Images, value and their worth... Who is to blame?

Interesting debate.

I'm an amateur and have never had a photo purchased/published.

But if I was asked I would probably agree with no fee. Yes...it would probably just be for an ego boost/massage.

Am I aware that others are making a profit out of my work? Yes...its capitalism...just as I make a profit out of the work of others in my profession.

I'm sorry if some think that this is destroying the photography industry, but in reality surely it's just a small part of the stock industry affected. No one is going to commission an amateur for a bespoke piece free. The only free images publishers are getting are from stock sources.

So the scaremongering about destroying the photographic industry should be more accurately described as the stock industry.

If you are a pro relying on the stock industry, then yes I'm sure the explosion of images has damaged your income. It's a tough bad world out there, and we are in a recession. But as others have said, adapt and change to the brave new world, or choose a different career....just dont use amateurs as an easy scapegoat. It's the equivalent of blaming our national woes on asylum seekers/benefit cheats etc....lazy and misguided.
 
Ash. said:
Whilst I think you're right to be annoyed at amatuers giving their work away for free, I personally feel, and refer to my initial point of naivity rather than them wanting to destroy the industry
Click to expand...

For me this is absoloutly spot on.. There not trying to put us out of work.. they simply dont realise... I ahve been in that position.. pre messageboards where there was nobody to explain whats going on... I learnt.... the hard way unfortumatly but once I realised then :)

I will never attack anyone for giving pics away.. if they will listen then I will explain..if they dont listen then I will move on as I cant explain to millions.. its a losing battle...
 
Pookeyhead said:
Thanks for clarifying. That is just your work though. From how it sounds, you're not really under the same threats as others in different parts of the industry though.

I'm speaking generally..
Click to expand...

but thats it.. photogrpahy is so.. well soo.. diverse? its hard to generalise...


Pookeyhead said:
not necessarily arguing with just you. Apologies if it seemed that way.
Click to expand...

Its didnt for a second.. I understand the differnce between a debate (even a heated one) and an argument.. I love a good debate with people who are equally as pasionate about the subject :)
 
When I became club photographer for my local rugby club, who play in Nat League 2 South, I was approached by the local paper for 'free' photo's of the game. I had already been asking the pro sports photographers on TP various questions and the topic of 'free' photos came up. So when asked by the local rag for photos I asked for payment and got the usual answer "We cant afford it". To cut a long story short I eventually agreed a deal for payment with the Sports editor.

I later found out that an elderly chap I got talking to was a sports photographer for the local rag who was not needed any more because the paper could get the photos for nothing from 'others' at the game.

I should add that this was not just related to rugby, but most sports in the area.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
dkh said:
Two things have changed: Skill required... it's now less. (I'm not even going to debate this... it just is)

Really?
Click to expand...

Yes.


......but this is not the thread. Start a new one if you wanna chew the fat over this, but it's tired... will cause an argument, and be mod locked within one hour as people who can't handle the truth start crying and name calling.


Move on please.
 
AFC said:
When I became club photographer for my local rugby club, who play in Nat League 2 South, I was approached by the local paper for 'free' photo's of the game. I had already been asking the pro sports photographers on TP various questions and the topic of 'free' photos came up. So when asked by the local rag for photos I asked for payment and got the usual answer "We cant afford it". To cut a long story short I eventually agreed a deal for payment with the Sports editor.

I later found out that an elderly chap I got talking to was a sports photographer for the local rag who was not needed any more because the paper could get the photos for nothing from 'others' at the game.
Click to expand...

We know thats the problem... but what if you hadnt been on TP and never spoken to anyone about this... you would have given the pics to the paper and been part of the problem... because you didnt know... not your fault.. nobodies fault.. thats what some people need to realise is happening :)
 
KIPAX said:
We know thats the problem... but what if you hadnt been on TP and never spoken to anyone about this... you would have given the pics to the paper and been part of the problem... because you didnt know... not your fault.. nobodies fault.. thats what some people need to realise is happening :)
Click to expand...

Agree 100% Kipax. I listened to what I was told from my peers, evaluated the advice and acted on it.

