Anyone for a game of Scruples?

[TimmyG]

OK I have a very serious dilemma that I've been going back and forth with and I hope some of you can offer an opinion and help me decide what is best to do..

As you may or may not know, I am primarily a macro photographer (I like to describe myself as an enthusiastic amateur) with a particular slant towards taking images of insects and other tiny invertebrates - check out my flickr stream if you would like to see examples).

I've had a few requests to use my images and these have previously been from non-profit organisations aiming to educate or promote awareness of wildlife issues (I'm usually happy to let images be used under these circumstances FoC). Recently I have received a request from a marketing company looking to use one of my images in an advertising campaign to launch a new type of insecticide.

Obviously there is some financial benefit to me by allowing them to use the image, but the issue I have been struggling with is that the product being advertised could well be at odds with my general appreciation of the smaller things in life. I even try to prevent my better half from waging chemical warfare in our back garden to the detriment of the pretty flowers and plants. That said, I don't get offers of payment for my images very often (I suppose there isn't all that much call for bug shots) and it makes sense that any commercial requirement for use of insect images will likely be for the control of one species or another.

I figured it might be best to just bullet point the different opinions that have been going on in my head:

In favour of selling usage rights:

• It's a new insecticide that targets key species and doesn't affect beneficial species. It might actually be more environmentally friendly than current products used.
• They will just find someone else's image anyway, pay them and use that. It's not as if you can stop them marketing their product.
• This is modern agriculture, the use of such chemicals is the only way we are able to sustain our population.
• The money can be put towards your not-insignificant costs to pursuing this hobby, and be used to help promote invertebrates in future.
• It's a good opportunity, the marketing company (and others) might look to use your work in the future.

Against:

• You are promoting a product that kills populations of the very subject you enjoy photographing.
• You don't know the wider impacts of the insecticide, exactly which species may be affected or how else it might impact the environment/food chain (nor do you have any real way of knowing).
• There are plenty of alternatives to using insecticides. Besides, our population is big enough!
• The money from the sale isn't going to make a significant difference to you. You are a hobbyist anyway, not a professional.

That's about it really. I'm struggling with whether or not to go for it, or politely refuse. I just don't know how much I should really be concerned about this, I guess it's just the way of the modern world and the fact is it might be a more environmentally friendly approach to existing techniques. This is why I am hoping some of you can offer an opinion, your thoughts and maybe some guidance as to what you would do in my situation.

I haven't responded to the company as yet, but should do soon (in the next day or so). If you have any suggestions about what questions I should be asking or can offer any advice around what I should be charging or any further considerations (it's a US company) then I would be grateful if you can share that also.

I've added the option to vote if you just want to submit a quick response, but I would obviously prefer to hear your reasoning.

Thanks all!

 

[simon ess]

The way I would look at it is this...

...whichever decision I make, how will I feel about it the next morning?

Only you can answer that.

 

[simonblue]

 

[steveo_mcg]

Toss a coin, its usually good for making your feelings clear regardless how it falls.

 

[Tintin124]

Now this is really your decision... but things to ask;

- How long will they use the image and for what?
- Do they want a permanent license or a temporary eg a year / 6 months

I would say take the payment, but then I would love to sell at least one of my images.... plus think of the equipment you could buy if its decent money which would help you advertise the insect world more in the future.

 

[BBR]

If they don't use your image they will use someone else's. You wont change anything environmental by refusing. However if you are going to be racked by guilt, refuse (they may use it anyway!!!)

 

[Nod]

Difficult one.

The product will be sold and used regardless of whether or not your image is used. From the sound of it, the product is less environmentally impacting than similar products that are currently in use. On the other side of the coin, there are a few companies that I wouldn't trust with a ha'penny but that's my problem not yours!

There's also a possible problem with receiving payment from them - they'll probably want a receipt and might even tell the tax man...

 

[Farmerjim]

So long as the new insecticide is bee friendly, I think you should go for it Tim. Well done

 

[StephenM]

Have you (subconsciously or otherwise) made it clear how you feel by the way you phrased the question in the poll? If accepting is seen by you as "selling out" it suggests to me that that's exactly how you'd feel if you did accept. Only you can decide. I know what I'd do, but I'm not you.

 

[Sharky]

Take the money, they'll use a photo regardless and you withholding an image won't change things.

 

[LCPete]

Not an easy one Tim and only you can make the decision
if it was me I would go for it as the new product is more environmentally friendly but I would check tbat its bee friendly

 

[Lindsay D]

I would first do some serious research into this new insecticide to find out exactly how it works, and on what, and whether it has any other potential environmental consequences.

