Did you get paid, Did you get paid, Did you get paid????

Status
Not open for further replies.
As I've said before, you are all hypocrites for discussing this thing on an internet forum.

I could have written a (paid for) piece for a monthly magazine about the effect of the amateur photographer on pro photography businesses, but I can't because you lot are using the internet and not buying printed magazines any more... because the internet is free.

Where's the solidarity with your copy writing comrades?

Scabs!
 
stu_the_flat said:
If they can pay and won't pay them thats a completely diffrent matter!
Click to expand...

Every publication can pay if they want a particular picture - if they just want to fill a page they take free.
 
I wrote something about this last night, may as well share it here, hopefully it explains my stance:


Working for free is something many swear they wont do, but I do it, and this is why.
I specialise in live music, and have found that working for free is not only getting me a portfolio that constantly evolves, but it also allows me to take photos that I would be unable to do any other way.

I managed to get a press pass for a couple of major artists, but as I tried to take it further, refusals were all I got. I realised that if I wanted to take things further then I needed to have an outlet for my images. Obviously established magazines have staff they rely on, and breaking into that world without a great portfolio, contacts and a little luck is impossible.

I wanted to take photos of major label artists, so I had to find that outlet to get a pass. I contacted a magazine that is distributed in my local area but, apart from a few staff who put the magazine together and sell advertising space, it relies on volunteers to create content. So I had two choices, work for free and use the magazine to help gain press passes and build up a portfolio, or give up on shooting live music at a larger level?

That gave me one option, to work for free. Sure I don’t get paid, but I get to shoot what I love.
One free magazine to another eventually lead me, through a friend, to photograph for the local arm (web) of a national media. Again it did not pay, but got me into gigs and was good for the client list. Their policy is not to pay for images, so I knew I was not being taken advantage of. I knew what I was getting in to, and went for it.

So does working for free do me harm or good? I work to expand my portfolio and I get my name and my work seen by a lot of people. I get to network, to help me move on.

I do have a set of rules regarding my free work though.
I work for free to further my own career; but I make sure I do it without hurting the career of others, or letting myself be exploited.
Jobs that help me expand my portfolio, help me network or help a charity I believe in. Sign me up.

Working to benefit someone else, being taken advantage of to get an image on the cheap. Knock on the next door as mine is not for you!
The amount of bands who want (expect) free press kit images even though they have £10,000 worth of equipment on stage is unbelievable. Don’t contact me, as I won’t do it, not even for a credit on your MySpace page. If you have any sense, you won’t either.

Any bands who happen to read this. Instead of taking your £100 fee for the show and spending it getting wrecked at the bar afterwards, save it and put it towards getting a decent press kit. Image is everything, and you get what you pay for.

I think of the work I do for free in the same way I look at my personal projects. It is helping me progress as a photographer, and is something I have a passion for.

My free work has lead to paid work, meaning that my effort is beginning to pay off exactly how I wanted it to.
Doing free work has allowed me to shoot personal heroes and world famous musicians, and I am proud to say I have done this without hurting anyone else’s career or being taken advantage of. It has given me a portfolio full of content that is now getting me paid work. Would my story be the same if I shot every local bands press kit for free? I very much doubt it.

I was always told you have to choose your battles wisely, I think you need to choose who you give your free work to even more so.
 
Last edited:
Greatpost Sam - feel very much as you do about this issue.
I take pics because I like to and if one turns out then I am chuffed - the attitude of "if you are good at something always charge" is not a consideration.
 
Following on from some comments above, I bake my own bread and no longer buy from the local bakery. I even give some of the bread away to friends. But I don't log on to Talk Baking and post an article boasting about my free bread program because I can see how some pro bakers there who are expected to give help, opportunities and informed criticism could be a little bit narked.
 
Col said:
Greatpost Sam - feel very much as you do about this issue.
I take pics because I like to and if one turns out then I am chuffed - the attitude of "if you are good at something always charge" is not a consideration.
Click to expand...