Had I not been told I would be one of the 'FOC' brigade.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
AFC said:
Agree 100% Kipax. I listened to what I was told from my peers, evaluated the advice and acted on it.

Had I not been told I would be one of the 'FOC' brigade.
Click to expand...

This and the fact that so many people now find thereselves in this position due to progress in technology etc.... thats the answer to the OPs question... Nobody to blame.. just the way things are :)
 
What I don't quite understand is the proud to be published argument.

What is it that's making people proud, the fact the their image has been published, or that they have been asked.

Repeatedly I hear people say they feel pride that someone thinks their photo is good enough to be published, does that pride go away if you ask for payment and are refused. Well it shouldn't , they still feel your photo was good enough, so you still have the same sense of achievement, why not doubled that feeling by getting paid.

If they aren't willing to pay you, then maybe you shouldn't be so cuffed as they don't really think your photo is THAT good, just it was cheap/free .
 
Last edited:
AFC said:
When I became club photographer for my local rugby club, who play in Nat League 2 South, I was approached by the local paper for 'free' photo's of the game. I had already been asking the pro sports photographers on TP various questions and the topic of 'free' photos came up. So when asked by the local rag for photos I asked for payment and got the usual answer "We cant afford it". To cut a long story short I eventually agreed a deal for payment with the Sports editor.

I later found out that an elderly chap I got talking to was a sports photographer for the local rag who was not needed any more because the paper could get the photos for nothing from 'others' at the game.

I should add that this was not just related to rugby, but most sports in the area.
Click to expand...

Did you ask him who else work for free on his paper :D
 
acetone said:
What I don't quite understand is the proud to be published argument..
Click to expand...

I get published every week.. Still proud.. Its the only reason I buy the paper.. Love seeing it and I still remeber the first time..

Photogrpahy is about people seeing the pictures you took.. what bigger buzz than your pic in a magazine... who cares if other photogrpahers are telling you its devalued.... you got a pic published in a magazine.. Frame it I say.. be happy and proud if you got paid or not..

If you cant get a buzz out of being published then perhaps your not as into photogrpahy as you think.. its a great feeling..


the problem arrises when you go out of your way to be published for free over paid people.. different thing..


all IMHO of course:)


and thats me done.. off to shoot 2 cricket matches for three papers this aft.. 1 published monday.. 1 wed and 1 thurday... and I will get a buzz seeing them all.. being paid doesnt spoil the feeling :)
 
Last edited:
acetone said:
What I don't quite understand is the proud to be published argument.
Click to expand...

I think back in the day it was a bit of an achievement to have your work published.

Currently I reckon every body knows somebody who's had something published somewhere, the standards have dropped so low, its not difficult any more.

I think they main jist of the OP's question is aimed at freelance photographers working for magazines/newspapers, I don't feel the outlook is so bleak for those working for commission, especially if you keep yourself one step ahead and make sure you're producing work that's of a higher standard or originality.
 
Ash. said:
Spot on.

It's a false sence of achievement for sure.
Click to expand...

If one of my images ever got printed I would have a sence (sic) of achievement regardless of whether it was free or paid for.
 
Steve said:
If one of my images ever got printed I would have a sence (sic) of achievement regardless of whether it was free or paid for.
Click to expand...

I've had various photos of mine used, for free and paid. And you're right it does feel good.

However, people often feel as if they've achieved something by being published. The publisher often doesn't want work because it's good, but more so because it's cheap and easy, as previously stated.

I don't know why people feel happy about being seen as cheap and easy...
 
I was told to phone my local paper and ask to place a half page advertisement in their paper for free and see what they say. :D
 
Ash. said:
I've had various photos of mine used, for free and paid. And you're right it does feel good.

However, people often feel as if they've achieved something by being published. The publisher often doesn't want work because it's good, but more so because it's cheap and easy, as previously stated.

I don't know why people feel happy about being seen as cheap and easy...
Click to expand...

Well I've never had anything published so maybe I'm not cheap and easy enough .... or maybe the quality filter is higher than my work, so maybe I need to pay them to publish my pictures :)
 
treeman said:
I think back in the day it was a bit of an achievement to have your work published.