I would then consider how I would feel having my work associated with that product, and if it could potentially affect my reputation at any point in the future.

If you can satisfy your conscience on both of those points then I would charge the company a suitable commercial fee according to the licence they require - if this is your hobby there's still no excuse to go cheap.

 

[TimmyG]

Thanks everyone for your replies!

The way I would look at it is this...

...whichever decision I make, how will I feel about it the next morning?

Only you can answer that.

Thanks Simon, you are right of course, but the problem is I don't know how I will feel in the morning. I start leaning one way, then after a while lean towards the other, which is why I am seeking the sound advice and opinions of the people on this forum (all of whom I love and trust implicitly) . Besides, doesn't it make a nice topic for discussion on a Monday afternoon?

Toss a coin, its usually good for making your feelings clear regardless how it falls.

That's a very good tip. In fact I've thought of another way of evaluating my feelings on the subject in a similar way...

Now this is really your decision... but things to ask;

- How long will they use the image and for what?
- Do they want a permanent license or a temporary eg a year / 6 months

I would say take the payment, but then I would love to sell at least one of my images.... plus think of the equipment you could buy if its decent money which would help you advertise the insect world more in the future.

Good advice, cheers Bryn. I've not sold any of my images before, so I'm after all the tips I can get (if not on this occasion, then it will hopefully help me in case of any future transactions.

If they don't use your image they will use someone else's. You wont change anything environmental by refusing. However if you are going to be racked by guilt, refuse (they may use it anyway!!!)

Thanks Brian, I doubt I will be racked with guilt but I may feel a bit hypocritical and regret my actions. I'm beginning to lean towards selling the image as even if I do regret it in the future I should at least be able to make mistakes and learn from them. I could apply the same logic to any decision I make and us it as an excuse to do things I know simply aren't right though. Gah! Why did they make life so hard??

Difficult one.

The product will be sold and used regardless of whether or not your image is used. From the sound of it, the product is less environmentally impacting than similar products that are currently in use. On the other side of the coin, there are a few companies that I wouldn't trust with a ha'penny but that's my problem not yours!

There's also a possible problem with receiving payment from them - they'll probably want a receipt and might even tell the tax man...

Thanks Nod, I'm glad you agree it's a difficult decision. Just to clarify, I'm not really sure if the product is more environmentally friendly that current products, all I know is that it targets specific pests and doesn't impact "beneficial" species. What constitutes a beneficial species, I have no idea and it will probably be categorised in commercial terms anyway. At the moment I don't know if the environmental impact will be worse than what is done currently and I suspect I'll never be able to know with any certainty. It might just be me "wanting" the product to be a better alternative

Yeah, not really sure how I'm going to work the transaction yet (if I go ahead), if I can use paypal or some other means. I'll need to look into it. Certainly don't want to dodge any taxes so will need to see what's involved with that also.

Cheers

So long as the new insecticide is bee friendly, I think you should go for it Tim. Well done

Excellent point! If anything needs a break at the moment it's the bees! I think i'll ask that question specifically and see if they are listed as a "beneficial species" (I assume they must be).
If the product prevents further devastation to the bee populations then that helps me come to a clear conclusion.

Have you (subconsciously or otherwise) made it clear how you feel by the way you phrased the question in the poll? If accepting is seen by you as "selling out" it suggests to me that that's exactly how you'd feel if you did accept. Only you can decide. I know what I'd do, but I'm not you.

Not subconsciously, but knowingly used the terms "sell out" and "fool" in the different options! I'm damned if I do, and damned if I don't in my mind

I'd be interested in hearing what you would do if you are willing to share. I'm trying to gauge as many opinions on the matter as possible, there are no doubt many more factors that I just haven't considered!

 

[Tringa]

A difficult one, Tim and I can understand your concern given you very much appear to have a strong interest in the creatures you photograph.

It seems the first use the company are asking about is environmentally friendly, but it may be used differently in the future.

What does the Web tell you about the company?

If you asked the company about how they operate and how they would use your photo, they could be helpful, but could easily decide they can't be bothered answering questions and find a shot somewhere else.

If I was in your position I would go for it, unless any info you can find about the company indicates their policy is to kill anything with more legs than a goat, which seems unlikely given you said it was a new insecticide that targets only some species.

If you felt altruistic you could donate the money to a local cause to encourage invertebrates.


Dave

PS I am not suggesting you should donate any money you get and if I am honest I am not sure I would. However, as you have said the money could go to your hobby which, via you photos, promotes invertebrates.

 

[TimmyG]

Take the money, they'll use a photo regardless and you withholding an image won't change things.