I think that saying it is an attitude of always charge isn't really getting the issue. If (for example) you give your work to a magazin with a £5 cover price, and a cicrulation of 400,000 thats helping that publication on the ways to a £2m turnover, they paid the writers, the editors, the distributers & everybody else. Why don't you want to be paid for your efforts as well?
 
awp said:
Every publication can pay if they want a particular picture - if they just want to fill a page they take free.
Click to expand...

So are you saying that if we where standing side by side taking the same photos, you think an editor will take my photos that are slightly soft because of lack of experience/ inappropriate kit over a sharp high quality image that can be blown up to any size?

Stuart
 
CaptainPenguin said:
I wonder if the vociferous pro togs can say hand on heart that they never shot for free when they were getting started
Click to expand...

there is a difference between shooting something for a portfolio, or for contacts or something else, and shooting for free
 
ianmarsh said:
Following on from some comments above, I bake my own bread and no longer buy from the local bakery. I even give some of the bread away to friends. But I don't log on to Talk Baking and post an article boasting about my free bread program because I can see how some pro bakers there who are expected to give help, opportunities and informed criticism could be a little bit narked.
Click to expand...

expected?? so they don't come on TP by choice then?
 
This is a tricky one, while I make my living from photography, my GF has just had an image published in a well known photographic magazine (for free) I'm torn to both sides of the argument.
My GF entered a photographic competition (with an other organization) the judge worked for the magizine and contacted her, since she has only handled a "proper" camera since March needless to say she was chuffed to bits, it's certainly encouraged her a lot, shes off out today buying a 550d and some len's as a matter of fact.
Is it a good thing or a bad thing? I very much doubt the magazine would have payed a pro to shoot the pic she took, and I suspect they get enough "freebees" sent in anyway, I don't feel I have lost work as a result, but the world has gained another tog.
 
This thread is another sad reflection of the forum.

The BBC is a good example, you give your nice piccie to the BBC for free and what do they do with it? They go off and publish a book which sells for £20 and they also have the rights to sell your nice piccie all over the world or via stock agencies. So they are making money off your nice piccie and you think this is great. Utter naivety!

If you have so much time to burn that you can give it away for free then go and give your day job the same attention.

And as for pros not contributing to the forum and it degenerating into a spoken word version of flickr with "nice shot" wake up and smell the coffee, it's already happened.

over and out.
 
AliB said:
This thread is another sad reflection of the forum.

The BBC is a good example, you give your nice piccie to the BBC for free and what do they do with it? They go off and publish a book which sells for £20 and they also have the rights to sell your nice piccie all over the world or via stock agencies. So they are making money off your nice piccie and you think this is great. Utter naivety!

If you have so much time to burn that you can give it away for free then go and give your day job the same attention.

And as for pros not contributing to the forum and it degenerating into a spoken word version of flickr with "nice shot" wake up and smell the coffee, it's already happened.

over and out.
Click to expand...

What an utterly stupid statement. Grow up and smell the roses, photography is a hobby to most. You do hobby's that you enjoy, and you can do what you want with your own product. What is your hobby by any chance?
 
It should not be "Did you get paid" but "Did you ask to be paid"

If a publication is unwilling to pay then fine it's your choice if you give them the photo, but if they are willing to pay and you just did not bother to ask then your the fool, in effect your giving money away. The extra bit of money here and there will not make you a 'Pro" but will help fund that next lens.
 
Pieface said:
What an utterly stupid statement. Grow up and smell the roses, photography is a hobby to most. You do hobby's that you enjoy, and you can do what you want with your own product. What is your hobby by any chance?
Click to expand...

its not a stupid statement at all. You're more then welcome to do as you please, but why give it to someone, how directly or indirectly may make £'000s from it without seeing a penny from that. I wouldn't be happy about that with anything I do, not just photography
 
AliB said:
The BBC is a good example, you give your nice piccie to the BBC for free and what do they do with it? They go off and publish a book which sells for £20 and they also have the rights to sell your nice piccie all over the world or via stock agencies. So they are making money off your nice piccie and you think this is great. Utter naivety!
Click to expand...

for some people money isn't everything :suspect:
so long as the image is credited properly then why does it always have to be about money :shrug:

hobby: A hobby is an activity or interest that is undertaken for pleasure or relaxation, often in one's spare time.
Click to expand...