Currently I reckon every body knows somebody who's had something published somewhere, the standards have dropped so low, its not difficult any more.

I think they main jist of the OP's question is aimed at freelance photographers working for magazines/newspapers, I don't feel the outlook is so bleak for those working for commission, especially if you keep yourself one step ahead and make sure you're producing work that's of a higher standard or originality.
Click to expand...

The thing no one is saying is that the standard of a lot of the work given for free is not of a low standard really is it?

There are are some very talented photographers who do photography for a hobby. (Look in the C&C section of this forum for proof of that).

At the end of the day the photographer owns his/her images and can do with them what they like.
 
Pookeyhead said:
I agree... it's a worthwhile debate.

If it is the latter... and I think it is... then there's nothing you can do. ]You can try and educate, but you'll just get a "Get with it Granddad" responseThe world has changed. You don't try to change the behaviour... as you'll be p***ing into the wind. You adapt your own working model to mitigate this. If "they" are producing work as good as you are... you're screwed. By better, I don't mean technically... I mean in how inventive, and original it is.
Click to expand...

I think theres a clear difference between amateurs and aspiring pro's here. The former are I'd agree unlikely to be influenced by this kind of talk, partly because there so much more numerous and partly because the argument is based on helping out people they don't even know. The latter though I'd say maybe influenced by this kind of talk, aspiring pro's are a much smaller group and likely frequent similar parts of the net more plus the argument is one that directly effects them.

You also need to embrace the new developments. The idea of work being given away, or disseminated online as a bad thing shouldn't be fought against. Use it to your advantage. It's no longer about SELLING an image you've already taken, it's about using your personal work as a showcase to gain commissions on original work based on your ability to demonstrate a strong style and tone of voice. That's not changed really, as it's always been the case, but because the images are "out there" now, they will get appropriated. SO what if they do? If some half assed travel website in Estonia nicks your image... so what? Just add them to your list of clients on your bio :) You'd NEVER get any cash from them anyway, so turn it to your advantage. Change your attitude. Embrace change rather than fight it, as fighting it is a lost battle already. The best you can hope for is a valiant rearguard action before you're finally defeated.

Use social media to become more social in the way you promote yourself.
Click to expand...

Its really very hard for me to give a definite opinion on this as I simply don't have the knowledge of the industry.

The argument I often see brought up though is that the potential worth of this kind of free use to your future career has declined greatly in recent years and that potential employers are using the fact that aspiring pro's havent cottoned on to this to exploit them.
 
Last edited:
Lets say ALL amateurs charged a fee for images used, would we not now be debating the fact that amateurs are under charging and taking work away from the pro?
 
Pookeyhead said:
Using music as an analogy, free downloads harmed, and still are harming the industry. Initially, the reaction was outrage, and pathetic, pointless efforts to stem the flow of freely available, pirated music files. It didn't work, and still hasn't worked. Yes it harms the industry, but it only REALLY harms the industry if the industry doesn't adapt. If you view the music industry as going to a shop to buy a CD, then yes, that is going to continue to get hit hard, but iTunes, Amazon et al are doing quite well, as they've adapted their business models to be successful in a new climate that wasn't congruous to the old ways of doing things, and the music industry as a whole is now realising that a change in delivery is necessary. I'd rather pay 90p for a music track from a reputable source, of high quality and be completely legal than find some dodgy russian website or torrent that will give me a poorly encoded 128bit MP3, open loads of pop ups, install malware and key loggers. I think people are waking up to this.

There are people who sell their work for peanuts... some of it is crap, some isn't.. but it's there... and not going anywhere. There's nothing whatsoever you can do about it regardless of your opinion. You can't stop it.
Click to expand...

The music industry is in dire straights, as is the film industry. There is no chance for any band signed to a label to have an OK selling second album, or a first album that sold OK, but not great. You either strike gold or you are gone. That is album by album too, your second album not as good as your first in sales, you are gone. Musicians themselves are suffering too, no sales=no paycheque (and spotify playing 0.06p per play isn't going to help). Instead they are left living off tshirt sales at gigs, which due to a recession is an industry that is also now suffering. This is why we have the same formulaic dross produced over and over and ho the talent show thing is big. There is no longevity in music any more. It is no longer a risk taker as far as bigger labels are concerned, it is cover our backsides style tactics that lead to a sea of bland.

