Image wanted for advertising

[big soft moose]

The possibility of failure to deliver is a risk that every backer of a Kickstarter project must accept.
.

I'd agree that the possibility of failure is something any backer/investor should accept - however there is a difference between honest failure and dishonest behaviour by the 'creator'
the lady from FSC summed it up pretty well in the link you posted

Many consumers enjoy the opportunity to take part in the development of a product or service through crowdfunding, and they generally know there's some uncertainty involved in helping start something new," said Jessica Rich, Director of the FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection.

"But consumers should be able to trust their money will actually be spent on the project they funded."

Its also interesting to note that Kickstarter have clarified creator accountability in their T&C - more info here http://www.cnet.com/news/kickstarter-updates-terms-of-use-to-clarify-creator-accountability/

none of which will apply to the OP as he has made a private arrangement with the 'creator' of images in exchange for product (which is fine if product is forthcoming and of equal value)

 

[big soft moose]

Yeah, I've heard that word before.

A year or so back I had quite an exclusive American horse feed company ask to 'borrow' an image I had taken of one of the showjumpers they sponsored - to adorn one of their new products. The conversation I had with them was fantastic. I asked them if, given their feed was so great, they needed a photo at all. They told me that great pictures do a fantastic job of selling bags of feed, because the pictures are aspirational and boost the brand. I replied and said, wow, that must help you sell lots of horse food! The answer was "You bet!". But they only wanted to borrow my photo, which meant I couldn't sell it to them because that wouldn't have been borrowing - they only needed it for three years, so borrowing was obviously their best option. F*cking hilarious.

just reading back through the thread - this is epic

I'd have been inclined to ask if i could 'borrow' three ton of their horse feed in order to feed my horse - it would only be borrowing so no payment would be required obvioisly and i would be happy to ship the product back to them once the horse was finished with it. As they seem to like horses*** this should be fully acceptable to them

 

[Andrew Davies Photography]

Actually, on that one point I agree with Laudrup. The possibility of failure to deliver is a risk that every backer of a Kickstarter project must accept.

I quite agree Alastair, and the failure of delivering the product is the responsibility of the company to correct in full. Should the company be allowed to just continue on to another project or an existing project which is already in production leaving those backers high and dry, no.
Crowd-funding as you point out has many problems and it is certainly not a model that should be held on a pedestal for new entrepreneurs, and it has more than its fair share of dodge-pots.

As the original OP has already stated had he been aware of all of this he would never have given up the image. Nor for that matter would anyone else of sound mind.

 

[Alastair]

I quite agree Alastair, and the failure of delivering the product is the responsibility of the company to correct in full.

No, failure to deliver is something the backer must accept. There is no requirement to make good, unless there is evidence of fraud in either the presentation of the offer or the subsequent management of the project - which then becomes a matter for the civil/criminal legal system.

Should the company be allowed to just continue on to another project

That's a different matter for Kickstarter to decide.

or an existing project which is already in production

Not relevant - and typical of my comment that most of the Kickstarter audience doesn't have a clue what they're getting into.


But this is all way off topic, although it's an interesting discussion in it's own right. I haven't seen an agenda yet, but I'm pretty sure the guest speaker at meeting I have on Friday is going to discuss crowdfunding for business, although this won't be public crowdfunding (e.g. Kickstarter) but a more commercial footing.

 

[Lindsay D]

Much like Lindsay overcharging to maximise profits why wouldn't you look to save money to maximise profits? Lindsay saying she charges more only benefits her, at least a company looking to barter goods or give you a credit is actually trying to do something for both parties, no matter how token or futile you think it is.

What on earth are you talking about? I don't know where you're getting your assertions from and being told that I 'overcharge' for my work (presumably because I run a full-time business) is so far off the mark to be utterly ridiculous and I'm clueless as to where you have drawn this notion from. You know absolutely nothing about what I charge for my images, nor do you know anything about the many causes I donate my work and time to. Nor do I particularly care if a business goes to Flickr or anywhere else to gather free photos - they're not going to get images for free from me, so they are welcome to move on and try their luck elsewhere. I'm not a commercial photographer or a stock photographer, my income is from commissions - so whilst what we are discussing here doesn't impact upon my business, it clearly impacts on other people like the OP. I think you have a view that anyone who even asks for payment in return for their work is a nasty capitalist - no matter how much capitalist gain that work might be bringing to the business who seizes it. You've expressed this one way argument several times now and I cannot help but wonder why you are so resentful towards photographers.