I went to the funfair Saturday night, took a couple of long exposures of the ferris wheel, sent to the local rag and they're due to be published this week in the editorial, first time at even attempting to get something published and I'm pleased as punch, I didn't ask for money, maybe if I get to a level where I feel my work is to an acceptable standard or my name is out there with a few local publications then I shall start thinking about getting paid for my hobby

Of course they come here by choice but they are expected to offer all sorts of help to the rest of us (critique, technique etc). And in the main they do. I mainly frequent the sports section where the pros are extremely helpful.
Click to expand...

no. They are not expected to do anything, who is putting this expectation on them? will they be thrown off the forums if they don't? don't get me wrong, I myself has received lots of help from pros here but c'mon..no one forced them to give me that help, they give away their experience to help someone else out in their free time..just like I take pictures in my free time and give them away. Perhaps pros will want to start charging for advice next?
 
Last edited:
Pieface said:
What an utterly stupid statement. Grow up and smell the roses, photography is a hobby to most. You do hobby's that you enjoy, and you can do what you want with your own product. What is your hobby by any chance?
Click to expand...

Don't think that is a stupid statment at all, here I am sitting reading this photo froum in my work! With that I better log off! :D

Stuart
 
timmygcsc2308 said:
for some people money isn't everything :suspect:
so long as the image is credited properly then why does it always have to be about money :shrug:
Click to expand...

it doesn't have to be about money, but if an organisation is making what can be substantial sums from your hobby, why don't you wish to be rewarded for that? :shrug:
 
boyfalldown said:
it doesn't have to be about money, but if an organisation is making what can be substantial sums from your hobby, why don't you wish to be rewarded for that? :shrug:
Click to expand...

Who says money is the only reward you can gain?
 
Pieface said:
Who says money is the only reward you can gain?
Click to expand...

I've certainly never said that, edit and didn;'t even say that in that statementbut answer the question. Why are you happy for someone to sell you work for potentail £000's and not see a penny of that,
 
boyfalldown said:
I've certainly never said that, edit and didn;'t even say that in that statementbut answer the question. Why are you happy for someone to sell you work for potentail £000's and not see a penny of that,
Click to expand...

admittedly I don't know - I've never been in that position for anything. Probably would, and I agree the BBC was a poor choice, but for local organisations, local book publishers (books on the local area etc.), local newspapers etc. then a) I doubt they are going to make thousands from my image and b) I don't see the problem.
Yes I agree there comes a time and level when you should be demaning a fee but some people on here saying any work that is published should be paid for is a joke
 
Someone doing photography as a hobby - takes pictures for pleasure and is delighted with a cracker of a shot and is pleased as punch to see it published, sees it as recognition that he/she has captured somethign that other people like. Doesn't rely on cash for thier output.

A proffessional photographer - takes pictures to make a living and relies on his/her skills and output to sell to clients. Doesn't want to be seen as giving their work away as this would devalue the work they do.

As stated above its that simple and I dont see why people find it so hard to see both sides. Some statements made on here as usual are so ignorant and shallow minded its unreal. If a hobbyist takes a picture in his or her free time and sees it published of course it feels good and gratifying. The majority of hobbyists dont have an outlet such as a gallary/agency/website to have their work seen and niether do they want the hasstle of having one. To say it devalues their work makes no sense as the majority dont sell anything they dont need to get a fee for it as its their HOBBY!!!! As long as the photographer is happy and is used with thier permission its their choice.
 
~Sam~ said:
It does not upset me really, I just see so many posts attacking someone who is proud of what they have done, with the follow up questions regarding payment and all that it led me to state that this is not the be all and end all for some (which is obvious from so many posts and ensuing discussions).
Click to expand...