Ditto the film industry who spend most of their time making remakes or additions to other moves. Again the innovation is gone in place of bums on seats.

We live in an age of boring and bland. We no longer want to be challenged, we want it the same every time, even if it doesn't taste as good.

As I said earlier we can see, listen to or watch an infinite number of things at the click of a button. This is great in some ways. However there is so much rubbish out there that the good stuff, the groundbreakers, the biggest, brightest talents will never get anywhere because they get lost in all this digital noise.

This generation will be deprived of masterpieces because of this. Hopefully it will change into the future, but at the moment it is bleak. The greats will never be seen and instead we will be lapping up holograms of The Stones playing Glastonbury 2045, because they don't make music like this any more. Your right, they don't, because they are not given a chance to due to the state of the industry.
 
Last edited:
I've been offered payment for a couple of my photos, but in the end I've told the companies involved to just go ahead and use them for free. That's going to grate with a few members here.

But why? Well if I was to actually take money for the photographs I'd be out of pocket. I'd need to take unpaid time off work to do a whole lot of filling in forms at the buying company's site, issuing invoices and associated admin, and then I'd have to declare it on my tax. It would take an offer of around 1000 francs (about £650 in Brit money) for me to break even. So basically unless they're offering about 1500 francs (circa £1000 in Brit money) it's not really worth my while.

Given that nobody is ever going to offer that for a photo means that I'll be happy to give my library photos away for free - better that they're used rather then sitting on my HD.

If on the other hand I was to be asked to do a job then it would be somewhat different.

I don't actually believe that a photographic image holds an inherent worth these days, unless it's of something that is an exceptional one time event that will likely never be repeated.
 
Slaphead said:
But why? Well if I was to actually take money for the photographs I'd be out of pocket. I'd need to take unpaid time off work to do a whole lot of filling in forms at the buying company's site, issuing invoices and associated admin, and then I'd have to declare it on my tax. It would take an offer of around 1000 francs (about £650 in Brit money) for me to break even. So basically unless they're offering about 1500 francs (circa £1000 in Brit money) it's not really worth my while.
Click to expand...

That makes sense to me and if you have another income I can see the complexity of declaring earnings for sporadic payments makes it too bothersome.

Slaphead said:
I don't actually believe that a photographic image holds an inherent worth these days, unless it's of something that is an exceptional one time event that will likely never be repeated.
Click to expand...

Can't agree with that at all, people like looking at images they don't have to be one time events to invoke pleasure or emotion in the viewer. If someone likes something they are free to pay for owning a copy of it, that is their right too.
 
I'm pretty similar to the post just above by slaphead really. Up until recently I was shooting motorsport, always for nothing more than enjoyment, the pictures would end up on my HD and on Flickr etc. On a very frequent basis teams/drivers/companies (but mainly drivers) would contact me offering to buy my photos. Now, this isn't going to go down well, but I've never charged anyone for a shot they've asked for. Why? Just too much hassle to sort it out considering the number of requests I was getting at some points, plus I was 100% into motorsport photography purely for the fun of it, I hated the few times I was shooting to spec and have turned down some very well rewarded work in the past 5 years. I made a firm judgement that it was a hobby, nothing more, and stuck by that.

The 'why pay when you can get for free' point doesn't work in my case, as people were offering to pay. I'm not one to boast about my photography, but the sorts of comments I was receiving were along the lines of 'these are much better than the usual pro shots', so they were clearly good enough. Neither does the 'happy to see it published' argument, I've been sent a few photos of study/garage/living room walls adorned with very large framed prints of my images, but 99% of the time I have no idea what's been done with them.

I have several friends who are working motorsport photographers, and I'm sure (and know, in a few cases) that my approach doesn't go down well with them. The odd irony of that is that I shouldn't be selling pictures from events anyway as a paying member of the public, I'm actually in the right by not doing so.