Thanks Sharky, I tend to agree. It's just a case of deciding if this is something I would like to associate myself with, especially when I try to actively promote wildlife issues.

Not an easy one Tim and only you can make the decision
if it was me I would go for it as the new product is more environmentally friendly but I would check tbat its bee friendly

I think that gives me my next approach. If it is beneficial to the bees then it might have an overall benefit for the environment and could be something that should be encouraged!

I would first do some serious research into this new insecticide to find out exactly how it works, and on what, and whether it has any other potential environmental consequences.

I would then consider how I would feel having my work associated with that product, and if it could potentially affect my reputation at any point in the future.

If you can satisfy your conscience on both of those points then I would charge the company a suitable commercial fee according to the licence they require - if this is your hobby there's still no excuse to go cheap.

Thanks Lindsay, yes how it affects my future reputation is a concern. Of course I might never get a decent "reputation" anyway, it's not as if I have one at the moment I think I need to go back and ask some more questions to help settle my mind. I certainly won't be giving it away for free to a commercial company, even if it is just in support of other photographers trying to make a living from this type of thing.

A difficult one, Tim and I can understand your concern given you very much appear to have a strong interest in the creatures you photograph.

It seems the first use the company are asking about is environmentally friendly, but it may be used differently in the future.

What does the Web tell you about the company?

If you asked the company about how they operate and how they would use your photo, they could be helpful, but could easily decide they can't be bothered answering questions and find a shot somewhere else.

If I was in your position I would go for it, unless any info you can find about the company indicates their policy is to kill anything with more legs than a goat, which seems unlikely given you said it was a new insecticide that targets only some species.

If you felt altruistic you could donate the money to a local cause to encourage invertebrates.


Dave

PS I am not suggesting you should donate any money you get and if I am honest I am not sure I would. However, as you have said the money could go to your hobby which, via you photos, promotes invertebrates.

Thanks Dave, unfortunately I don't have much information about the company itself, the request has come from a marketing company working on their behalf (I don't even know the name of the company). I think I need to go back with a few questions around the company/product itself, how it is beneficial compared to other products on the market and then some more questions around intended use of the image. I'll have to try and word it in a way that I am willing to go ahead without too much messing around in the hope they respond positively and are able to address my concerns.

You hit the nail on the head with donating the funds to good causes. It was what I was thinking with my earlier hint at getting a better understanding of my true feelings on the matter. I even have an idea of where I would like the money to go. It all depends how much I can get of course, and what percentage I am willing to give up!

 

[StephenM]

Not subconsciously, but knowingly used the terms "sell out" and "fool" in the different options! I'm damned if I do, and damned if I don't in my mind

I'd be interested in hearing what you would do if you are willing to share. I'm trying to gauge as many opinions on the matter as possible, there are no doubt many more factors that I just haven't considered!

I'd go with Lindsay's advice, with a bias towards accepting. It's difficult to predict side effects in advance, and I wouldn't expect that it would be possible to know what is likely to happen until non-experts start using the product in volumes. On that basis, my main interest would be in the company, and whether it's one I'd be prepared to help, and make my decision accordingly. All other things being equal, I'd accept.

 

[parkmoy]

I understand your dilemna but the fact that you are shying from making a decision speaks volumes. Whatever you decide I sense that you will have regrets. That being the case, take the money and run. At least a few quid will help ease your conscience.

 

[TimmyG]

I'd go with Lindsay's advice, with a bias towards accepting. It's difficult to predict side effects in advance, and I wouldn't expect that it would be possible to know what is likely to happen until non-experts start using the product in volumes. On that basis, my main interest would be in the company, and whether it's one I'd be prepared to help, and make my decision accordingly. All other things being equal, I'd accept.

Thanks Stephen! That aligns with my current thinking.

I understand your dilemna but the fact that you are shying from making a decision speaks volumes. Whatever you decide I sense that you will have regrets. That being the case, take the money and run. At least a few quid will help ease your conscience.

Ha ha! You are probably right, many quids might get rid of it entirely

Thanks everyone for your input. I've messaged the marketing company back and explained my initial hesitancy and asked for more info about their client and their product (in general terms, I didn't ask specifics - lets see what they come back with, they may not have bothered to find out for themselves)!

I've also sent them small thumbnails of some of the alternative shots I got of the same subject they are interested in, more to show I am serious about proceeding and to keep them on the hook as it were.

I've asked them to confirm the conditions they would like to license the image under, it's usage and scope.

I will obviously report back to let you know what they come back with, and I may need some advice on an appropriate amount to ask for depending on their requirements. If you have any further thoughts on the matter I would like to hear them. I haven't signed on the dotted line yet!

