getting paid - rant

elven

I found this quite amusing, even though it's about a writer, it could be said of photography too.

But when it comes down to it, I'm not sure I agree about people not doing things for free and ruining it for the ones who get paid - I've still to think about that one...

ThOnda

Good one. I agree with him. Bloody amateurs!

By the way, it sounds good "If you won't give it to me, I'll come to your place and burn it to ground!" I have to remember that!

challengemaster

well, either way, i lol'd!

Borderfox

I dont think people giving it away for free ruins it for pros, people want a professional product the get a professional. I am fairly up front if I require payment and I will show people samples if they want. Great youtube clip, he puts across his point very well and only goes into rant mode near the end but even then its still in a funny way..

Fenster

I'm at work, someone give me a summation!

unreggd

elven wrote: »

But when it comes down to it, I'm not sure I agree about people not doing things for free and ruining it for the ones who get paid - I've still to think about that one...

Yeah, its like [1] Why pay for somethin when you can get it for free from a newb, then [2] if you do pay, you should expect higher quality/professionalism, and you have the right to moan, cos you're a paying customer. Ye cant really complain too much about somethin that was free

Calina

I have mixed feelings about this, to be honest.

I think the photography industry - and the mass media in general - is in a state of change. Unfortunately, the music industry has shown what goes wrong if you don't respond to the winds of change.

Ultimately the decision of what to do/charge for photographs or photographic work remains with the photographer, and with the best will in the world, you have to respect their decision, per se.

If they want to charge a grand a day fine, if they want to hand something out for free for whatever reason, likewise fine.

I don't think the really great photographers are too worried one way or the other - their quality will enable them to command their rates. I think it's the more mediocre ones who are likely to have issues with the idea. The thing is, they can either complain bitterly about it, or they can adapt to new technology, new delivery methods and find a way of maximising revenue from them. The flipside of that is you have to get techsavvy on a lot of fronts.

The music industry sat around swearing at people who changed their delivery and revenue model in front of them and they still haven't come to terms with it. I get the impression that this is not a problem limited to the music industry.

humbert

I don't think a professional has much right to complain about competition. I also think he has the right to refuse them if he so wishes but as he'd already done the interview I don't think he has any cause to get upset about them asking for it for free, as their using it would cost him neither time nor effort.

PeakOutput

humbert wrote: »

I don't think a professional has much right to complain about competition.

its not REALLY competition tho its people who are not relying on their hobby for a living allowing their pictures(music books whatever) to be used for free because it makes no difference to them. this, to me, is like the supermarkets selling produce below cost. sure its competition but is it fair? its good for the amateur who gets to show his mates he is published alright but it is detremental to the actual industry(which he is admittedly not a part of)

I also think he has the right to refuse them if he so wishes but as he'd already done the interview I don't think he has any cause to get upset about them asking for it for free, as their using it would cost him neither time nor effort.

take that idea to its conclusion as nobody gets royalties for anything, "hes been paid 500euro for that image once 5 years ago so lets use it in this multimillion euro ad campaign, hes on the streets but its not costing him anything if we use it". this is how he makes his living.....in the media industry. it is his job. therefore he should not be expected to do anything in that industry for free.

Calina

PeakOutput wrote: »

its not REALLY competition tho its people who are not relying on their hobby for a living allowing their pictures(music books whatever) to be used for free because it makes no difference to them. this, to me, is like the supermarkets selling produce below cost. sure its competition but is it fair? its good for the amateur who gets to show his mates he is published alright but it is detremental to the actual industry(which he is admittedly not a part of)

The industry will die if it does not adapt to new realities and the key new reality is that there is an ever increasing pyramid where there are a few good quality guys at the top and a hell of a lot of average photographers at the bottom. You are looking to compel the purchaser to adhere to an outdated business model. Ultimately the vast majority of media are looking to non-pro sources for images and media - you only have to look at the big news channels such as Sky and BBC News 24 who are screaming out for eyewitness images and video from the public every day. It is a level of competition that the industry is going to have to face no matter whether it agrees with it philosophically or not.

What will be detrimental to the industry is pretending this isn't happening, or castigating the amateurs for not playing by the old rules. There is no point in you or anyone else demanding that all photographers demand some sort of old style union rate even if the guy is an amateur who couldn't care less just to protect the full time pros because that is just fossilising the industry.

At the end of the day it is competition, the key problem is that it is unwelcome competition and sometimes, bad things have to be faced.