The often used analogies with other forms of work just don't make sense, in my opinion, as very few (if any) of the other jobs mentioned are also a very popular and enjoyable hobby.
 
Last edited:
ukaskew said:
I'm pretty similar to the post just above by slaphead really. Up until recently I was shooting motorsport, always for nothing more than enjoyment, the pictures would end up on my HD and on Flickr etc. On a very frequent basis teams/drivers/companies (but mainly drivers) would contact me offering to buy my photos. Now, this isn't going to go down well, but I've never charged anyone for a shot they've asked for. Why? Just too much hassle to sort it out considering the number of requests I was getting at some points, plus I was 100% into motorsport photography purely for the fun of it, I hated the few times I was shooting to spec and have turned down some very well rewarded work in the past 5 years. I made a firm judgement that it was a hobby, nothing more, and stuck by that.

The 'why pay when you can get for free' point doesn't work in my case, as people were offering to pay. I'm not one to boast about my photography, but the sorts of comments I was receiving were along the lines of 'these are much better than the usual pro shots', so they were clearly good enough. Neither does the 'happy to see it published' argument, I've been sent a few photos of study/garage/living room walls adorned with very large framed prints of my images, but 99% of the time I have no idea what's been done with them.

I have several friends who are working motorsport photographers, and I'm sure (and know, in a few cases) that my approach doesn't go down well with them. The odd irony of that is that I shouldn't be selling pictures from events anyway as a paying member of the public, I'm actually in the right by not doing so.

The often used analogies with other forms of work just don't make sense, in my opinion, as very few (if any) of the other jobs mentioned are also a very popular and enjoyable hobby.
Click to expand...

You turn down payment, and you're not interested in seeing your work published. I have to wonder why you give your images away so freely then, when there is clearly nothing in it for you. What a terrible waste of your talents.

Of course you can do what you want with your images, and you have chosen to be a high volume photographic charity, one who supplies apparently well crafted photographs to affluent enough commercial enterprises or individuals, so they can profit from your endeavours whilst you remain reward-free. Regarding the hobby side of things, your overhead/production costs are present to a degree whether you are shooting for pleasure or profit, likewise the time and skill you invest. Whether the images are sitting around on your hard drive or not is also immaterial - they have cost you money and time to produce and clearly they are of value to the companies who desire them, and will benefit from using them, otherwise why would they ask for your pictures in the first place?

The commentator who said that photography has no value is (forgive me) talking out of his rear - the commercial and advertising world is driven by photographic imagery, as is much of the art world, the editorial world, and news reporting to name but a few. None of those markets would exist without high-quality still images, they are the most vital ingredient of the profit-making machine. It's just that these days they can get much of it for free, if they flatter somebody, or ********* them enough.

And I think you may have misinterpreted what event holders mean when they impose restrictions on how the public can use images captured at their events. The rules are there to protect the interests of the fee earning photographers (or 'official' photographers), so whether you distribute your photographs for payment or not is irrelevant - the point is that you are supplying images taken at the event and therefore in some cases this may be impeding the profits of the fee earning pros (who likely pay a sum to the organizers to be there) because some of the companies/teams/drivers concerned know they can come to you instead, and pay nothing. I think it's little wonder that some of the motorsport photographers you refer to would be irritated by what you're doing. I must say I feel sorry for them.

There are plenty of jobs which large proportions of the population also enjoy as hobbies. I have many friends who love cooking and baking, but I can't see them supplying their next batch of cakes to every Tom Dick or Harry who asks. I have another friend who is a keen writer in her spare time, and I know what she would say if a commercial enterprise got in touch and asked for a couple of free chapters from her last book to help fill their brochures (and those chapters carry none of the overheads of your photography outings). Another mate creates beautiful ceramics in her well equipped home workshop, she loves it - but would you wander in and pick up a nice vase and argue that it's 'already been made, you enjoyed producing it, it's part of an existing collection or batch, and it's sitting in your shed doing nothing so you should give it to me to enhance my new office, after all I'm saving you the hassle of processing my payment'. A photographer's overheads can be much higher than hers by the way, likewise the skills and time invested in some outings irrespective of how many images are captured - that's what it comes down to in the main, rather than the fact that a vase or cake is a separate solid object and a photograph is a 'digital thingie' which can be copied. The examples are endless and the notion that photographers should be viewed entirely differently to the rest of the planet is weird.