 

[big soft moose]

I would first do some serious research into this new insecticide to find out exactly how it works, and on what, and whether it has any other potential environmental consequences.

I would then consider how I would feel having my work associated with that product, and if it could potentially affect my reputation at any point in the future.

If you can satisfy your conscience on both of those points then I would charge the company a suitable commercial fee according to the licence they require - if this is your hobby there's still no excuse to go cheap.

I'm with lindsay on this.

my principals arent for sale so if I can't satisfy my concience then they can go eleswhere

 

[TimmyG]

OK update about the product being advertised:

http://agfax.com/midsouth/reports/10/sponsored/links/carbine-tech-sheet.pdf

I've read some success story/usage reports and it seems it is generally recommended for use as a last resort where biological control measures have failed. Although I can't find much information about it's potential misuse, I am reassured by the following statements:

"KEY COMPONENT OF INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT (IPM) PROGRAMS: Carbine is soft on beneficial insects including bees and predatory and parasitic insects, such as lady beetles, lacewings, mites and parasitic wasps. Preservation of beneficials will continue to contribute to overall pest control.
EXCELLENT ENVIRONMENTAL PROFILE: Carbine has been classified as “practically non-toxic” to honeybees, aquatic organisms, fish and birds."

In light of this, and the fact that I'm struggling to see how withholding my image will have a significant, positive impact on the environment (only my conscience) I am likely to agree to the request subject to T&Cs. At least I will have the option of putting the cash towards a good cause rather than in the pocket of some one else who may not care.

 

[TimmyG]

I'm with lindsay on this.

my principals arent for sale so if I can't satisfy my concience then they can go eleswhere

I would agree to a certain extent, but I think some cases need to be taken in context. To quote the most excellent Charles Henry "Chuck" Mosley III from the alternative rock group, Faith No More, "It's a dirty job, but someone's got to do it." I think with this in mind, I'll sleep soundly tonight

 

[big soft moose]

only you can decide if it satisfies your concience... however its a dirty job but someone has to do it doesnt cutr it as a justification to me.... just because they'll pay someone doesnt mean that someone has to be you if you don't feel product x is ethical/compatible ewith your principals

 

[TimmyG]

only you can decide if it satisfies your concience... however its a dirty job but someone has to do it doesnt cutr it as a justification to me.... just because they'll pay someone doesnt mean that someone has to be you if you don't feel product x is ethical/compatible ewith your principals

Hmm... well put, I think I need to sleep on it.

 

[big soft moose]

just remember theres just an inch between striking out and striking rich

 

[Lindsay D]

Carbine has been classified as “practically non-toxic” to honeybees, aquatic organisms, fish and birds."

I know from experience that the information used in many documents and press releases have been written in-house and as such will highlight the beneficial aspects of the product and will play down the negatives. I'm struggling to understand what 'practically non-toxic' actually means. Surely something is either toxic, non-toxic, or toxic to some organisms and not others.

Timmy, your work is wonderful (and distinctive) and can be saved for the best commercial applications in my opinion - unless there is a real financial imperative to taking this one on (and I totally appreciate we will have to make a living and often that is justification enough in going forward, if the fee for this is compelling enough) I would probably take a bit more time to consider the product. A couple of times I have been asked to supply some of my photos to organisations which I don't feel entirely comfortable with and I'm very glad I declined.

 

[big soft moose]

to be fair Pyridine Carboxamide (the active ingredient in carbine) seems pretty benign as pesticides go, - I can't find any refference to it being linked with CCD

On the other hand FMC who make it, also make all sorts of other stuff, some much less benign, including jointly developing with Bayer "Allectus" - which combines Imidacloprid and and bifthren in one easy to admisnister dose.

Imidacloprid has been conclusively linked with CCD by a study at harvard university

So end of the day it depends whether you can live with helping one of the firms that makes that stuff make money , with the justification that the chemical you are helping them promote is relatively harmless. Personally I wouldn't be happy with that but everyone is different

 

[Paul Iddon]

Tim, if you're image was on a stock library and sold by said library, 99.9% of the photos used and sold the photography probably never finds out about, save for the payment of some money.

So if Getty sold it and you got £500 you'd be very happy not not knowing who or why bought it.


Take the money.

Paul.

 

[T0p cat]

All I am going to say is this. If it hurts or kills one single variety of our springtails/collembola then I will never let you post a picture again in this country without me hounding and harassing you.

