Allowing free use of images for publicaton

Canon Bob

Canon Bob

Loves the Enemy
Suspended / Banned
Messages
9,754
Name
Bob
Edit My Images
Yes
I've just been reading a thread detailing the publication of an image where no royalty payment changed hands. The image was taken by an amateur for personal pleasure and subsequently used by a "proffessional" publication.
Is this wrong or morally suspect?
Is someones livelihood being threatened?
Should the amateurs amongst us not allow unpaid use of images?

My initial reaction was that each and everyone of us should be free to do whatever we want with our images. I don't consider that the local baker would be justified in being agrieved if my wife baked a cake and gave it to my neighbour. I don't think the local garage would be justified in feeling threatened if I towed someones broken down car home for them. Is the image situation any different? I may be missing something

Should there be a "union", like Equity, who try to ensure that images published must be from "signed up pro's"?

I'm not making judgement about what transpired in another thread, nor the person who posted it, but more trying to discover if there is a serious and immoral threat to pro's from amateurs.

I guess this may be a little immotive so please try to keep any comments
impersonal so that we can see both side's POV and make up our minds when we've seen the viewpoints presented.

Bob
 
I see where you're coming from Bob but I dont really see how amateurs can be policed or licensed unless every camera phone user received the same treatment. The trouble is, there are a lot of really good amateurs out there and distinguishing the quality between amateur and pro is getting harder by the day. You cant blame the publication either as they have the choice, amateur quality and price versus pro quality and price.

You could always ask amateurs not to release shots without payment but many would just like to have the honour of having a pic chosen .. maybe after the first, then they would think more about charging.
 
i actually think there will come a time when some photographers will actually pay to get their photos published, not only give them away for free.

The way i see it going is that it will be like racing driving. The beginers will pay (do it for free) and the cream will rise to the top. The cream will get paid.

At the end of the day its supply and demand. Digital photography has made it much easier for people to produce decent shots. But the increase in demand hasnt been anywhere near as big.

I can see why established photographers dont want the new talent to give stuff away because they dont want people taking their jobs / clients.. but i'm afraid that the world changes and you need to adapt or die.
 
As a professional I simply can't afford to work for free, but if other people want to do so then that's entirely up to them.

My view is that they're being duped, because if people weren't prepared to work for nothing then everyone would benefit but I don't blame them if they regard it as some kind of honour. I blame the people who exploit them, and especially the TV companies who 'allow' members of the public to upload their news photos, weather photos etc in the hope that they'll get 5 seconds of exposure on the box.
 
badgerbaiter said:
i actually think there will come a time when some photographers will actually pay to get their photos published, not only give them away for free.
Click to expand...
That's an interesting twist that I hadn't considered and certain similarities exist in the early stages of other careers.

Garry Edwards said:
As a professional I simply can't afford to work for free, but if other people want to do so then that's entirely up to them.
Click to expand...
I fully understand your need to earn a living. I think the difference here is whether the work is commisioned or not. I assume you earn your living by fullfilling commissions....whether they be weddings, product shots, magazine shots etc. The amateurs who get published in whatever media are generally filling a niche that has arisen because amateurs exist....would that niche (ie, TV weather) exist if there weren't amateurs to service it?

Bob
 
Canon Bob said:
I fully understand your need to earn a living. I think the difference here is whether the work is commisioned or not. I assume you earn your living by fullfilling commissions....whether they be weddings, product shots, magazine shots etc. The amateurs who get published in whatever media are generally filling a niche that has arisen because amateurs exist....would that niche (ie, TV weather) exist if there weren't amateurs to service it?

Bob
Click to expand...

You're right that all of my work is comissioned (advertising & commercial photography) which, to be honest is probably why I'm pretty laid back about people giving away there own work if they want to. But giving away work in return for a hoped-for few moments of fame applies to all types of shots, not just news - I've lost count of the number of local papers who don't need to pay for photos of non-league football matches because people will give them free shots for example. The same thing applies to news, it always has but is much more prevalent now that most people carry around camera phones.