I'm happy to have a reasonable and measured debate with you Laudrup, you're starting to pull stuff out of thin air instead of reading what has been written in this thread. You clearly aren't reading what I have written (particularly with respect to bartering for something - which I have recommended as an alternative to payment). You keep banging on about credits - can I ask you how long you've been a published photographer and how often a 'credit' has brought you a client? Because I have been published regularly over many years and all a byline has brought me (and every other snapper I can think of) is precisely nothing. I'm not convinced that anything you have said in this thread is actually based on real-world experience.

 

[Andrew Davies Photography]

No, failure to deliver is something the backer must accept. There is no requirement to make good

This is from the thread on their website:

(https://www.kickstarter.com/terms-of-use/oct2012), under the unequivocal provision: " Project Creators are required to fulfill all rewards of their successful fundraising campaigns or refund any Backer whose reward they do not or cannot fulfill."

Hence you are wrong, there IS a requirement to make good, the question appears to be one of how much, the Kickstarter T&C is obviously not well worded and anyone reading that should be wary of what they are getting into anyway.

 

[StewartR]

This is from the thread on their website:

(https://www.kickstarter.com/terms-of-use/oct2012), under the unequivocal provision: " Project Creators are required to fulfill all rewards of their successful fundraising campaigns or refund any Backer whose reward they do not or cannot fulfill."

Hence you are wrong, there IS a requirement to make good, the question appears to be one of how much, the Kickstarter T&C is obviously not well worded and anyone reading that should be wary of what they are getting into anyway.

That's it exactly. TriggerTrap are arguing that that they will be compliant with the requirement to "refund any Backer" if they refund 20% of the investment. Obviously I'm not a lawyer, but surely they haven't got a leg to stand on here. They could make exactly the same argument if they were offering to refund 2%, or 0.2%, or £0.02, or whatever. The only sensible way to interpret the terms and conditions is that they are required to offer a FULL refund.

Obviously in most cases where a Kickstarter project fails, there's no money to refund because the company has gone bust. Here. though, TriggerTrap is still in existence and still has assets. The only moral course of action would be to refund in full. Hopefully they'll realise that before it gets forced upon them in the courts.

 

[Alastair]

This is from the thread on their website:

(https://www.kickstarter.com/terms-of-use/oct2012), under the unequivocal provision: " Project Creators are required to fulfill all rewards of their successful fundraising campaigns or refund any Backer whose reward they do not or cannot fulfill."

Hence you are wrong, there IS a requirement to make good, the question appears to be one of how much, the Kickstarter T&C is obviously not well worded and anyone reading that should be wary of what they are getting into anyway.

Those were the terms and conditions at the time the Triggertap Ada project was launched. I wish anyone trying to get their cash back good luck, but there's got to be funds available in order to reclaim them and the nature of this type of project is that the funds will be spent. If Triggertrap screwed up and didn't establish a separate legal identity for the Ada project there might be assets to go after, but that's for those affected to identify and pursue. Odds are the Ada project has left nothing behind but fresh air and scrapped prototypes.

Subsequent changes to the t's & c's indicate an implied acknowledgement that that original condition was:

• unenforceable; and
• impractical

If a creator is unable to complete their project and fulfill rewards, they’ve failed to live up to the basic obligations of this agreement. To right this, they must make every reasonable effort to find another way of bringing the project to the best possible conclusion for backers. A creator in this position has only remedied the situation and met their obligations to backers if:

• they post an update that explains what work has been done, how funds were used, and what prevents them from finishing the project as planned;
• they work diligently and in good faith to bring the project to the best possible conclusion in a timeframe that’s communicated to backers;
• they’re able to demonstrate that they’ve used funds appropriately and made every reasonable effort to complete the project as promised;
• they’ve been honest, and have made no material misrepresentations in their communication to backers; and
• they offer to return any remaining funds to backers who have not received their reward (in proportion to the amounts pledged), or else explain how those funds will be used to complete the project in some alternate form

www.kickstarter.com/terms-of-use

 

[steveo_mcg]

Must admit I find kickstarter a terrible way to spend money as a consumer or investor. All of the risk is heaped on the investor and none of the reward comes back their way. The consumer might end up with nothing at all after a long wait out of pocket.