The OP asked who is to blame. In my view the blame lies at the feet of image makers who consider none of the matters which I and others have raised in this thread, they are the worst offenders because they are naive to what has really been involved in producing their (often very good) images and they are utterly blind to the manner in which those images can generate income for the various strangers who expect to be given them for free. Others simply don't care and are happy to be taken advantage of. Is it flattering to see a photograph published? If the exchange has been a fair one, then yes it can be. But if you have nothing in return then the pleasure must surely be a little hollow, embarrassing even, knowing that the client/publisher has so much contempt for you that you are the only person in the production line who is not being rewarded.

Lastly, some blame must lie at the feet of aggressive publishers who have become so habituated to gaining photography for free that they expect and demand the same from any and every photographer they approach, with little or no discrimination between hobbyists and full-time established professionals.

I am very glad I don't rely on editorial, event work, sports, or stock for my living.
 
Last edited:
Lindsay D said:
You turn down payment, and you're not interested in seeing your work published. I have to wonder why you give your images away so freely then, when there is clearly nothing in it for you. What a terrible waste of your talents.

Of course you can do what you want with your images, and you have chosen to be a high volume photographic charity, one who supplies apparently well crafted photographs to affluent enough commercial enterprises or individuals, so they can profit from your endeavours whilst you remain reward-free. Regarding the hobby side of things, your overhead/production costs are present to a degree whether you are shooting for pleasure or profit, likewise the time and skill you invest. Whether the images are sitting around on your hard drive or not is also immaterial - they have cost you money and time to produce and clearly they are of value to the companies who desire them, and will benefit from using them, otherwise why would they ask for your pictures in the first place?

The commentator who said that photography has no value is (forgive me) talking out of his rear - the commercial and advertising world is driven by photographic imagery, as is much of the art world, the editorial world, and news reporting to name but a few. None of those markets would exist without high-quality still images, they are the most vital ingredient of the profit-making machine. It's just that these days they can get much of it for free, if they flatter somebody, or ********* them enough.

And I think you may have misinterpreted what event holders mean when they impose restrictions on how the public can use images captured at their events. The rules are there to protect the interests of the fee earning photographers (or 'official' photographers), so whether you distribute your photographs for payment or not is irrelevant - the point is that you are supplying images taken at the event and therefore in some cases this may be impeding the profits of the fee earning pros (who likely pay a sum to the organizers to be there) because some of the companies/teams/drivers concerned know they can come to you instead, and pay nothing. I think it's little wonder that some of the motorsport photographers you refer to would be irritated by what you're doing. I must say I feel sorry for them.

There are plenty of jobs which large proportions of the population also enjoy as hobbies. I have many friends who love cooking and baking, but I can't see them supplying their next batch of cakes to every Tom Dick or Harry who asks. I have another friend who is a keen writer in her spare time, and I know what she would say if a commercial enterprise got in touch and asked for a couple of free chapters from her last book to help fill their brochures (and those chapters carry none of the overheads of your photography outings). Another mate creates beautiful ceramics in her well equipped home workshop, she loves it - but would you wander in and pick up a nice vase and argue that it's 'already been made, you enjoyed producing it, it's part of an existing collection or batch, and it's sitting in your shed doing nothing so you should give it to me to enhance my new office, after all I'm saving you the hassle of processing my payment'. A photographer's overheads can be much higher than hers by the way, likewise the skills and time invested in some outings irrespective of how many images are captured - that's what it comes down to in the main, rather than the fact that a vase or cake is a separate solid object and a photograph is a 'digital thingie' which can be copied. The examples are endless and the notion that photographers should be viewed entirely differently to the rest of the planet is weird.