A long time ago when I was a trainee photographer there was a serious fire almost opposite the studio. I grabbed a camera and got a good shot of a fireman rescuing a woman from the top floor - very dramatic, page 1 stuff.

I phoned the local paper, they were very keen and said that a messenger was on the way to pick up the film. I was very excited, my manager then asked me how much they were paying.
"He didn't say anthing about paying" I said.
My manager told me that I was an idiot and told me to ring him back and find out. The answer was that they didn't pay anything, small local paper, no budget, all the cr*p they still use today. I told them that in that case I'd keep the photo.
He then said that they'd pay standard rates. When I asked how much that was he said he didn't know as he didn't handle that side of things. My manager then took the phone from me and after a few choice swear words he said "O.K., that's just about acceptable, don't mess me about, I want the payment within a week".

How much did they find they could pay when it wasn't free? The equivalent of 8 weeks of my (very low) wages.

The big difference today is that there are no obvious film and printing costs, people feel that it doesn't cost them anything to give their photos away, and the media take advantage of this. The BBC, ITV Companies etc encourage people to upload images on to their websites in the hope that their photos may be chosen and used for free.

As I said in my previous post, I don't blame the photographers, I blame the people who exploit them.
 
Then there is the good old "Job Trap" I know a fair few of us in this one and it's not right to complain about it but it does exist.

Basically, I'm now in my forties and have got to roughly where I want to be in my career. Unfortunately that's not photography but it pays rather well. While I was busy getting there, digital photography came along. Now I used to use film and pretty much always had a camera around me but when digital arrived, all of a sudden it became affordable to take photography to a level I could only have dreamed of with the cost of film. With digital I can actually experiment, try different kinds of photography too, all pretty much with one camera.

So you now have a band of really keen togs out there who are capable of producing some first class images (not me but they are out there) The only real constraints on them is the time they have to devote to bringing home the bacon in their day job.

Come the weekend however, you will find them in studios, shooting sports, shooting weddings, the family portraits are done already.

Will they give their images away for free and potentially devalue the market? I hope not but there are those who will. I did read a really good article in Professional Photography about it a couple of months ago and there are arguments both for and against. A few people saying that the only way they could get into the market was by working for free to get their work out there and once the quality was established, they could then charge. Others saying that it devalues the market.
 
AliB said:
Will they give their images away for free and potentially devalue the market? I hope not but there are those who will. I did read a really good article in Professional Photography about it a couple of months ago and there are arguments both for and against. A few people saying that the only way they could get into the market was by working for free to get their work out there and once the quality was established, they could then charge. Others saying that it devalues the market.
Click to expand...

Which comes back to Bob's original post and leads on to Gary's about people paying to have images published just to get their name and work out there, with the cream rising to the top and being paid.

I don't think pro's with an stablish client base and a portfolio to back it up have need to worry just yet, but those that do 'one-off' jobs, eg, wedding photographers, are probably in boat that has some definate holing below the water line and they have to learn to swim hard and fast if they are to survive. For instance, how many amateurs [by that, I mean people that don't generally get paid for their work] do you see posting here 'x relative/friend has asked me to cover their wedding' ? This happens so often as so many people have 'good looking kit' these days that of course cousin julie is going to try and get a bit of a saving on her big and expensive day. She may regret it afterwards, but by then its too late.


Bottom line is this, its a tough game that is getting tougher, you have to be good at your art, very very good and you have to know how to market yourself if you are to survive and know the value of your work. Sadly we will never persuade the 5 second fame seekers that sending the BBC, ITV, SKY or any other media company free images, is killing the trade, so the trade has to adapt, because whilst those companies have an unlimited supply of even half decent shots, they are not going to be paying for very decent shots. :shake:
 
if someone took a photo of a headline story then the local paper should definitely pay them, no way should that photo be given away for free. The front page is what sells the newspaper.

With Matt's shot (which is what started the discussion) it was a shot of a local racing driver that the driver wanted in the newspaper for a little publicity for himself.
In my experience a lot of the sports news in a local paper is supplied by the people in the story. The newspapers are never going to pay for this as they can take it or leave it.
 
badgerbaiter said:
With Matt's shot (which is what started the discussion) it was a shot of a local racing driver that the driver wanted in the newspaper for a little publicity for himself.
Click to expand...

