Published & Credited but not payed. Why?

[Splog]

To all those who love the ego stroke of a credit. If someone stole your pic off flickr and used it for the cover of the Sun Newspaper with a credit, what would you do?

There are times where free work is fine, Helping people out is great, but If someone is making money off your work, then you are being taken advantage of.



Why does this make you feel cool??????? I cannot understand this. The paid ones, great you did a good job, but the paper pays others who work for them, newspapers pay other photographers, so why not you? Obviously you are not good enough to be paid.

What you are in reality saying is "My photos are not as good quality as those people usually use, as if I asked for payment they wouldn't pay me like the others". I feel a lot of the not asking is due to insecurities of people not feeling good enough.

Some of those shots were actually pretty naff however, that is hardly the point, is it? What you can't understand is that I really don't do this for money, I do it for myself, for my own pleasure and occasionally for the enjoyment of others! ... So please explain the difference between putting a shot here on TP or Flickr and sending a photo to a magazine or newspaper? all are businesses :shrug: Jeez, just realised I pay to put my stuff on Flickr :bonk:

 

[Kaouthia]

You'd potentially make the situation worse if you encouraged more hobbyists to earn money from their photography. You'd get more weekend warriors shooting weddings, more happy snappers sharging for family portraits and more lucky shooters selling their images to the press.

I don't see how it would make things worse. There are plenty of other professions with "cowboys" (electricians, plumbers, builders, website "designers", etc). People will learn the good from the bad and to research who they use if it's going to cost them money (regardless of whether it's going to cost a lot or a little and regardless of whether it's a "pro" or a "hobbyist").

I have no problem with facing more paid working competition. But "free" is not competition. I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with hobbyists making a little spending money from their hobby (plenty of other people do with a multitude of hobbies, so that they can advance their hobbies).

It's not the competition most decent photographers are bothered about, it's the ridiculous devaluation of the product in the eyes of the potentially paying public.

 

[Kaouthia]

Some of those shots were actually pretty naff however, that is hardly the point, is it?

It kind of is. It shows that companies would rather accept crap for free than pay for quality.

 

[Splog]

Why bother for a few quid? I don't partake in hobbies to start counting pennies and sending invoices. Money in, enjoyment out.

Perfectly put ....

 

[RevOnline]

Ah, the old "I have more money than sense" defence. Whilst it might be hard to argue with, it's not exactly a good reason.

 

[nathan]

They most certainly SHOULD. There are plenty of 'professional' chancers out there, but here I am defining a professional as someone for whom photography is their vocation, their full time job, and part of that is being able to produce high quality images in any circumstances. It's not solely the end images, but the attitude, the reliability, the experience that go into making sure that those images will be good, whatever happens.

So does that mean if someone is better than you or has more experience than you then your automatically demoted to "Amateur" class?

It works both ways, I bet there are many "Amateur" photographers out there who can't believe that some of these so called "Professional" photographers are getting paid. How many of them come on here complaining about the issue?

 

[mid_gen]

Ah, the old "I have more money than sense" defence. Whilst it might be hard to argue with, it's not exactly a good reason.

A digital photography forum is probably not the place to start mocking people for partaking of expensive hobbies.

 

[RevOnline]

A digital photography forum is probably not the place to start mocking people for partaking of expensive hobbies.

Where did I do that? All I said is that giving a business something they gain from commercially for free is idiotic when the only reason you can provide is that you've got too much money already.

 

[mid_gen]

I spend enough of my working life messing around with invoices, paperwork and tax returns. There's no idiocy in not wanting to perpetuate this in my leisure time. Do you do anything in your life without performing a cost/benefit analysis beforehand?

 

[grum]

Just wondering how the 'never give anything away for free' people got experienced enough to feel ready to start charging? Or were you just instantly really good and professional?

 

[Splog]

Just wondering how the 'never give anything away for free' people got experienced enough to feel ready to start charging? Or were you just instantly really good and professional?

No! They're still waiting to sell something .... :

 

[Kaouthia]

How many of them come on here complaining about the issue?

None, because it doesn't affect their hobby.

 

[mid_gen]

It kind of is. It shows that companies would rather accept crap for free than pay for quality.

If they aren't prepared to pay for it...then perhaps you need to take a long hard look at how 'quality' the product you are trying to sell really is.

 

[Kaouthia]

If they aren't prepared to pay for it...then perhaps you need to take a long hard look at how 'quality' the product you are trying to sell really is.

That's the thing though. These days, they don't seem to care how good the quality is. They'd rather take a ****** camera phone pic that doesn't cost them a thing.

Just look at the tat that gets posted in the newspapers, on TV, etc.

 

[littlemonster]

I have to be honest... I'm not sure how much of a problem this actually is.