I've backed a couple of photobooks, Yehuda Moon and something else which I forget but in each case the kickstarter was for a completed project which needed upfront funds to cover printing and the risk was, imo, acceptable.

 

[Llamaman]

overcharging

You keep using this word but I don't think you understand what it means.
As long as the buyer knows what they are buying, and the vendor knows what they are selling, than there can be no over- or under- charging. It's just a trade at a particular value.

Even if one party has paid more / received less than they could have done had they had better information, this is still not a moral problem. It is known legally as 'bad bargain'.

The only issue is where one party has knowingly misled the other about the product or the terms of the trade - fraudulent misrepresentation if you will.

 

[Llamaman]

They can copy your shot easily and it requires no skill or training or gift or being professional.

Even if that were true (and it's not), it places no value on originality. Many professional photographers are working on commission for a client - how does a competitor copy an image that doesn't exist yet?
You cannot apply the logic of manufacturing pins to the creative arts.

 

[big soft moose]

Because I have been published regularly over many years and all a byline has brought me (and every other snapper I can think of) is precisely nothing. .

worse than nothing in fact - it generally garners other chancers hoping you'll give your work away to them for free too.

 

[big soft moose]

Even if that were true (and it's not), it places no value on originality. Many professional photographers are working on commission for a client - how does a competitor copy an image that doesn't exist yet?
You cannot apply the logic of manufacturing pins to the creative arts.

I'm looking forward to loud burp getting two Fellow of and 3 associate qualifications with his work that requires no technical ability to create - not to mention a burgeoning photographic business - then we might be able to take his assertion seriously - otherwise his arguing with Lindsay about this is reminicent of a cave man discussing space travel

 

[Laudrup]

What on earth are you talking about? I don't know where you're getting your assertions from and being told that I 'overcharge' for my work (presumably because I run a full-time business) is so far off the mark to be utterly ridiculous and I'm clueless as to where you have drawn this notion from. You know absolutely nothing about what I charge for my images, nor do you know anything about the many causes I donate my work and time to. Nor do I particularly care if a business goes to Flickr or anywhere else to gather free photos - they're not going to get images for free from me, so they are welcome to move on and try their luck elsewhere. I'm not a commercial photographer or a stock photographer, my income is from commissions - so whilst what we are discussing here doesn't impact upon my business, it clearly impacts on other people like the OP. I think you have a view that anyone who even asks for payment in return for their work is a nasty capitalist - no matter how much capitalist gain that work might be bringing to the business who seizes it. You've expressed this one way argument several times now and I cannot help but wonder why you are so resentful towards photographers.

I'm happy to have a reasonable and measured debate with you Laudrup, you're starting to pull stuff out of thin air instead of reading what has been written in this thread. You clearly aren't reading what I have written (particularly with respect to bartering for something - which I have recommended as an alternative to payment). You keep banging on about credits - can I ask you how long you've been a published photographer and how often a 'credit' has brought you a client? Because I have been published regularly over many years and all a byline has brought me (and every other snapper I can think of) is precisely nothing. I'm not convinced that anything you have said in this thread is actually based on real-world experience.

You were the one who brought up prices:

I have sometimes pushed my luck and quoted figure substantially above what I think are given business would be expecting - and they've come back without a blink and paid it. .

If it is good enough for you to go fishing with a high price then why not others with a low price? The pool of clients to push your luck with is far smaller I bet than the pool of photographers who will give you what you want for a modest fee.