The OP asked who is to blame. In my view the blame lies at the feet of image makers who consider none of the matters which I and others have raised in this thread, they are the worst offenders because they are naive to what has really been involved in producing their (often very good) images and they are utterly blind to the manner in which those images can generate income for the various strangers who expect to be given them for free. Others simply don't care and are happy to be taken advantage of. Is it flattering to see a photograph published? If the exchange has been a fair one, then yes it can be. But if you have nothing in return then the pleasure must surely be a little hollow, embarrassing even, knowing that the client/publisher has so much contempt for you that you are the only person in the production line who is not being rewarded.

Lastly, some blame must lie at the feet of aggressive publishers who have become so habituated to gaining photography for free that they expect and demand the same from any and every photographer they approach, with little or no discrimination between hobbyists and full-time established professionals.

I am very glad I don't rely on editorial, event work, sports, or stock for my living.
Click to expand...


Fully agree with the above
 
Lindsay D

Your post makes a lot of sense.

The only relevant question, for me, is what are you going to do about it?
 
simon ess said:
Lindsay D

Your post makes a lot of sense.

The only relevant question, for me, is what are you going to do about it?
Click to expand...
That's the crux of the matter as far as I can see.
You can moan (with justification) about it until you go blue in the face but this is the reality and moaning about it isn't going to help a great deal.

However, I do, it has to be said, find the "people who don't see a monetary value in their art are stupid" attitude more than a little cynical. Money isn't everything and it is not necessarily stupid to not care about being paid for your work - even if someone else is making money from it. Some perfectly intelligent people might simply not give a hoot.
 
Last edited:
simon ess said:
Lindsay D

Your post makes a lot of sense.

The only relevant question, for me, is what are you going to do about it?
Click to expand...

There is nothing you can do about it, nobody is breaking the law here. Unless you lobby parliament and get a law passed that no photos can be freely provided to anyone...
 
Lindsay D said:
You turn down payment, and you're not interested in seeing your work published. I have to wonder why you give your images away so freely then, when there is clearly nothing in it for you. What a terrible waste of your talents.

Of course you can do what you want with your images, and you have chosen to be a high volume photographic charity, one who supplies apparently well crafted photographs to affluent enough commercial enterprises or individuals, so they can profit from your endeavours whilst you remain reward-free. Regarding the hobby side of things, your overhead/production costs are present to a degree whether you are shooting for pleasure or profit, likewise the time and skill you invest. Whether the images are sitting around on your hard drive or not is also immaterial - they have cost you money and time to produce and clearly they are of value to the companies who desire them, and will benefit from using them, otherwise why would they ask for your pictures in the first place?

The commentator who said that photography has no value is (forgive me) talking out of his rear - the commercial and advertising world is driven by photographic imagery, as is much of the art world, the editorial world, and news reporting to name but a few. None of those markets would exist without high-quality still images, they are the most vital ingredient of the profit-making machine. It's just that these days they can get much of it for free, if they flatter somebody, or ********* them enough.

And I think you may have misinterpreted what event holders mean when they impose restrictions on how the public can use images captured at their events. The rules are there to protect the interests of the fee earning photographers (or 'official' photographers), so whether you distribute your photographs for payment or not is irrelevant - the point is that you are supplying images taken at the event and therefore in some cases this may be impeding the profits of the fee earning pros (who likely pay a sum to the organizers to be there) because some of the companies/teams/drivers concerned know they can come to you instead, and pay nothing. I think it's little wonder that some of the motorsport photographers you refer to would be irritated by what you're doing. I must say I feel sorry for them.

There are plenty of jobs which large proportions of the population also enjoy as hobbies. I have many friends who love cooking and baking, but I can't see them supplying their next batch of cakes to every Tom Dick or Harry who asks. I have another friend who is a keen writer in her spare time, and I know what she would say if a commercial enterprise got in touch and asked for a couple of free chapters from her last book to help fill their brochures (and those chapters carry none of the overheads of your photography outings). Another mate creates beautiful ceramics in her well equipped home workshop, she loves it - but would you wander in and pick up a nice vase and argue that it's 'already been made, you enjoyed producing it, it's part of an existing collection or batch, and it's sitting in your shed doing nothing so you should give it to me to enhance my new office, after all I'm saving you the hassle of processing my payment'. A photographer's overheads can be much higher than hers by the way, likewise the skills and time invested in some outings irrespective of how many images are captured - that's what it comes down to in the main, rather than the fact that a vase or cake is a separate solid object and a photograph is a 'digital thingie' which can be copied. The examples are endless and the notion that photographers should be viewed entirely differently to the rest of the planet is weird.