I have to confess that my initial reaction to one of the posts was "miserable sod". Reflecting on it for a while was the reason for starting this one and I could see a possible parallel to a company replacing its workforce with cheaper migrant labour...how would I have felt?...and is this how a pro tog sees amateurs when there's only so much publishing space to go around.

I think I'm starting to get a better understanding of where we're at and where it's all going in the future.

Bob
 
Canon Bob said:
I have to confess that my initial reaction to one of the posts was "miserable sod". Reflecting on it for a while was the reason for starting this one and I could see a possible parallel to a company replacing its workforce with cheaper migrant labour...how would I have felt?...and is this how a pro tog sees amateurs when there's only so much publishing space to go around.

I think I'm starting to get a better understanding of where we're at and where it's all going in the future.

Bob
Click to expand...

the difference is that this thread is actually a proper discussion and isnt p*ssing on anyone's parade :)
 
As has already been said there are a lot of very talented amateurs who may well be better than some of the pros, but with the time constraints of job and family they cannot do photography full time but get a kick from seeing one of their pictures in the local paper.

I doubt if smaller papers or other publications would use as many pictures if they had to pay full rates on all of them as they would be out of business pretty quickly if they did, but the bigger more commercial ones can certainly afford it.

Pro photographers are going to lose some work to talented amateurs, but I don't think that the ones who are good at what they do, and have the marketing and admin skills to back up the quality of the images will have to worry too much yet as although there are always going to be people who want something like the £200 a day wedding photographer, there are going to be a lot more who know that if they want someone established who will give (pretty much) guaranteed top quality results they need to pay rates that are commensurate with that sort of quality.
 
badgerbaiter said:
if someone took a photo of a headline story then the local paper should definitely pay them, no way should that photo be given away for free. The front page is what sells the newspaper.
QUOTE]

Agreed.
But the point I was trying to make is that newspapers and others have always tried it on, hoping that mugs like me (or like I was when I was 17) would work for them for free.

Nothing has changed, except that we now have digital and they now have websites to which the mugs can upload their images
Click to expand...
 
Negotiating rates is a bit daunting to someone just starting out and many people may not how to do a pitch or where to price his photos. I'm sure many beginners would find some guidance useful.
 
The NUJ rates are a good guideline, I just wish there was some software like fotoquote, but more UK/Europe orientated.
 
I would love to to be good enough to go as a full time pro, but i aint good enough so cant afford the pay cut to match my level.

But i sure as hell wont give my stuff away for no reward.
 
Whilst some may call it stupid, the photographer who owns the copyright has the right to decide what monetary value he/she puts on an image (from zero to more than anyone is willing to pay). Some of the comments on this thread do highlight what a friend of mine who earns a good living from photography always says, that its the commercial side that takes more effort than the photography.
 
If you're good at something, don't do it for free.

I can understand people getting annoyed when this directly effects them.
If you're sole income is, say for example, freelancing for newspapers, covering big events, snapping celeb's etc, and you found you lost out to someone who gave their photo away for free, I can see why you'd get peeved.

The more people work for free, the more people expect you to work for free.
I think photographers should stand up for each other, pro or non-pro.

I've wanted to be a pro tog for a few years now, but it seems that it is almost as difficult to make a living out of as music is. You have to be good, you have to be out there, and you have to be noticeable. Now, I'm not too lazy to pursue it, but perhaps it's not the most sensible option for career if I want a comfortable life...

In reply to Badger's post, I'm reading a book called "best business practises for photographers".
One of the opening lines was something like, "Forget what you know about photography if you want to make it as a pro photographer. You need to have a business head on."
 
foodpoison said:
If you're good at something, don't do it for free.
Click to expand...