As for credits they may or not bring work and should be judged on an individual basis. I'm not anti-capitalist but I'm not keen on pros thinking they can talk down from on high telling us all what to do or not do or that we are responsible for commercial photography dying.

 

[Laudrup]

I'm looking forward to loud burp getting two Fellow of and 3 associate qualifications with his work that requires no technical ability to create - not to mention a burgeoning photographic business - then we might be able to take his assertion seriously - otherwise his arguing with Lindsay about this is reminicent of a cave man discussing space travel

Big soft stool, you can put a whole tin of Alphabetti Spaghetti behind your name if you want to look impressive but it won't stem the tide of photographs that are as good or better than Lindsay's or whoever, that are available for free. It's a race to the bottom now and you won't be able to stop it.

 

[Lindsay D]

Laudrup, the price which is 'higher than what I think the given business would be expecting' is not, as you assume, an inflated price - quite the contrary. When I said 'pushed my luck' I was being deliberately facetious. I can understand how you misread that - the sarcasm element probably wasn't obvious.

That aside, you are still demonstrating that you have a problem with professional photographers who would want a fair price for their work. In the context of this particular thread the OP was seeking pricing advice so it's understandable the replies followed that line. Actually, it is fact that in some sectors of photography prices have been driven down by a combination of photographers who offer their work for free, and some businesses accepting low quality work in order to avoid making payment (although I think that one is more confined to the press/journalistic arenas - the marketing of products does still require good images).

 

[big soft moose]

Big soft stool, you can put a whole tin of Alphabetti Spaghetti behind your name if you want to look impressive but it won't stem the tide of photographs that are as good or better than Lindsay's or whoever, that are available for free. It's a race to the bottom now and you won't be able to stop it.

so i take it that you don't actually have any then ? - given that you are avoiding the question., likewise Lindsay's inquiry about when you started professional photography and how many jobs you've got as a result of giving your work away ? (given your reluctance to answer I tend to assume the truth of the matter is that you're not and you haven't - ergo you are as i said previously speaking out of your fundament )

on the other point show me these fantastic pictures that are readily available free - As far as I can tell they are also a figment of your overworked imagination

 

[Andrew Davies Photography]

Big soft stool, you can put a whole tin of Alphabetti Spaghetti behind your name if you want to look impressive but it won't stem the tide of photographs that are as good or better than Lindsay's or whoever, that are available for free. It's a race to the bottom now and you won't be able to stop it.

Firstly there is not tide of amazing photographs that are available for commercial use free, users may steal them and we cant stop that, companies go to stock libraries and purchase photos by professionals who earn from their purchase. The amazing and wonderful photos out there are made by photographers both amateur and pro who have experience good kit and a great creative gift. The majority of these people including me when we get to the stage of producing work we feel is worthy of selling - then sell it.

On the way down that road many people will try to take advantage, from relatives, weddings etc all the way to commercial useage in exchange for a pack of crisps or a size 6 arial font mention etc.

As business owners and professional photographers we are the ones very much in a position to do something about this simply by educating people, letting people know a mention is not going to get them stardom and people are just taking advantage with well learned kind words and storys. Sorry Laudrup if you feel its a lost cause but your on your own there, I amongst many others wish to fight our side and make sure people get the just rewards for their hard work and commitment.

 

[big soft moose]

If it is good enough for you to go fishing with a high price then why not others with a low price?

who in their right mind goes fishing for a low price ? - also we are talking about giving work away not people charging less than others

I'm not keen on pros thinking they can talk down from on high telling us all what to do or not do .

and yet you think its alright for you to talk down from on high and lay down the law on what pros can and cant say ? - and you accuse others of hypocrisy ?

end of the day if you don't like this kind of discussion you can always

Tell the person with the gun to your head forcing you to read it to go away.

 

[Deleted member 49549]

Oh dear. So many people trying to win the internet and acting like petulant teenagers.

 

[Steve-T]

It has been a good thread in many parts but Im afraid it has degenerated in part to chasing a troll

 

[Stu Meech]

...that are available for free. It's a race to the bottom now and you won't be able to stop it.

What do you do for a living, and would you like to be doing it for free?