So, on the basis that 99% of publications asking people for free usage rights are going to be using said images to sell their publications and thus make a profit, do you think it's reasonable for them to pay nothing?

Do you think the writer is working for free, or the printer, or the editor? You'll find that very few people in the chain to profit are working for free.

But let’s make a clear distinction between a news room using a image for a couple of hours before it rolls off the page, and a publication that will have a decent print run, making the publisher/writer et al a profit.

For instance – quite often I’ll be asked by a florist I’ve worked with if they can use a couple of shots online with a credit. I send them a low-res copy and there’s no fee. I get a link back and would have taken the shot anyway. It’s a back-scratching exercise and results in referrals. But if a large publisher was putting together a book around wedding floristry then I’d expect a fee for that usage.

It’s rarely black and white, but without question there are people being taken advantage of because of the ‘OMG I’ve been published’ flattery angle and those expecting shots for free know exactly what they’re doing.
 
Why are all you professional types blaming amateur photographers for taking pictures that are good enough to be published, when your own are clearly not good enough to be paid for?

I'm bewildered at the blinkered views, the blind self-interest, the hypocrisy, the refusal to acknowledge change, and the complete unwillingness to move with it and fit your work practise to the new media world.

The fact of the matter, for whatever reason, is that the value of professional photography in a lot of traditional areas (but certainly not all) has fallen dramatically. That's what happens in a free market ecomony, and long may it continue.

Just get on with it, change your business practise to fit the new shape of things. Or just get out. That happens too. I understand your emotions, and I genuinely sympathise, but my sympathy won't change anything, nor will it pay any bills. Any more than your wingeing and finger pointing will.

desantnik said:
As I've said before, you are all hypocrites for discussing this thing on an internet forum.

I could have written a (paid for) piece for a monthly magazine about the effect of the amateur photographer on pro photography businesses, but I can't because you lot are using the internet and not buying printed magazines any more... because the internet is free.

Where's the solidarity with your copy writing comrades?

Scabs!
Click to expand...

:lol: :agree: :thumbs:
 
stu_the_flat said:
So are you saying that if we where standing side by side taking the same photos, you think an editor will take my photos that are slightly soft because of lack of experience/ inappropriate kit over a sharp high quality image that can be blown up to any size?

Stuart
Click to expand...

With some editors - sadly, yes - that is exactly what I'm saying.
 
HoppyUK said:
Why are all you professional types blaming amateur photographers for taking pictures that are good enough to be published, when your own are clearly not good enough to be paid for?
Click to expand...

Yes, because that's exactly what I said wasn't it.

In other shock news, publishers prefer to get something for nothing.

:bang:
 
This old chesnut again :bonk:

If you really can't see that giving pictures away, for nothing, to publications or organisations that then go on to make a profit from it is a bit wrong, then you are a tit.
 
awp said:
With some editors - sadly, yes - that is exactly what I'm saying.
Click to expand...

then blame the editors for accepting mediocrity
 
Radiohead said:
So, on the basis that 99% of publications asking people for free usage rights are going to be using said images to sell their publications and thus make a profit, do you think it's reasonable for them to pay nothing?

Do you think the writer is working for free, or the printer, or the editor? You'll find that very few people in the chain to profit are working for free.

But let’s make a clear distinction between a news room using a image for a couple of hours before it rolls off the page, and a publication that will have a decent print run, making the publisher/writer et al a profit.

For instance – quite often I’ll be asked by a florist I’ve worked with if they can use a couple of shots online with a credit. I send them a low-res copy and there’s no fee. I get a link back and would have taken the shot anyway. It’s a back-scratching exercise and results in referrals. But if a large publisher was putting together a book around wedding floristry then I’d expect a fee for that usage.

It’s rarely black and white, but without question there are people being taken advantage of because of the ‘OMG I’ve been published’ flattery angle and those expecting shots for free know exactly what they’re doing.
Click to expand...

Do you think that a magazine publisher would pay a printer, if there was one around the corner who would do it for free? Well, of course not. Or is that just a silly comparison?