I disagree completely, not that I'm any good! I'd hapily give away any of my photos for a single use in a magazine/newspaper/website without any financial reward. Photography is my hobby and I never want to blur the lines bettween it and work I did that once before with computers and now can't stand the sight of them! As for the pro's that moan get over it the value of your photo's is not set by you it's set by the market and if the market value for a particular image is £0 because a comparable one can be obtained for free then thats the way it is. When I first started out in IT I could make reasonable money fixing home PC's but it's now practically impossible as everyone knows a computer literate friend/family member/coleague who will do it for free or a couple of beers did I moan? No I went and learned to do something that fewer people can do so I could still make a living.

I don't think we'd be having this discussion if someone comes up with a free petrol alternative and it starts denting the profits of shell etc?
 
foodpoison said:
In reply to Badger's post, I'm reading a book called "best business practises for photographers".
One of the opening lines was something like, "Forget what you know about photography if you want to make it as a pro photographer. You need to have a business head on."
Click to expand...

Does this book have an ISBN so I can track it down (assuming you think its worth reading?)
 
At the end of the day I think this sort of indecent will always happen. And really it's up to the parties concerned to decide what's good for each of them We are seeing more and more royalty Free images being available. Some are better value to the Photographer and others. I think there will always be occasions where images are "given away" In some cases it's to both parties mutual advantage, such as amateur football clubs. The local paper gets the pictures free ( they probably don't have funds to pay for them anyway) and the club gets publicity.

We hear incidents of images being high jacked off the internet, Several members in this forum have had it happen to them. OK if you don't want it happen to you don't put them on on line picture sharing sites, but loads of people do.

I also don't think this is new. People have always sent their pictures into newspaper, with the hope of seeing it published. They normally receive no payment, and are happy just to be able to boast that they've been published. As I said I don't think this is a new phenomena, it's just with the internet and on line forums we get to hear about it, and are able to discuss it.
 
It doesn't just happen in togging and with the current economic climate, it's going to get a lot worse before it gets better (if it ever does).

The less than scrupulous will always try and blag a freebie whilst charging the end user a profitable amount.

There are many sectors of industry where the maxim of doing a few jobs cheap or free to get your foot in the door is now proving to be a good way to go bust even quicker for many people.

Targeting your market is more important than ever and if your market is one where you are expected to work for nothing then be happy and do it if you can afford to, otherwise find alternative markets that will pay you what you have decided you are worth.
 
I give away *some* of my photos to the press and I'm not ashamed to say so.

I'm involved in an Amateur Dramatics society. I order to keep costs down many people contribute the skills thay have for nothing (or just to cover parts/materials) One member is an electriction and handles all our PAT testing. Another is a chef and often provides a lot of free grub for parties. We have lots of other people who help out by donating skills. I help with photography / publicity and supply images to the newspapers FOC and souveneir prints of the cast members for cost only.

We also race a car. I provide images of our car to various local outlets for free because the publicity we get in return for us and our sponsors is worth more than cash alternative

I do make sure I'm credited though.

These are the only exceptions though.
 
It seems that it's not only Photographs that are wanted for free.

Mozilla is asking the public for help in the redesign of its web browser, Firefox.

Mozilla Labs, which is responsible for thinking up cutting edge ideas for Firefox, wants contributions from people who are not necessarily community-minded coders or experts.

Speaking to the Washington Post, Chris Beard, Vice President of Mozilla Labs, said he didn't just want technical concepts from those who know what can be feasibly coded.

He said: "Everything's on the table. The more radical the better."

Mozilla Labs' Concept Series calls for design submissions in the form of an idea write-up, an image or video mockup or and interactive prototype.

The evaluation process is still being worked out by Mozilla Labs.

While contributors would not be paid for their submissions and there is no guarantee that their ideas would make it into the browser, Mr Beard pointed out that Firefox using someone's idea would undoubtedly look impressive on that person's CV.

Copyright © PA Business 2008
 
andrewc said:
I give away *some* of my photos to the press and I'm not ashamed to say so.

I'm involved in an Amateur Dramatics society. I order to keep costs down many people contribute the skills thay have for nothing (or just to cover parts/materials) One member is an electriction and handles all our PAT testing. Another is a chef and often provides a lot of free grub for parties. We have lots of other people who help out by donating skills. I help with photography / publicity and supply images to the newspapers FOC and souveneir prints of the cast members for cost only.