 

[Laudrup]

so i take it that you don't actually have any then ? - given that you are avoiding the question., likewise Lindsay's inquiry about when you started professional photography and how many jobs you've got as a result of giving your work away ? (given your reluctance to answer I tend to assume the truth of the matter is that you're not and you haven't - ergo you are as i said previously speaking out of your fundament )

on the other point show me these fantastic pictures that are readily available free - As far as I can tell they are also a figment of your overworked imagination

No I don't pay any money to any photographic society to get letters after my name. I don't see the point. As for free pictures I thought amateurs giving them away was killing commercial photography and now you say they are a figment of my imagination, so which is it? The OP let this company use a good image for free, as good as any pro can take.

 

[Lindsay D]

The OP let this company use a good image for free, as good as any pro can take.

Which is the very point of this thread Laudrup - there are a lot of talented and experienced amateurs out there, with a similar level of knowledge to many professionals. The only thing separating the two is that the amateur earns his or her living outside of their photography. Others sell their work alongside their day job, or would like to. That doesn't mean that their photographs are worthless and the creator undeserving of any reward (the mere fact that a business wants to include them within their greatest marketing asset says otherwise). Given your view that this process requires no knowledge, learning, or experience, can you show us some of the photographs you've snapped on your phone which are gracing the pages of a national or international business?

Re: your commentary about 'paying a society to get letters after one's name' you are thoroughly reinforcing what is becoming very obvious now about your level of knowledge.

It's a nice day, so in your lunch break hop over to the BIPP or RPS distinction pages, then wander outside and reproduce some of the pictures - like you said earlier, it should only take you a few moments on your iPhone. Then come back and let us see your handiwork.

 

[simon ess]

This has all got very silly.

Here's my summary. Have I got it about right?

1. Some amateurs are happy to give away photos.
2. Some companies take advantage of this.
3. This is a potential threat to professional photographers.
4. Pros. will, of course, advise amateurs not to do it.
5. The market, like many others, is changing. De-skilling is a fact of life in many industries.
6. Some pros. moan about it.
7. Some pros. deal with it.

 

[Laudrup]

Firstly there is not tide of amazing photographs that are available for commercial use free, users may steal them and we cant stop that, companies go to stock libraries and purchase photos by professionals who earn from their purchase. The amazing and wonderful photos out there are made by photographers both amateur and pro who have experience good kit and a great creative gift. The majority of these people including me when we get to the stage of producing work we feel is worthy of selling - then sell it.

On the way down that road many people will try to take advantage, from relatives, weddings etc all the way to commercial useage in exchange for a pack of crisps or a size 6 arial font mention etc.

As business owners and professional photographers we are the ones very much in a position to do something about this simply by educating people, letting people know a mention is not going to get them stardom and people are just taking advantage with well learned kind words and storys. Sorry Laudrup if you feel its a lost cause but your on your own there, I amongst many others wish to fight our side and make sure people get the just rewards for their hard work and commitment.

I thought amateurs giving photographs away for free was killing commercial photography and now 'there isn't much available'. Well which is it? There will be people right now giving their images for a credit or token sum to companies after being sweet talked on flickr or other big sites. I don't think people need told what to do or not do with their own images to help prop up your industry. The internet and digital is completely changing the market. Getty realised it last year when they made all those images available for free for non-commercial use instead of their 'extortion letters' tactic.

It's a buyers market now for quality photography and if you don't adapt to the marketplace you will die with your boots on.

 

[Laudrup]

This has all got very silly.

Here's my summary. Have I got it about right?

1. Some amateurs are happy to give away photos.
2. Some companies take advantage of this.
3. This is a potential threat to professional photographers.
4. Pros. will, of course, advise amateurs not to do it.
5. The market, like many others, is changing. De-skilling is a fact of life in many industries.
6. Some pros. moan about it.
7. Some pros. deal with it.

About it in a nutshell. Just another attempt at pros accusing amateurs of slitting their throats.

 

[Lindsay D]

It's a buyers market now for quality photography and if you don't adapt to the marketplace you will die with your boots on.