However, the internet is not only a free printer, but also an unlimited supply of free paper, distributed free, and delivered free to every computer on the whole friggin planet!

THAT IS CHANGE! And that is what is driving this whole debate. The internet has completely ripped the guts out of traditional media business models.

Rather than complain about a few free amateur pics, you'd have more success trying to switch off the internet.
 
HoppyUK said:
Do you think that a magazine publisher would pay a printer, if there was one around the corner who would do it for free? Well, of course not. Or is that just a silly comparison?
Click to expand...


Out of interest, how many amateur publishers do you know who are tooled up for printing books and magazines, along with the distribution channels to market. And who are working for free (hint: they won't be eating those costs for long).

But thanks for ignoring the rest of my post and selecting one little bit out of context to support a wilfully perverse viewpoint.

Honestly Richard, I understand that it's in your nature to come along and be all controversial, but for someone who claims to love photography you take an awful lot of pleasure in the market being driven into the ground.
 
HoppyUK said:
Why are all you professional types blaming amateur photographers for
Click to expand...

lets clear one thing up shall we... It's not ALL .. You can check my posting history.. I try to reply to every single "I have been published" thread and I always offer congratulations and usualy advise getting the page framed.. I have never asked and have never (and never will) moan at anyone for not getting paid.. personally i think people should just reply with "none of your business".. I do not supply free pics but I have in the past.. I learnt not to do it anymore but I am not hypocritical enough to tell anyone else what they should do..

Dont say all....

My involvement in this thread is to ask why it upsets the OP so much.. thats all :)
 
stu_the_flat said:
So are you saying that if we where standing side by side taking the same photos, you think an editor will take my photos that are slightly soft because of lack of experience/ inappropriate kit over a sharp high quality image that can be blown up to any size?

Stuart
Click to expand...

awp said:
With some editors - sadly, yes - that is exactly what I'm saying.
Click to expand...

timmygcsc2308 said:
then blame the editors for accepting mediocrity
Click to expand...

To follow this argument through, it starts with the consumer (that is you and me) who is quite happy with the free/amateur pic and is not prepared to pay extra for the professional version. The difference, if there is one, is not significant.

Therefore the editor takes the free one, fairly obviously. Therefore the pro doesn't get paid. But it starts with the end consumer.
 
I'd like to know if the person that sent the picture of the 'polar bear on the shore at Bude' gets any credit.

I'd imagine that shot has been round the world by now and we'll see it on every dull programme about newsroom gaffes for years to come.
 
Perhaps because the end consumer knows no different? The editor is then happy to palm them off with whatever they can get for free.
 
If it the case that editors will really accept armature photographs then I can completely understand your worries,

To strengthen your argument I offered to post Hi-res copies on a CD to them, I have had no reply so presumably they are going to attempt to print the 800X500 pixel samples I gave them! :eek:

Stuart
 
menthel said:
Perhaps because the end consumer knows no different? The editor is then happy to palm them off with whatever they can get for free.
Click to expand...

well then perhaps there is no market for professional photography then?...

....but of course there is, and I believe there is truely and I congratulate anyone making a living from photography and would love to myself but if something no longer becomes profitable in a business and circumstances change you have to adapt your business model - this happens in so many businesses. If you just remain staunchly fixed to your original business model, of course you'll lose out. My company makes property management software, orginally for commercial property managing agencies only, but due to changing circumstances in the market we had to move into other areas such as occupiers and investors.
Instead of moaning that amateurs are taking all your business away, if you really want to continue to earn your living from photography, perhaps you need to look at the changing market and find ways of making it profitable

Most local newspapers will happily sell any image they have submitted to them. i.e. Here's my local newpaper: http://thisiswiltshire.newsprints.co.uk/
Click to expand...

I know..as will mine..but will they make thousands from it? really? if my local paper makes a couple hundred quid from my image then great, hopefully they'll put it towards a better newspaper or a jolly good christmas bash, but I really doubt they'll make any where near that figure
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top