We also race a car. I provide images of our car to various local outlets for free because the publicity we get in return for us and our sponsors is worth more than cash alternative

I do make sure I'm credited though.

These are the only exceptions though.
Click to expand...

But couldnt advertising be classed as a reward? :shrug:
 
russdaz said:
But couldnt advertising be classed as a reward? :shrug:
Click to expand...

Yes your right, so although no money changes hands, both parties are rewarded.
Back to the old days of barter
 
a1ex2001 said:
did I moan? No I went and learned to do something that fewer people can do so I could still make a living.

I don't think we'd be having this discussion if someone comes up with a free petrol alternative and it starts denting the profits of shell etc?
Click to expand...

Just because it happens, doesn't mean it's right!
But hey ho, the world isn't fair. Good bit of advice there. Do something that few other people can do, or hell, do it better than everyone else :p

And we wouldn't be having this discussion, because it doesn't effect us. But the petrol companies would.
I doubt you'd find people working at shell discussing photographers giving away freebies ;)

Hey AndrewC, the book has 2 isbn's - an isbn-10 and an isbn-13
I'll give you both :)

isbn-10 - 1-59863-315-5
isbn-13 - 978-1-59863-315-5
 
pro vs amateur discussion again? *sigh* would a successful and confident professional really bother with the arguing the point? no not really. what the crux of the matter is corporations using images for free e.g BBC, papers etc so they needn't pay a professional. therefore a professional either wouldn't bother with that sort of photography or would be on a commission for said organisations - again not needing to worry about the weekend warriors. If you're starting out the attraction of having your work visible for all to see at first may seem great but I'm sure we've all heard of people who are struggling when they expect to get paid next time around...therefore don't do it. as noted above - if its something utterly unique and original you're halfway home, if not learn to swim or grab the scuba gear!
 
The first picture that I sold was to Autosport, who didn't need any prompting to pay for it - the first thing they wanted to know was my details so they could send me a cheque. Since then it's always been my belief that if a publication wants something then they should be prepared to pay for it - if they don't want to pay, then it's probably no skin off their news if they don't use it - it's just filler. That's why I don't think you'll get too far with local papers and things most of the time, unless it's a really really big story that is going to sell them a lot more copies.

I work in motorsport, and no doubt if I sent the local pictures after every weekend (with some text) they would run it, but as soon as the question of payment came into the equation, they would find something else that they could get for free. Whereas specialist magazines will pay for stuff, because it's specific to that interest and will make the content of magazines better. So ultimately, as a full time working photographer, amateurs chucking local papers stuff isn't really going to keep me awake at night. The problem comes when people start giving stuff away for free to publications that would pay - just to see it in print. However, I think 95% of the time they will pay - see my Autosport example above, they had no idea who I was prior to that - whether the photographer gets as good a deal as a pro is another thing!

As far as I'm concerned I still get jobs that I'm happy I will have for the forseeable future - proper organisations will pay proper photographers to do a proper job!
 
Why shouldn't people be allowed to "give away" *their* work? In software there's whole armies of coders working away in their spare time producing applications to rival commercial offerings. I should know - my entire operating system and most of the applications running on it were written for free.

I'm a software engineer. Shouldn't I be worried and complaining about this? Problem is, I've written and given away code for free too :)

It's happening in the music industry too. Why should photography be any different?

I have sold images, but I have a right to let them be used in whatever way I see fit for free.
 
Mike Hoyer said:
proper organisations will pay proper photographers to do a proper job!
Click to expand...
No.

The first duty of proper organisations is to maximise the returns to their owners / shareholders. That means not paying more than you need to for stuff. (Yes, that's a gross simplification, but you know what I mean.)

If the market value for a particular kind of image is £0, and the organisation determined that that type of image would achieve their ends just as well as one for which the market value is not £0, then a proper organisation would pay £0.

Of course the appropriate response from a photographer who wants to be paid more than £0 would be to produce images for which the market value is not £0, and/or to persuade the client that paying more than £0 would achieve the organisation's ends more effectively. (That's the bit about needing a business brain as well as a photography brain.)

