Image wanted for advertising

Laudrup said:
If you think shooting a Vogue cover for exposure has the same chance of getting you more work as a 116 million to 1 shot then we are so far apart that nothing I can really say would convince you. I can only say what I said before. You could launch a career off the back of it, meet and network with the top people in the industry, showcase your creative ability to advertisers, celebrities and the fashion elite in every corner of the world or even if you went back home with nothing your business could be differentiated as you shot a cover for Vogue. See how many brides or clients know what Vogue is and what an LRPS is and how much more they would pay.
Click to expand...

And this is why your 'logic' is not! You are unlikely to launch a career off the back of a Vogue cover. What's more likely to happen is, you meet and network with the people in the industry, develop and demonstrate your creative ability. Produce high quality work on a consistent basis and differentiate yourself from other fashion or editorial photographers and THEN, get paid to shoot for Vogue. If, after that, you're still in the market for weddings or Christenings, they're likely to be 'A list' or Royal ones.

If you can find any examples of where it has happened the way you speculate that it could, I would be thrilled to celebrate the good fortune of those particular photographers as well as your industry insight.
 
Last edited:
DT01 said:
And this is why your 'logic' is not! You are unlikely to launch a career off the back of a Vogue cover. What's more likely to happen is, you meet and network with the people in the industry, develop and demonstrate your creative ability. Produce high quality work on a consistent basis and differentiate yourself from other fashion or editorial photographers and THEN, get paid to shoot for Vogue. If, after that, you're still in the market for weddings or Christenings, they're likely to be 'A list' or Royal ones.

If you can find any examples of where it has happened the way you speculate that it could, I would be thrilled to celebrate the good fortune of those particular photographers as well as your industry insight.
Click to expand...

Careers have been launched over significantly less than that. The queue would be round the block to shoot it for free and you'd knock it back.
 
Andrew Davies Photography said:
This reminds me of user somewhat similarly named 'Lucian' on another large photo forum who would also come along with floored and inexperienced arguments and take an opposing view just to see what reaction could be gathered, He would also ignore any requests to look at his work or any back up of his experience, when eventually uncovered it became obvious why ..
Click to expand...
Indeed and as I said a few pages back a Troll. Laudrup is just looking for an argument and would argue black was white if it got the necessary attention.
 
Box Brownie said:
Yes, we are far apart in the view of the situation you describe because as per your worthy link about the model fees or lack of I only see your proposal of any of the possible positive outcomes for the tog as speculation of a supposition.

Why do I say that? To have the outcome you speculate about presupposes that the tog whether amateur/semi-pro/pro will have some sort of control over the process......in all your researches on this have you found the terms that the tog,MUA or any others in the production team are 'employed' under? How likely is that the tog keeps copyright or shared copyright, do the team members have to sign an NDA if perhaps the model is big name?

Of course I am also speculating on a supposition because without knowing how what you say could even happen to the non well known/respected tog let alone the terms under which he would contracted for the job.

Can you point me to a list of togs who have worked for Vogue and which ones are one time only and as such on their website or social media show that Vogue work and indeed when did even the well knowns do that first job.
Click to expand...

Lindsay Adler had an excellent blog post on the subject:

http://blog.lindsayadlerphotography...orial-budgets-commissions-weddings-vs-fashion
The basic gist being "everyone works for free".
 
Last edited:
Steve-T said:
Indeed and as I said a few pages back a Troll. Laudrup is just looking for an argument and would argue black was white if it got the necessary attention.
Click to expand...

I think people who wouldn't shoot a cover or editorial of Vogue for free must be trolling. Mr Magoo can see further than people who would knock that back.
 
Laudrup said:
I think people who wouldn't shoot a cover or editorial of Vogue for free must be trolling. Mr Magoo can see further than people who would knock that back.
Click to expand...

Probably not. As I said, I would shoot a cover for Vogue for free... but it isn't going to happen is it? It's just an extreme example of what some would do.

I would do it just so I could say I had a photograph on the front cover of Vogue*. That would be enough for me. Others are free to not do it for that.

* Other magazines are available!


Steve.
 
Laudrup said:
I think people who wouldn't shoot a cover or editorial of Vogue for free must be trolling. Mr Magoo can see further than people who would knock that back.
Click to expand...