Not exactly. In the low end sectors I'd say this is true, a lot of businesses just don't want to pay much for photos. But if you work with a half decent company however, it's still pretty healthy. You'll still get the odd chancer, but an awful lot of them will actually have a fair budget under their belt. So in that regard, the business world is largely divided and for professionals to adapt (exactly as Simon mentioned just now) it's pretty simple - don't pander to those businesses who fall into the former category, and concentrate only on the clients who bring you the return you need. It's a straightforward choice but we know that some newer photographers fall down along the way - their choice of course, but none of the professionals I know are going to accept that as a given, because we know that not all businesses are equal. A lot of stock imagery is of a fairly low standard so it's unsurprising that sector has been hit hard by the emergence of talented (but not exactly business minded) amateurs. Yet the high quality stock material hasn't been affected in the same way. So I would say that you are right that it is a buyers' market for some types of photography (think tourist snaps etc), but definitely not for others.

So what does 'adapting' mean? It means saying no when there is no fair exchange for your work. It means dealing only with the businesses and clients who value what you do and who understand that reward is a two-way street. It can also mean abandoning some areas of your work in favour of others. Better still, increasing the quality of your work or adopting a unique style. Adapting doesn't mean rolling over and waiting to be fleeced.

 

[Laudrup]

Which is the very point of this thread Laudrup - there are a lot of talented and experienced amateurs out there, with a similar level of knowledge to many professionals. The only thing separating the two is that the amateur earns his or her living outside of their photography. Others sell their work alongside their day job, or would like to. That doesn't mean that their photographs are worthless and the creator undeserving of any reward (the mere fact that a business wants to include them within their greatest marketing asset says otherwise). Given your view that this process requires no knowledge, learning, or experience, can you show us some of the photographs you've snapped on your phone which are gracing the pages of a national or international business?

Re: your commentary about 'paying a society to get letters after one's name' you are thoroughly reinforcing what is becoming very obvious now about your level of knowledge.

It's a nice day, so in your lunch break hop over to the BIPP or RPS distinction pages, then wander outside and reproduce some of the pictures - like you said earlier, it should only take you a few moments on your iPhone. Then come back and let us see your handiwork.

The saturation of good quality images in the digital age forces you into a race to the bottom. The company wanting them knows that you don't need any training or qualifications or even a really expensive camera these days so they can lowball you and move on if you say no. You think it is worth X amount but they don't. If the amateur wants to give it away for credit that might drive traffic to their site or vanity or whatever then I see no problem. I don't think they are killing commercial photography or stealing food off a pros plate.

You do have to pay the societies to get the letters don't you? I assume they don't like it when you don't pay them yearly fees to use the letters? I'd rather spend the money on something else. If I see a better photo on flickr taken by a hobbyist than one I've seen taken by someone with LRPS or whatever then it would make the letters redundant for me.

 

[Lindsay D]

You do have to pay the societies to get the letters don't you? I assume they don't like it when you don't pay them yearly fees to use the letters? I'd rather spend the money on something else. If I see a better photo on flickr taken by a hobbyist than one I've seen taken by someone with LRPS or whatever then it would make the letters redundant for me.

No, you do not pay to get the letters. My Fellowships represent an awful lot of years of training, learning, and ultimately submission of a body of work which is assessed by the examining Fellows of the body in question. I also have to supply a great deal of supporting evidence regarding my contributions to the industry over the years, published work and other forms of recognition. It's a long and gruelling process, with an extremely high failure rate. Distinctions are awarded by whichever governing institution you have submitted to for examination - if you decide to leave that body then (as is the case in pretty much every area of the professional world, not just photography) you will lose the right to use the letters. But you don't lose the fact that you achieved that distinction in the first place. The notion that you write to the BIPP, or RPS etc and simply say "hi, my name is Joe Bloggs and I wish to buy an Associateship" is beyond ludicrous.