How many full time pros are there on this forum? In Cornwall (a relatively small, poor county) I've found at least 20 from a quick google search before, there's no doubt many more of I spend more than a minute looking.

And for all we here, companies must still pay more for some images or else alamy and other macro stock agencies wouldn't still be in business.

The fact so many people still make it succeed is surely a testiment that it's a lot more to do with what you put in? I'm not saying it's easy, but if you want an easy job start applying for minimum wage (not saying all min wage jobs are easy either, before anyone starts). The work is out there, it just takes more to secure it these days.

 

[jerry12953]

That's the thing though. These days, they don't seem to care how good the quality is. They'd rather take a ****** camera phone pic that doesn't cost them a thing.

Just look at the tat that gets posted in the newspapers, on TV, etc.

I agree. There's a widespread belief among users of photographs that if you hunt around for long enough, they can be had for nothing.

And the quality doesn't matter.

Its not a technical quality issue either. You can take a dull picture with an expensive camera as well as a cameraphone. Its about imagination , the use of light, etc...all of which distinguish a good image from an average one.

Nor is it just a "pro" v "amateur" issue either. Its just that there are so many people, largely amateurs and aspiring pro's who are so happy to see their name in print that they happily give their pictures away. The whole market for photographs has been devalued.

 

[mid_gen]

If your customers have decided that they do not see sufficient value in your products to pay for it, then there's not an awful lot you can do about it.

That is not the fault of hobbyists.

Still, you're not the only industry to struggle adapting to the digital information age. The music, movie, TV and news industries are only just really starting to get to grips with it.

 

[jerry12953]

And for all we here, companies must still pay more for some images or else alamy and other macro stock agencies wouldn't still be in business.

.

They are still in business because the fees they pay to photographers have plummetted!

 

[Kaouthia]

If your customers have decided that they do not see sufficient value in your products to pay for it, then there's not an awful lot you can do about it.

If they're inundated with crap from all angles (as long as it's free), it means their expectations of quality are much lower.

That is not the fault of hobbyists.

So, whose fault is it?

The music, movie, TV and news industries are only just really starting to get to grips with it.

Yes they are, but they're getting to grips with getting around copyright theft and competing against a new business model, not loss of business due to free "competition". Most people who put music, movies, news and "tv shows" online are looking to profit from it, even if it's as simple as advertising revenue on their sites. It's simply a new business model.

 

[mid_gen]

If they're inundated with crap from all angles (as long as it's free), it means their expectations of quality are much lower.


So, whose fault is it?


Yes they are, but they're getting to grips with getting around copyright theft and competing against a new business model, not loss of business due to free "competition". Most people who put music, movies, news and "tv shows" online are looking to profit from it, even if it's as simple as advertising revenue on their sites. It's simply a new business model.

1. If they are so inundated with crap...then it should be very easy for your superior product to stand out. You cannot try and push this argument without conceding that perhaps your product is not any better than the 'crap' amateurs and the like provide for nothing.

2. It's no-one's fault. There is no room for the blame game when it comes to market forces. The market does what the market wants and you deal with it (or not).

3. Copyright theft is another facet of the change. The fundamental change in the past decade is that it is now extremely easy for virtually anyone to share text, images, video and audio with billions of people, in a matter of seconds. In the days before digital and the internet, people weren't all walking around with cameras in their pocket, and they certainly couldn't get a photo onto a picture desk quicker than a professional photojournalist. Times have changed, and professional photographers/videographers/journalists have to compete with cameraphones, Twitter and bloggers.

 

[Kaouthia]

1. If they are so inundated with crap...then it should be very easy for your superior product to stand out. You cannot try and push this argument without conceding that perhaps your product is not any better than the 'crap' amateurs and the like provide for nothing.

You still don't seem to accept that many of these businesses these days are perfectly happy to accept crap as long as it's free. REGARDLESS OF THE SKILL OF THE PHOTOGRAPHER. Why does that seem to have such trouble sinking in?

3. Copyright theft is another facet of the change.

That is nothing to do with this thread.

Times have changed, and professional photographers/videographers/journalists have to compete with cameraphones, Twitter and bloggers.

So, with the statement made above, you're saying that a camera phone will produce the same quality results as professional equipment with proper lighting setups?

 

[mid_gen]

You still don't seem to accept that many of these businesses these days are perfectly happy to accept crap as long as it's free. REGARDLESS OF THE SKILL OF THE PHOTOGRAPHER. Why does that seem to have such trouble sinking in?


That is nothing to do with this thread.


So, with the statement made above, you're saying that a camera phone will produce the same quality results as professional equipment with proper lighting setups?

1. So what you are saying is.....customers don't see the value add in using professional photographers over amateurs because they all produce the same crap?