Even Mr Magoo would see that the premise is ridiculous, which makes your point irrelevant!

If you brought an argument that had some relation to a remotely plausible situation, it would bear consideration.
 
DT01 said:
Even Mr Magoo would see that the premise is ridiculous, which makes your point irrelevant!

If you brought an argument that had some relation to a remotely plausible situation, it would bear consideration.
Click to expand...

If you can't spot an opportunity of that magnitude then it makes me doubt what else you can spot.
 
Laudrup said:
If you can't spot an opportunity of that magnitude then it makes me doubt what else you can spot.
Click to expand...

Seriously?! You don't get it do you? It's not an opportunity because it doesn't exist.
 
I have little time for reality TV programmes of the likes of X Factor or bgt because on the face of it that sort of opportunity "opening" is the only (unless Laudrap knows something others do not?) way that non recognised togs will ever get such an opportunity let alone a free one of working for Vogue.

As Drew says your whole premise and supposition has no grounding in reality......dreams maybe. I look forward to hearing of your success with Vogue in the near future!

Oh, of course there is nothing wrong with open discussion on the why's & wherefore's of whether to offer a business service for free or fee but such discussion IMO must be based on what is in the real world both possible and plausible. Therefore until I see you or anyone else show me that someone has indeed had that Vogue moment it will be in the category of dream......... and when that tog puts their head over the parapet then "we" can debate free or fee again based on actual events.
 
Box Brownie said:
I have little time for reality TV programmes of the likes of X Factor or bgt because on the face of it that sort of opportunity "opening" is the only (unless Laudrap knows something others do not?) way that non recognised togs will ever get such an opportunity let alone a free one of working for Vogue.

As Drew says your whole premise and supposition has no grounding in reality......dreams maybe. I look forward to hearing of your success with Vogue in the near future!

Oh, of course there is nothing wrong with open discussion on the why's & wherefore's of whether to offer a business service for free or fee but such discussion IMO must be based on what is in the real world both possible and plausible. Therefore until I see you or anyone else show me that someone has indeed had that Vogue moment it will be in the category of dream......... and when that tog puts their head over the parapet then "we" can debate free or fee again based on actual events.
Click to expand...

It's turned into a useful exercise to show how slavishly people will cling to this mantra of not working for free no matter what the potential rewards on offer.
 
Laudrup said:
It's turned into a useful exercise to show how slavishly people will cling to this mantra of not working for free no matter what the potential rewards on offer.
Click to expand...

And in this reply of yours sums up your raison d'etre for grinding on being oh so selective in your many replies and evasions of questions raised by me and others about your background and actual declared position on your premise. Just because you speak of a premise does not mean it has or will happen therefore there is no right or wrong in regard to free or fee.....because in this instance it has not and will not happen.

Your whole reason for doing so seems to have been to wind folk up and no other for your own gratification....as for useful exercise well it has been for me to show you up as about the only TP member I have ever thought about ignoring!
 
Box Brownie said:
And in this reply of yours sums up your raison d'etre for grinding on being oh so selective in your many replies and evasions of questions raised by me and others about your background and actual declared position on your premise. Just because you speak of a premise does not mean it has or will happen therefore there is no right or wrong in regard to free or fee.....because in this instance it has not and will not happen.

Your whole reason for doing so seems to have been to wind folk up and no other for your own gratification....as for useful exercise well it has been for me to show you up as about the only TP member I have ever thought about ignoring!
Click to expand...

What would you charge them for your services? A ball park figure.
 
Someone wanted my Newcastle Quayside image for free for their website to promote some political actvism group in the North of England. I was very flattered and quoted a price for use on their website. They said they couldn't afford to pay at all, not even a charitible donation to a cause of my choosing. Yet they can afford site hosting, web design, the URL, etc but not the images to put on their site. They said how wonderful the image was and how perfect it was for their needs.

But they wouldn't pay for it. Well, I'd sooner wipe my bum with my bare hand than give some chancer something of mine for free.
 
Although I see your point, it does rather suggest that a large company will try to get content for free and it takes a very well known industry heavyweight to change things.

On that basis, perhaps not the best example.
 