If you would prefer to spend the money on something else then fine, I would totally understand and respect that. I can speak from both sides of the coin (in fact I've just resigned from the RPS - I'm not fussed about losing the letters). There are a great many reasons why photographers go down the distinction route and it's been discussed at length in other threads. And as you say, it probably doesn't make much difference to how much money a business will offer you for a photo to stick on their website. But it can make a very big difference elsewhere in your business. I'm not even sure why are having this conversation.

Your MO seems to lie with finding a way to criticise anyone who feels that payment is only fair - so far you have denigrated my pricing, my work, and my achievements - based on nothing more than assumptions and wild guesswork. I can't help feeling that it would be better to balance that with your own credentials within the photography world, because if you can't then the 'advice' you're offering here is largely pointless. You've been asked already about this but you completely evade it.

I wish you well in whatever you try to achieve in life Laudrup, but I came to this thread to offer the advice which was asked for by the OP - not to waste time defending this kind of thing. I've answered all of your questions, not specifically for you (because it's clear to me that you don't read my replies) but for others who might find the points useful. I'm going to leave it there - there's some good stuff in this thread for newcomers, they can draw their own conclusions.

 

[big soft moose]

The notion that you write to the BIPP, or RPS etc and simply say "hi, my name is Joe Bloggs and I wish to buy and Associateship" is beyond ludicrous.
.

well unless you set up your own society and award yourself an F .. like he who should not be named

 

[Andrew Davies Photography]

One of the best lines I have ever heard now fits this thread perfectly:

Dont argue with an idiot because they will bring you down to their level and beat you with experience

 

[Laudrup]

One of the best lines I have ever heard now fits this thread perfectly:

Dont argue with an idiot because they will bring you down to their level and beat you with experience

Not that you are ever likely to be asked but it's hilarious how quickly you'd abandon this not working for free principle if Vogue asked you to shoot an editorial for free. I bet they could get you all in the business section to write a 1000 word essay, or one paragraph from Lindsay, on why you should get the gig.

 

[Andrew Davies Photography]

Not that you are ever likely to be asked but it's hilarious how quickly you'd abandon this not working for free principle if Vogue asked you to shoot an editorial for free. I bet they could get you all in the business section to write a 1000 word essay, or one paragraph from Lindsay, on why you should get the gig.

Completely the contrary i would not dream of supplying a company the size of Vogue ( but more related to my work ) with work for free, they are well able to afford top rates and I would not belittle myself by doing otherwise.

Once again you will find people dont all fit into your category , I have turned down a few jobs already this year as the rates were not right and they tried to wangle discount for freebies. I have since booked other work to cover those at full rates . .some other idiot has done them for less.

 

[big soft moose]

Completely the contrary i would not dream of supplying a company the size of Vogue ( but more related to my work ) with work for free, they are well able to afford top rates and I would not belittle myself by doing otherwise.
.

Exactly that - i'd only be likely to give my work away to a good cause (I've given shots to RNLI and H4H before) - if a big company wants my work they can damn well pay for it - the only exception being if you are getting a genuine benefit out of the exposure.

for example if Bride magazine wanted to run a 3 page spread about my work (look, a flying pig) then i wouldn't charge them for the shots because of the massive advertising benefit i'd derive from it ,but if they just wanted some pictures to illustrate a generic article then I would because no one reads the 6pt photo credits anyway , so anyone who thinks they give exposure is deceiving themselves

 

[Laudrup]

How can you reason with such delusion when you wouldn't shoot an editorial or cover of Vogue for free?

 

[boyfalldown]

remind me who's delusional?

 

[big soft moose]

How can you reason with such delusion when you wouldn't shoot an editorial or cover of Vogue for free?

why the hell would you - vogue can afford to pay

and neither the bank, the HP company, the insurers, nor the supermarket will take photo credits instead of hard currency for life's essentials - i'll start working for free the day that tescos stop charging me for food

 

[Laudrup]

remind me who's delusional?

The exposure of something as prestigious as a Vogue cover, and you'd say no? You can add myopic to the delusion.

 

[Llamaman]

i'll start working for free the day that tescos stop charging me for food

Tell Tesco it's good exposure for them. The sewage plant workers will see it and think "ooh, that sweetcorn looks lovely".