2. It's relevant to the point about a paradigm shift in the sharing of information in the 21st century.

3. I don't think any studio photographers are crying about amateurs stealing their business...that's not what this discussion is about. See point 2. Give a billion monkeys a billion cameraphones and one of them will snap a Pulitzer prize winning shot.

 

[Kaouthia]

1. So what you are saying is.....customers don't see the value add in using professional photographers over amateurs because they all produce the same crap?

I didn't say pro vs. amateur. This is PAID vs. FREE. The point is that no matter how bad an image is, they'll use it if it's free.

2. It's relevant to the point about a paradigm shift in the sharing of information in the 21st century.

It's not relevant to this at all. Paid vs. free has nothing to do with "sharing of information".

3. I don't think any studio photographers are crying about amateurs stealing their business...that's not what this discussion is about.

Sure it is, "Uncle Bob" who just got his first DSLR 3 weeks ago is doing freebies every day that would normally be done much better in a studio (or even out of the studio) by somebody who knows what they're doing, but because they're "free", they don't complain.

See point 2.

Copyright theft has nothing to do with it, unless you're condoning copyright theft as a viable alternative to paying somebody?

Give a billion monkeys a billion cameraphones and one of them will snap a Pulitzer prize winning shot.

Right, but when you want that prize winning shot every time, you pay somebody who knows what they're doing - at least, that's the theory. I certainly wouldn't want a billion monkeys with spanners fixing my plumbing.

 

[jerry12953]

If they're inundated with crap from all angles (as long as it's free), it means their expectations of quality are much lower.

To be fair not all stuff produced by amateurs and wannabees is crap - its just that they don't have the nous or the confidence to ask users to pay.

Otherwise I agree with what you're saying.

 

[littlemonster]

They are still in business because the fees they pay to photographers have plummetted!

And if they didn't sell any there would be no commission for them to take in the 1st place.

I'm not denying it's harder than a few years ago, but there is still the want for better photos.

 

[Splog]

So how did this turn into 'all free images are crap' ?

I feel fairly certain that 'joe bloggs' looking at his newspaper doesn't look for the technical merits of every photo he sees, in fact I doubt many photographers do it either (Pro or not)?

 

[Kaouthia]

It wasn't an "all free images are crap" argument, it's that they will accept crap if it's free rather than pay for something.

If a good image is worth something, why not get paid something for it? Even if you are a hobbyist? What's better than a hobby that pays for itself?

 

[HoppyUK]

Isn't the critical factor here, the point that 'free crap' is good enough to sell papers? It's the customer who ultimately decide the standards - the likes of you and me.

So it follows that nobody in business is going to pay more, if it makes no difference to the bottom line.

 

[Lensflare]

Hoppy has hit the nail on the head....again!

Publishers do not have the same emotive input that the creators do (photographers or writers). They produce a "product" for profit. If paying more for better photography resulted in making more profit, they would do it.

Thi sarguement went on at Myatt McFarlane Publishing many years ago, before the digital age, only it was over the quality of paper the magazines were printed on. We (the production en of the staff, as in writers and photographers) wanted our work to be shown to the best quality, so we were shouting for the paper to be better (actually, to stay the same rather than be cheapened) - Alistair McFarlane was very astute and he asked how many copies of the magazine would he lose by printing on the thinner paper with no laminate......as opposed to the number sold on the expensive paper.

The answer was, not enough to justify the cost diffference. So we had to put up with our work being published on dried out bog paper. We got paid though, the company made a profit, we had brilliant Christmas bash that went on for an entire weekend (started Thursday night!) and everyone was happy. Our egos weren't massaged quite as pulpy, that's all. Just our livers.

 

[HoppyUK]

Hoppy has hit the nail on the head....again!

Publishers do not have the same emotive input that the creators do (photographers or writers). They produce a "product" for profit. If paying more for better photography resulted in making more profit, they would do it.

Thi sarguement went on at Myatt McFarlane Publishing many years ago, before the digital age, only it was over the quality of paper the magazines were printed on. We (the production en of the staff, as in writers and photographers) wanted our work to be shown to the best quality, so we were shouting for the paper to be better (actually, to stay the same rather than be cheapened) - Alistair McFarlane was very astute and he asked how many copies of the magazine would he lose by printing on the thinner paper with no laminate......as opposed to the number sold on the expensive paper.

The answer was, not enough to justify the cost diffference. So we had to put up with our work being published on dried out bog paper. We got paid though, the company made a profit, we had brilliant Christmas bash that went on for an entire weekend (started Thursday night!) and everyone was happy. Our egos weren't massaged quite as pulpy, that's all. Just our livers.

Myatt McFarlane! I know them well. That bastion of capitalist publishing masquerading as establishment rebels without a cause (except when it comes to the bottom line). I was publisher of MCN in the 90s

I know another publisher who adopted alternative tactics when a massive bill for press waiting time loomed closer. He would hand out lines of coke to get them through the night

Basically, money talks.