The OP asked who is to blame. In my view the blame lies at the feet of image makers who consider none of the matters which I and others have raised in this thread, they are the worst offenders because they are naive to what has really been involved in producing their (often very good) images and they are utterly blind to the manner in which those images can generate income for the various strangers who expect to be given them for free. Others simply don't care and are happy to be taken advantage of. Is it flattering to see a photograph published? If the exchange has been a fair one, then yes it can be. But if you have nothing in return then the pleasure must surely be a little hollow, embarrassing even, knowing that the client/publisher has so much contempt for you that you are the only person in the production line who is not being rewarded.

Lastly, some blame must lie at the feet of aggressive publishers who have become so habituated to gaining photography for free that they expect and demand the same from any and every photographer they approach, with little or no discrimination between hobbyists and full-time established professionals.

I am very glad I don't rely on editorial, event work, sports, or stock for my living.
Click to expand...

Lindsay just so you know someone is not being taken advantage of if they are fully aware what's going on and still don't care and also it's a little rich to have someone else telling me when I am aloud to feel pleasure and in what measure. It would be much easier if you accepted that everyone is different and that there are people put there who know that they could charge for their work, know that others may well profit from it but are still perfectly happy to give it away and get that warm feeling of satisfaction. Yes you may not understand this and clearly don't feel it yourself but it obviously exists. Your financial arguments also make little sense yes I have an expensive camera and lenses but I purchased them to record the important/cool moments in my life and in doing do my return on investment is beyond measure I don't need money to make my gear pay none of my photos cost a penny to take as I would have been there anyway the processing time was a pleasure as it was for me so my 'overheads' are nil as I did it for enjoyment which is beyond value.

Stop telling others how they should think, feel and value their photo's it is the individuals decision and you should respect their right to make it even if you don't understand their motivation.
 
How many of you guys on here have Wordpress based blogs? How many of you use GIMP or any other 'free' software? Why would you not use a professional software engineer to develop a bespoke application for you rather than use the 'free stuff' that's already out there?

Software engineers need to eat! Be careful or the same may happen to the photography industry too!
 
Furtim said:
How many of you guys on here have Wordpress based blogs? How many of you use GIMP or any other 'free' software? Why would you not use a professional software engineer to develop a bespoke application for you rather than use the 'free stuff' that's already out there?

Software engineers need to eat! Be careful or the same may happen to the photography industry too!
Click to expand...

But but the gimp developers are happy to do it for free because it's a hobby ;)
 
a1ex2001 said:
But but the gimp developers are happy to do it for free because it's a hobby ;)
Click to expand...

Total agreement! :)

And yet according to some of the hypocrites on this thread, they are a bunch of morons and idiots.
 
I think the chance of doing things for each other for love and feeling of community and the removal of the whole monetary system is long gone. We are in a capitalist world where even the countries that were anti capitalist are now some of the worst. It is all about the money.
 
ernesto said:
I think the chance of doing things for each other for love and feeling of community and the removal of the whole monetary system is long gone. We are in a capitalist world where even the countries that were anti capitalist are now some of the worst. It is all about the money.
Click to expand...
A thriving freeware scene suggests otherwise.
 
Furtim said:
How many of you guys on here have Wordpress based blogs? How many of you use GIMP or any other 'free' software? Why would you not use a professional software engineer to develop a bespoke application for you rather than use the 'free stuff' that's already out there?

Software engineers need to eat! Be careful or the same may happen to the photography industry too!
Click to expand...
Exactly.

I hope everyone toeing the "it's wrong to take 'valuable' work for free, even if it's offered for free" completely foregos any sort of freeware.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top