 

[TimmyG]

I know from experience that the information used in many documents and press releases have been written in-house and as such will highlight the beneficial aspects of the product and will play down the negatives. I'm struggling to understand what 'practically non-toxic' actually means. Surely something is either toxic, non-toxic, or toxic to some organisms and not others.

Timmy, your work is wonderful (and distinctive) and can be saved for the best commercial applications in my opinion - unless there is a real financial imperative to taking this one on (and I totally appreciate we will have to make a living and often that is justification enough in going forward, if the fee for this is compelling enough) I would probably take a bit more time to consider the product. A couple of times I have been asked to supply some of my photos to organisations which I don't feel entirely comfortable with and I'm very glad I declined.

Thanks Lindsay. The money isn't really the issue, it would be nice for my hobby to provide some way of financing itself, but I have an alternate income and any money I make through photography (zero so far) is just a bonus. I have been reading some more articles on the topic and I've had a shift of opinion which I will describe below.

to be fair Pyridine Carboxamide (the active ingredient in carbine) seems pretty benign as pesticides go, - I can't find any refference to it being linked with CCD

On the other hand FMC who make it, also make all sorts of other stuff, some much less benign, including jointly developing with Bayer "Allectus" - which combines Imidacloprid and and bifthren in one easy to admisnister dose.

Imidacloprid has been conclusively linked with CCD by a study at harvard university

So end of the day it depends whether you can live with helping one of the firms that makes that stuff make money , with the justification that the chemical you are helping them promote is relatively harmless. Personally I wouldn't be happy with that but everyone is different

Thanks, yes the research I have been doing seems to suggest that Carbine (common name Flonicamid) has seemingly less environmental impact than other insecticides used in similar roles. Of course I have no real way of knowing what other issues it may cause, which is why I am generally against the use of such chemicals wherever possible and would actively promote the use of alternative methods.

I even went looking for alternatives. I found a UK charity that promotes the use of alternative (organic) farming methods, the Soil Association.

As if this was all planned, they are currently running a campaign to prevent the overturning of a exisiting ban on three specific insecticides within the EU and a complete ban on the group of insecticides they belong to, the neonicotinoids.

http://www.soilassociation.org/keepbritainbuzzing

Neonicotinoids are widely believed to be the chemicals that are having most effect on declining bee populations. One of the potential alternatives to using neonicotinoids is the supposedly less harmful insecticide, Flonicamid (one of the brand names it is known by is Carbine).

Although I am not overly keen on the idea of promoting the use of insecticides, this may be for the greater good and a better solution than any current alternatives. If I refuse the request, I may be making a stand for my own principles but I can't see how that will have a positive contribution to "the cause."

By accepting the money and making a donation to the Soil Association I am able to deliver a double whammy to the fight against neonicotinoids (promote less harmful alternatives along with promoting responsible farming methods).

I am now seeing this as an opportunity to have a positive impact on the issues I care about rather than worrying about playing a negative role. I'll continue to research further, but it's a key switch in my mindset and I am actually now quite excited and happy about the idea.

Edit: A note about FMC as a company. As far as I can tell they are a massive global company that sells multiple products under different brand names, almost like a distributor. I believe Carbine was actually created by a Japanese company but I'll see if I can find out more detail. It is what it is...

 

[TimmyG]

Tim, if you're image was on a stock library and sold by said library, 99.9% of the photos used and sold the photography probably never finds out about, save for the payment of some money.

So if Getty sold it and you got £500 you'd be very happy not not knowing who or why bought it.


Take the money.

Paul.

Thanks Paul, you are absolutely right. I did put some pictures up for sale with Getty. What a waste of time and effort that was... I doubt I would see a fiver from them, let alone £500.

All I am going to say is this. If it hurts or kills one single variety of our springtails/collembola then I will never let you post a picture again in this country without me hounding and harassing you.

Ha ha! I would expect nothing less Fortunately, although I suspect the use of any chemicals would have a serious impact on our favorite hexapods, hopefully this option is better than the alternative, and I have the opportunity to contribute to safer soil management solutions for our little friends in the long term

 

[Jayst84]

If I refuse the request, I may be making a stand for my own principles but I can't see how that will have a positive contribution to "the cause."

If everyone has the attitude of; why bother when someone else will just do it anyway? Then we're all doomed.

Although you could make a case, as you have done, for reallocating the funds. A la Chumbawamba and General Motors.

 

[viv1969]

As far as reputation being damaged, I think folks are overestimating how much the world cares about whose image is on the front of a pack of "insert pesticide here", to be honest.

 

[Testudo Man]

Tim, dont do it mate, dont take the money. I think you will regret it, if you do a runner with the cash.

You are a bug lover, not a bug hater