 

[cowasaki]

I've had my picture in the Daily Mail but it was a picture of me rather than one I'd taken

 

[Clickawaymedia]

So if I change my example to cutting my neighbours grass, giving my neighbour a lift somewhere and fixing my neighbour's electrics but not charging them for anything then you'd agree with my point right?

Resurrecting an old post, but my neighbour used to mow my lawn for free when he did his own... he is retired and think he was just passing the time.

This doesnt mean I would have payed a professional landscape gardner to do it if the neighbour didnt!!

While I respect that professional photographers should get payed a decent rate for their work, and nobody wants to work for free, you have to understand that different peoples motivations vary. some do it for the money, some do it for the love of it, and some try to have both of those.

Are you doing chef's out of business by inviting friends over for dinner and cooking for them?... No... but dont expect the meal to be as nice as it may have been if cooked by a michelin starred chef!

Whilst I realise the professionals are finding it increasingly harder to make money from photography, instead of blaming it on the amateurs for giving the work for free... find a Unique Selling Point that makes your work worth paying for!!

In the days of the internet and digital media which can be tranferred around the world in seconds, these things happen. we just have to adapt and stay ahead of the game!

 

[Splog]

If I was a publisher of a newspaper... whatever! I would only pay for the picture if I thought it would increase sales .... If it was just a bit of eye candy for page 8 ... then, 'pay for it' ...... no chance! ...

 

[HoppyUK]

If I was a publisher of a newspaper... whatever! I would only pay for the picture if I thought it would increase sales .... If it was just a bit of eye candy for page 8 ... then, 'pay for it' ...... no chance! ...

Exactly.

Newspapers pay tens of £housands for an exclusive front page that obviously does increase sales. Nobody seems to complain about that.

 

[Clickawaymedia]

Exactly.

Newspapers pay tens of £housands for an exclusive front page that obviously does increase sales. Nobody seems to complain about that.

And the celeb mags pay hundreds for badly taken "PAP" pics of celebs doing anything... there was a post on here a few days ago.

At the end of the day... photography is just another commodity... If its worth something to the publishers in financial terms, then they usually pay for it, but if its to fill pages between advertisements, then if you can get it free, why wouldnt you?

If WEX gave away free cameras... would you go to Jessops to pay for one because they gave better customer service? (even if the WEX ones were older or not as good quality?)

strange way of explaining it, I know, but the moral is, I dont think anyone would pay for something, when they can get something similar elsewhere for free, unless the standard is so different that the free ones wont be good enough!?

 

[desantnik]

Four pages on and this thread still is struggling to understand the difference between "pro photographer" work (weddings, portraits, studio stuff) and newspaper journalism.

Look in your yellow pages for "photographer" and I will bet not one of those people submit photos to newspapers - its not the same game at all.

Any of you in this thread a staff photographer for a newspaper? Thought not.

 

[mid_gen]

It wasn't an "all free images are crap" argument, it's that they will accept crap if it's free rather than pay for something.

If a good image is worth something, why not get paid something for it? Even if you are a hobbyist? What's better than a hobby that pays for itself?

As I've said before....photography is a hobby, some of my disposable income goes on camera kit to enable me to enjoy it. I don't want to be worrying about how I'm going to get a return on that money, or negotiating prices with agencies, or preparing invoices etc etc. Photography may be your profession but for amateurs it is just a pastime, it's not about money. It's not 'having more money than sense', it's quite simply that we are NOT IN IT FOR THE MONEY.

I don't believe the 'nobody will pay for quality' argument. As you allude to in your second comment...the real problem you have is that there are amateurs out there who can produce comparable or better quality work than a lot of professionals.

I get annoyed by the certification-factory graduates from the Indian sub-continent driving down rates (and skills) in my field....but it just means I have to work harder to show I'm worth the extra. Adapt...get on with it.

 

[Lasagne]

er, hello?
deliberate, non?

irony is wasted on some...

Er hello...not irony at all - you misspelt it both times is my point.

But I guess it went over your head - try reading the post again.

 

[gingerweasel]

I get annoyed by the certification-factory graduates from the Indian sub-continent driving down rates (and skills) in my field....but it just means I have to work harder to show I'm worth the extra. Adapt...get on with it.

A fellow techie I see

Like you said, this is not something that's limited to photography - you can see it happening in all walks of life.

I have to say that lately there does seem to be a lot of amateur bashing going on. Which is strange because I would have thought 99% of all TP members were amateurs.

No one likes having their income threatened, I don't like that rates in my chosen profession are much lower than ten years ago but one thing is certain in life 'Change' - you either roll with it or spend your time getting angry about something you can't change.

If someone wants to give away their work you can't stop that, you just have to look at ways to make your offerings worth spending money on.

Hopefully there is room for both points of views.