The world is forever changing. That's life. Adapt or die.
 
In my experience that's been the case. A car manufacturer will pay us, a known and respected company, a proper rate, when they could just as easily get any amateur to do it for nothing. They are familiar with our work and our reputation and know we will give them what they want. Most of the time it's fulfilling their brief, not telling them what they want.
 
the bbc used two of my images on their news website and some of my comments as well i thought to my self wonder how much i will get paid ,nothing,so if there is a next time i will ask if they pay for images that are used by them,,,
 
I have no issue to giving my work away, if I get what I want in return, reciprocal trading I guess, no money changes hands but we mutually benefit.

Some furniture shots, took me 2 hours, maybe 3 but I get an awesome location to shoot at and credited on the brochure, nothing to declare, BBC they are running a feature on what happens in our skies above Cumbria, I can help out there and get a gallery all to myself with a link back to my site ( http://www.bbc.co.uk:80/cumbria/content/image_galleries/low_fly_wood_sept08_gallery.shtml?17 )

I am not a pro, nor do I think I am damaging a pros business by doing what I am doing, just loving what I am doing and I tell you, my web site has had a hell of alot of hits this week !
 
well i will hold my hands up :suspect:

i am one of those people that does photos on the weekend and night times.

i have yet to charge people as i dont feel i am ready yet, so all work is gratis free.. i just use the models / people as practice..

but if i can get better i will start to charge.. and then hope to build on that..
i realise that there will be someone behind me doing the same . but if i can get to the standard i want to thats all i can do...


just imo


md:thumbs:
 
Interesting, Just recently (on Monday) I got asked by a 'new' magazine if they could use one of my images to accompany an article, a full A4 spread. Now did I have a problem with this - Yes! I could have been paid.
But from a promotional perspective with a URL and name that will be printed on the spread, this for me, is worth more in free advertising that charging a single fee with a license. So I agreed.
I have another income, so from a selfish point of view this is a great way to promote me instead of charging!
Just my opinion.
 
I think we have to exercise common sense on this issue and relate it to the market in which the pictures are being used.

I once had 6 pictures published across the centre spread of the leisure supplement of a local paper. Another was used on the index page to the supplement and yet another in the paper's sister publication. All for free.

What it did give me was huge publicity for my local outdoor pursuits club, around which the feature was based, at a time when we were making a big drive for new members. I also had my ego massaged for free by the picture editor, who phoned me to say he was pleasantly suprised by the quality of my pictures and that they were well up to professional standards.

Last year I donated a series of pictures to an up and comming rock band for use on their web gallery. It didn't deprive a pro of a sale because a) non were at the gig and b) the band couldn't have afforded it anyway. So what did I get out of it? Well, I really enjoyed the gig (it didn't cost me anything, either) and for what it's worth I thought they were great and have a chance of making it. It's a bit like buying a lottery ticket. Chances are they'll fade into oblivion along with my pictures. But what if they make it big? I'll still hold the copyright to the only pictures of a gig by a famous band before they became well known. :woot:

Recently, I agreed to donate pictures for web use to a local charitable trust which I'm keen to support. Can't see any harm there, either.

On the other hand, a national publication to which I contribute on a semi regular basis have started (without any request from me) to pay me a little more than their usual, published, rates as they like my work. Swings and roundabouts, I think. :)

I certainly can't see any harm in a young lad allowing free use of his first published picture in a local paper. By all means he should do it again and again if he wants. It will build his confidence, fire his imagination and give him a useful portfolio of successes to present to a bigger, paying, client when the time is right!

Well done Matt - Go! Go! Go! :thumbs:
 
I can see both sides of the argument here.

I've had stuff published in most of the equestrian mags, a good few of the motox mags and a fair number of local papers. Some of it I've charged for some of it I haven't. The stuff I haven't charged for has always been to help promote a club/organisation. What I usually find is the bigger the publication the readier they are to pay.

I also had an MP ask for a shot of him presenting an award to Zara Phillips. He still hasn't agreed to pay, says he doesn't have the budget, so he still hasn't got it :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top