Andrew Davies Photography said:
this post today

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-33220189

illustrates the point exactly, a HUGE company backs down and pays for what it should have paid for in the first place , so Laudrup as you can plainly see things can be changed it just takes people to take action.
Click to expand...

Yeah you just need the Taylor Swift of photography to take up your cause and people will stop asking for work for free. Oh wait, there isn't one. Back to the drawing board.
 
simon ess said:
Although I see your point, it does rather suggest that a large company will try to get content for free and it takes a very well known industry heavyweight to change things.

On that basis, perhaps not the best example.
Click to expand...

No its a perfect example of a company back-pedalling after realising it may lose out itself , no different from if Vogue ( to quote Laudrup ) suddenly had one of its top models refuse to endorse it because it was not paying its cover girls. Its doesn't matter that it takes someone big to do it the point is that people should be more aware they are selling themselves short and being ripped off simply because they are seen as the little man or woman with no clout.

In this case Taylor Swift as one of the biggest selling artists in the world at the moment took a gamble and it paid off helping out lots of other smaller artists in the process, as you say its a shame it takes an industry heavyweight to do it but it still opens peoples minds and eyes to whats going on.
 
I have no strong opinion either way on this. I really don't care who "wins" this silly argument.

I'm merely pointing out that you have proved, and acknowledged in your last post, that it is going on.

That seems contrary to your previous arguments.

That's all.
 
Laudrup said:
It's turned into a useful exercise to show how slavishly people will cling to this mantra of not working for free no matter what the potential rewards on offer.
Click to expand...

Nope - no one has said they wouldn't work in return for tangible rewards (in fact people have repeatedly said the opposite) - as far as i know no one in the history of the magazine has ever been discovered by shooting a vogue cover for free ... reason being that vogue (and other such magazines) don't go looking for unknown people of unproven talent to shoot their cover. Instead they pick highly talented photographers and pay them what they are worth.

Therefore if they were to pick me having seen amazing work elsewhere (and yes that's not ever going to happen) there would be a substantial budget to pay a man of my calibre (okay stop laughing now) so naturally i would take it - the subject of working for free wouldn't ever come up because all parties are professionals.

If you don't believe me snap a picture of your girlfriend/sister/random pretty girl in the street with your iphone and send it to the vogue picture desk with a politely worded note saying "look i'm awesome,i'll shoot your cover for nothing" and see what happens...

I have had the front cover of bird watching magazine (not quite in the same league admittedly) , they paid me...and it did absolutely jacks*** in terms of getting other sales
 
big soft moose said:
Nope - no one has said they wouldn't work in return for tangible rewards (in fact people have repeatedly said the opposite) - as far as i know no one in the history of the magazine has ever been discovered by shooting a vogue cover for free ... reason being that vogue (and other such magazines) don't go looking for unknown people of unproven talent to shoot their cover. Instead they pick highly talented photographers and pay them what they are worth.

Therefore if they were to pick me having seen amazing work elsewhere (and yes that's not ever going to happen) there would be a substantial budget to pay a man of my calibre (okay stop laughing now) so naturally i would take it - the subject of working for free wouldn't ever come up because all parties are professionals.

If you don't believe me snap a picture of your girlfriend/sister/random pretty girl in the street with your iphone and send it to the vogue picture desk with a politely worded note saying "look i'm awesome,i'll shoot your cover for nothing" and see what happens...

I have had the front cover of bird watching magazine (not quite in the same league admittedly) , they paid me...and it did absolutely jacks*** in terms of getting other sales
Click to expand...

Yes I realise Anna Wintour or whoever won't be phoning anyone on here up, that wasn't the point. It was saying if this opportunity arose would you do it for free given the exposure that it would bring it would bring and you said:

big soft moose said:
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
Click to expand...


I already provided lots of links and quotes of people who do it for free or read about people who sink money into editorial work to get advertising work and are working for exposure. People would kill for that opportunity and you're there saying pay me XYZ. It makes no sense at all to hold out for payment when the benefits of doing it for free are so clear.

This is a much more lucrative bird watching magazine you'd be in.
 
Laudrup said:
. People would kill for that opportunity and you're there saying pay me XYZ. It makes no sense at all to hold out for payment when the benefits of doing it for free are so clear.
.
Click to expand...

