; an amateur does not. So the amateur may be more concerned with vanity or other non-monetary reasons for getting their picture published. If they're happy, who are we to judge? Of course, I understand that waters down the market for the pro. But that isn't the company's fault. The industry and technology and market have changed.
How many here cried about all the Kodak and independent film processing company employees who lost their jobs because of digital photography? Did you run out and get a film camera and buy film? Or do you use a digital camera so you can get "free" shots so you didn't have to pay film manufacturing and film processing companies? Haven't you acted in your own best interest too? Not that you were wrong either. Again, it's because the industry and technology has changed.
At the end of the day a photo is a product and if there is a demand for that product then it has a value. That value will vary but nonetheless any attempt to obtain that product for ones own benefit without wanting to pass on proportion of that benefit to the producer is tantamount to theft.
-
The vanity "value" to an amateur may be enough to just stroke his ego. A price is established by what a willing buyer and willing seller agree too. Unless there's duress, it's not theft or tantamount to theft. A photographer just has to say "no". If it's a one-of-a-kind photo, than it would be worth monetary value to the buyer. But if the buyer can get a similar photo for the cost of "vanity", than that's all the photo is worth, despite what you think it's worth.
This may sound cruel, but that's how it works. Better the photographer understand the market and adjust his game plan to create a photography niche that he could sell to and make money. Tilting windmills or shoveling s**t against the tide is no way for a businessman to operate.
-
The vanity "value" to an amateur may be enough to just stroke his ego. A price is established by what a willing buyer and willing seller agree too. Unless there's duress, it's not theft or tantamount to theft. A photographer just has to say "no". If it's a one-of-a-kind photo, than it would be worth monetary value to the buyer. But if the buyer can get a similar photo for the cost of "vanity", than that's all the photo is worth, despite what you think it's worth.
This may sound cruel, but that's how it works. Better the photographer understand the market and adjust his game plan to create a photography niche that he could sell to and make money. Tilting windmills or shoveling s**t against the tide is no way for a businessman to operate.
I think it's unquestionably true that to survive as a photographer you need to have a product that is more than a typical amateur can consistently achieve. There's a lot of ways to do this: you can have a unique vision, unusual access to subjects or locations, consistently reproduce great results on demand — something, anything to be competitive.
Pope seems to have this. He has images that cannot easily be reproduced and he's made these kind of images consistently over time. Still, the band has decided that however the market has valued amateur photos, should also define the value of his clearly professional images.
What makes Pope's argument so powerful is that he's not just complaining that someone asked for a freebee — but that this band organized their entire book project on the assumption that they would need a $0 budget for photography, that they're not paying for photography even though they clearly need it and need it to be good. It's only icing on this cake that the band has been so outspoken about musicians, who face similar market forces, getting screwed by people expecting free material.
One more point —
Just because the market creates a value or lack of value in something does not absolve people from ethical responsibilities when it comes to playing a part in that market. The band understands this when it comes to music — if we want good music, we need to pay good musicians. I have no doubt that the market would respond favorably to child labour, as it does in other parts of the world, and it would value it cheaply (as it does in other parts of the world). You would find desperate sellers and buyers willing to take advantage of this desperation. To simply say it's 'cruel, but that's how it works' is to relinquish personable responsibility and ignore the power we have to act collectively. Another option is to lobby for education and change. It's not always tilting at windmills — a fact proven by the lack of a child labour market in the US despite obvious utility.
-
Or do you use a digital camera so you can get "free" shots so you didn't have to pay film manufacturing and film processing companies?
Flagship digital Pro digital cameras, I started with the Nikon D1, cost on average 3-4 times more than a a comparable film camera. Film and processing costs were met by commissioning clients.
No matter how slick and knowledgeable at processing and archiving RAW digital files, digital sports imagery (processing images) involves a brutal amount of time compared to film - film was left to a pro lab which meant more time could be spent taking pictures at the event and/or accepting other work.
You are falling into the trap of thinking that digital photography is cheaper than film, nothing could be further from the truth.
-
Answered wrong post.
-
The vanity "value" to an amateur may be enough to just stroke his ego. A price is established by what a willing buyer and willing seller agree too. Unless there's duress, it's not theft or tantamount to theft. A photographer just has to say "no". If it's a one-of-a-kind photo, than it would be worth monetary value to the buyer. But if the buyer can get a similar photo for the cost of "vanity", than that's all the photo is worth, despite what you think it's worth.
This may sound cruel, but that's how it works. Better the photographer understand the market and adjust his game plan to create a photography niche that he could sell to and make money. Tilting windmills or shoveling s**t against the tide is no way for a businessman to operate.
I rather feat that you are getting a little too hung up on this whole amateur/professional divide. There is no sharp line or even foggy grey area in between, it's a graduation from one extreme to another nowadays and to try and operate on the basis that those who manage to make a living out of it are entitled to something that those who don't, are not, undermines any notion of value. Instead, all it does is confirm within the purchasers mind that they needn't pay for an image if it's taken by an amateur, and if that's the case why bother with pro's at all?
-
Flagship digital Pro digital cameras, I started with the Nikon D1, cost on average 3-4 times more than a a comparable film camera. Film and processing costs were met by commissioning clients.
No matter how slick and knowledgeable at processing and archiving RAW digital files, digital sports imagery (processing images) involves a brutal amount of time compared to film - film was left to a pro lab which meant more time could be spent taking pictures at the event and/or accepting other work.
You are falling into the trap of thinking that digital photography is cheaper than film, nothing could be further from the truth.
+1
And that is something that clients fail to comprehend as well. The number of times I have been on an assignment, taken loads of photos and then be expected to hand them all over willy nilly is beyond sensible belief. Some people do appreciate that good images take time to produce, but that doesn't mean to say they are willing to pay for them.
-
I think using a non-pro photo for no monetary compensation is different than trying to use a pro's photo.
If someone wants to have something that belongs to you and engages in trickery to achieve it, does it really matter what you do for a living? If you fail to call theft by its real name does that make it any less of a theft? No to both questions.
-
This thread has inspired my latest blog -
http://inkplusimages.com/wp/
-
This thread has inspired my latest blog -
http://inkplusimages.com/wp/
+1