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

[ukaskew]

If you had no expectation of recouping your investment at the time you made the image then it's not really at "your expense" is it?
And some people simply don't care. They might give away a couple of images here and there knowing perfectly well that someone is making money from them and just not think it's a big deal. Their prerogative.

I have a good example of this...the Castle Combe Circuit website is full of my images. They asked if they could use my images from events (no payment), I was more than happy for them to use them. The 'using my images to profit' thing is fine by me, they are a independent family-run circuit that puts a lot back into the local community and is happy to just about break even, all the profit goes back into the circuit. The circuit gives me a great deal of joy, so I'm more than happy to help them out. I see that no differently to supplying images to the Kennet & Avon Canal (a charity that uses a lot of my images).

However, the Chinese chap on eBay selling my Brooklyn Bridge images? Not so happy about that one.

It's too simple to pigeon-hole everything into 'giving away stuff free to see themselves published'.

 

[big soft moose]

I have a good example of this...the Castle Combe Circuit website is full of my images. They asked if they could use my images from events (no payment), I was more than happy for them to use them. The 'using my images to profit' thing is fine by me, they are a independent family-run circuit that puts a lot back into the local community and is happy to just about break even, all the profit goes back into the circuit. The circuit gives me a great deal of joy, so I'm more than happy to help them out. I see that no differently to supplying images to the Kennet & Avon Canal (a charity that uses a lot of my images).

However, the Chinese chap on eBay selling my Brooklyn Bridge images? Not so happy about that one.

It's too simple to pigeon-hole everything into 'giving away stuff free to see themselves published'.

supporting charities and good causes is different - I've given a bunch of my shots free to different charities largely wildlife centres, but also some social enterprises that help ex forces guys.

that said the former wasn't exactly free because I did get various nice after hours/into enclosure access 'in return' (not actually in return but as a result of establishing a relationship).

commercial businesses can damn well pay or go elsewhere though imo

 

[Last_Straw]

My suggestion - make your money from something that can't be internet located - hair dressing or selling cups of coffee seem most bomb proof.

Photographs are sold in this way, they are called limited edition prints, someone may scan one and post it on the internet but a printed copy of that scanned image will never be worth anything more than it's 'decorative' value. Part of the value in anything is knowing who created it and seeing it as part of their body of work. There are really talented people who take photographs, amateur and professional. Just because something similar is available free doesn't diminish the value of their work, in my eyes.

 

[desantnik]

Nothing diminishes the value of someone's work, just that in some cases alternatives of lesser value are also "available".

Clearly there are types of image you won't find a substitute for but in quite a few cases it's possible. I mean you won't find an alternative to your wedding photos but you will find another photo of Valentino Rossi for example.

 

[jakeblu]

Its called deskilling and its the capitalists secret weapon. You take a previously highly skilled trade and by a process of automation and technological advancements you reduce it to the skill set of a very well trained monkey. It works with almost everything including photography and where on some occasions it doesn't apply (yet) such as teaching and medicine you just convince joe public that they know better than the professional, although thats something a little different and called De-professionalizing. I cant see you've too much to complain about, for many of you the technological advancements have at least up to now improved your businesses its only a matter of time it swings the other way. Now where is that tongue-in-cheek emoticon

 

[omens]

it doesn't apply (yet) such as teaching and medicine you just convince joe public that they know better than the professional, although thats something a little different and called De-professionalizing.

I think the Govt and the media spin are hard at work at those two professions.

 

[george g]

Its called deskilling and its the capitalists secret weapon. You take a previously highly skilled trade and by a process of automation and technological advancements you reduce it to the skill set of a very well trained monkey. It works with almost everything including photography and where on some occasions it doesn't apply (yet) such as teaching and medicine you just convince joe public that they know better than the professional, although thats something a little different and called De-professionalizing. I cant see you've too much to complain about, for many of you the technological advancements have at least up to now improved your businesses its only a matter of time it swings the other way. Now where is that tongue-in-cheek emoticon

There is a massive saving to be made if you have un-skilled labour rather than skilled labour, so it makes sense for a company to want to do it though. For those in that trade though is where the issues comes as they feel their work that was once important has been downgraded and take that as a personal thing.

Working initially in Rolling stock manufacture, they are giving their best go at de-skilling the assembly of the vehicles, but this has just made the engineering side more important and has increased the skill required there in design - so thats where I went...

So - De-skilling the technical process of taking a photo, has this actually forced the hand to increase artistic skill and sales technique for commissions?

 

[ChrisGilbert]

So - De-skilling the technical process of taking a photo, has this actually forced the hand to increase artistic skill and sales technique for commissions?

Correct. If you want to make money from Photography you have to be offering something that nobody else in your market is offering. Artistic interpretation is one way of doing it. The trick is to create something that has sufficiently wide appeal but is also scarce so that supply and demand work for you.

 

[Wayne Els]

It is how it is. and theres nothing that can be done about it... Who cares who's to blame.. why waste your life worrying about it... Adapt and move forward... It can't go back to how it was...It just is what it is..

Stiff upper lip and all that

I think that about sums this up.
We can see why someone that was or is making a living from photography would be miffed by the situation.
Most of us can see why some people like to have their pictures in the local rag. It doesn't make them bad people.
And it's obvious why the users of the image will take a free source over a paid one even if the quality, not to mention ethics may be questionable.
Getting worked up about it, whilst understandable is probably not good for your health. Better to move on.

 

[big soft moose]

I think that about sums this up.
We can see why someone that was or is making a living from photography would be miffed by the situation.
Most of us can see why some people like to have their pictures in the local rag. It doesn't make them bad people.
And it's obvious why the users of the image will take a free source over a paid one even if the quality, not to mention ethics may be questionable.
Getting worked up about it, whilst understandable is probably not good for your health. Better to move on.

Only to an extent - the market for kwallitee is still there - is like the prestige car market , anyone can buy a kia , but that doesn't mean there isn't a market for a Ferrari.

If you can't compete on cost, don't try - invert the cost market and get clients to say i'm hiring XYZ because i'm/my brand is worth it

 

[desantnik]

I think there are sectors of the market where quality can count but by and large the biggest users of images are cost focused and can use the internet...

 

[big soft moose]

there is that, but the cost of trying to use shots that aren't fit for purpose can be more in the long run than commission work that's exactly what you want

for example if your web designer uses " oh sod it that 'll do" free images to market something , sales flop etc - or worse you or your web designer rip off someonelse's pictures and you get hammered for copyright infringement

 

[desantnik]

I think the mistake most of us photographers make its thinking that most of the viewers can tell the difference....

 

[Wayne Els]

Only to an extent - the market for kwallitee is still there - is like the prestige car market , anyone can buy a kia , but that doesn't mean there isn't a market for a Ferrari.

If you can't compete on cost, don't try - invert the cost market and get clients to say i'm hiring XYZ because i'm/my brand is worth it

And it always will be. Quality and original work will always have a place but for a lot of older, I'm guessing bread and butter work times have changed.

BTW I'm just a very amateur who out of principle wouldn't let a profit maker use my pics for free should one wish to.