If vogue rang up and said "we want you to shoot our cover" (and lets face it that doesn't happen) - saying "great i'd do it for free" would just make you look like an unprofessional prat because they expect to pay for talent

also the benefits of doing it for free are what exactly ? - getting known as the biggest mug in the business who has such an incredible talent that vogue wanted you , but you did it for nothing ? - all that would generate is lots of inquiries from people wanting you to work for free for them too
 
big soft moose said:
If vogue rang up and said "we want you to shoot our cover" (and lets face it that doesn't happen) - saying "great i'd do it for free" would just make you look like an unprofessional prat because they expect to pay for talent

also the benefits of doing it for free are what exactly ? - getting known as the biggest mug in the business who has such an incredible talent that vogue wanted you , but you did it for nothing ? - all that would generate is lots of inquiries from people wanting you to work for free for them too
Click to expand...

I've already said it numerous times. Your work would be seen by almost every advertiser, fashion editor, model, female celebrity, bridezilla and designer that matters. Then you get to schmooze at the top table and network. Think of the opportunities that could bring.
 
Laudrup said:
Yeah you just need the Taylor Swift of photography to take up your cause and people will stop asking for work for free. Oh wait, there isn't one. Back to the drawing board.
Click to expand...

Looks like you need a Taylor Swift of photography to take up your cause with Taylor Swift's own management company, Firefly, for the crappy contracts they require photographers (who aren't even working for Firefly) covering her concerts to sign

https://junction10.wordpress.com/2015/06/21/those-in-glass-houses-shouldnt-throw-stones/

TLDR summary:

1) The photos you take can only be published once in the publication you were covering the concert for, and cannot be used anywhere else, even if they are not actually used in that magazine (and consequently you didn't get paid).

2) Firefly get to use all of your photos for free, forever
 
Last edited:
Musicman said:
Firefly, for the crappy contracts they require photographers (who aren't even working for Firefly) covering her concerts to sign
Click to expand...

That's an authorisation form, not a contract. Not abiding by its rules would not constitute a breach of contract (I would sign it with a false name anyway!).


Steve.
 
Steve Smith said:
That's an authorisation form, not a contract. Not abiding by its rules would not constitute a breach of contract (I would sign it with a false name anyway!).


Steve.
Click to expand...

And in doing so, commit fraud.
 
What would be the legal implication of signing the agreement (with your correct name) but deciding to disagree with it later?


Steve.
 
Steve Smith said:
What would be the legal implication of signing the agreement (with your correct name) but deciding to disagree with it later?


Steve.
Click to expand...

You'd have an expensive battle on your hands.
Your signature denotes your understanding and agreement.
 
Steve Smith said:
That's an authorisation form, not a contract. Not abiding by its rules would not constitute a breach of contract (I would sign it with a false name anyway!).
Click to expand...
It's a binding agreement with consideration. I think any competent English (or Welsh) court would view it for what it is - a contract, enforceable by law.

Of course, where the contract is enforceable would be open to debate - at great expense, in court. Great fun for legal counsel, less so for your bank manager.
 
Last edited:
Steve Smith said:
Yet it shies away from describing itself as a contract.
Click to expand...
There's no legal requirement for it to say so. Most contracts don't say "contract" on it. Especially verbal ones ;)
It does make clear that it's binding and that they will pursue for damages in the case of breach. Even if you didn't recognize it as a contract, that should be warning enough.

One should not be in the habit of signing agreements you intend to renege on, less so advising others to do the same. ;)
 
Llamaman said:
One should not be in the habit of signing agreements you intend to renege on, less so advising others to do the same.
Click to expand...

No. But I am very much in the habit of questioning things. If someone tells me I can't do something, I want to know why. Either that or I go and do it to prove that I can (or can't).

We should question a lot more than we do rather than the more common response of assuming everything is as it should be and just complying with it.

And I wasn't really advising others to do anything.


Steve.
 
Steve Smith said:
Yet it shies away from describing itself as a contract...
Click to expand...

Before I bought my own house, I routinely signed documents described as a Tenancy Agreement (such as this example)

I was never under the illusion that it was not a contract even though the word 'contract' did not itself appear in the terms.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top