PeakOutput

Calina wrote: »

The industry will die if it does not adapt to new realities and the key new reality is that there is an ever increasing pyramid where there are a few good quality guys at the top and a hell of a lot of average photographers at the bottom. You are looking to compel the purchaser to adhere to an outdated business model. Ultimately the vast majority of media are looking to non-pro sources for images and media - you only have to look at the big news channels such as Sky and BBC News 24 who are screaming out for eyewitness images and video from the public every day. It is a level of competition that the industry is going to have to face no matter whether it agrees with it philosophically or not.

What will be detrimental to the industry is pretending this isn't happening, or castigating the amateurs for not playing by the old rules. There is no point in you or anyone else demanding that all photographers demand some sort of old style union rate even if the guy is an amateur who couldn't care less just to protect the full time pros because that is just fossilising the industry.

firstly im not a photographer so its not going to affect me personally either way.

if your willing to accept the death of the professional media photographer then thats fine but that is what will happen. you say the industry needs to adapt. regulation is a form that can take. an industry cannot compete with competition whos product is cheaper/worse quality/higher in demand. to me the only solution is to create an artificial demand by regulation like a minimum fee for pictures in a national newspaper or something along those lines.

anyway as i said im not in the industry but having tried to make it in a cut throat industry in the past(music) i know how hard it is to try and make money from what you love(for me it was impossible)

i would imagine that the majority of amateurs will say they can do what they want for as much as they want while the pros will say they are being killed and need help to survive

humbert

PeakOutput wrote: »

its not REALLY competition tho its people who are not relying on their hobby for a living allowing their pictures(music books whatever) to be used for free because it makes no difference to them. this, to me, is like the supermarkets selling produce below cost. sure its competition but is it fair? its good for the amateur who gets to show his mates he is published alright but it is detremental to the actual industry(which he is admittedly not a part of)

If that is the case then there is no need for the professional, it's tough but that's the way the free market works.

PeakOutput wrote: »

take that idea to its conclusion as nobody gets royalties for anything, "hes been paid 500euro for that image once 5 years ago so lets use it in this multimillion euro ad campaign, hes on the streets but its not costing him anything if we use it". this is how he makes his living.....in the media industry. it is his job. therefore he should not be expected to do anything in that industry for free.

That's why I said he had a right to refuse, but in this case, as he said himself, he probably will make nothing by refusing.

PeakOutput

humbert wrote: »

If that is the case then there is no need for the professional

absolutely and i agree on a free market for almost everything I would just argue that the loss of this particular profession for a cheaper(i have my doubts the product would be cheaper just the profit margins bigger) newspaper is not in the publics best interests but i make no claim that i should be the one to decide that

Calina

PeakOutput wrote: »

firstly im not a photographer so its not going to affect me personally either way.

if your willing to accept the death of the professional media photographer then thats fine but that is what will happen. you say the industry needs to adapt. regulation is a form that can take. an industry cannot compete with competition whos product is cheaper/worse quality/higher in demand. to me the only solution is to create an artificial demand by regulation like a minimum fee for pictures in a national newspaper or something along those lines.

anyway as i said im not in the industry but having tried to make it in a cut throat industry in the past(music) i know how hard it is to try and make money from what you love(for me it was impossible)

i would imagine that the majority of amateurs will say they can do what they want for as much as they want while the pros will say they are being killed and need help to survive

AFAIK, the creation of artificial demand via the means you suggest is probably contrary to competition law. There has been a ruling against interpreters on this front in the past leading to corresponding upheavals in their industry.

Newspapers claim that 24 hour news and the internet is killing them. What would you suggest to protect newspapers?

The point I am making is that there are ways of monetising photography, be it news photography or art photography or whatever. Unfortunately, there is also a tendency to cling to the old ways. That has to be lost because if it is not, there are more problems in the offing. AFAIK, some newspaper in Louth got agreement from the NUJ to allow journalists to supply the photographs for the newspaper from mobile phone cameras against the interests of the photographers in the area.

Technology is changing things. Pretending that it is not is not going to help anyone get paid in the long wrong.

elven

One thing that does seem a little unfair is because one guy decides to give up his day job and be a 'professional photographer' ie, in the sense that he needs it to pay his bills, he then expects people who are doing it for whatever reason, and at whatever level, to amend their policies to help him out? Why should that be acceptable? Why do they need our help?

I think calina has made a good few very valid points, basically that the system has to adapt because it no longer fits real life. And if you can pay nothing and get something mediocre, or pay more and get something good, why should it be any different? That simply forces people to up their game to attract the demanding, paying clients.

Look at what's happened/is happening in wedding photography: traditionally it was a rare skill and high production cost game, so people expected to pay a lot for the service. Now everyone knows someone with a dslr and they are happy to let them take a few average shots as a record of the day for the parents, or if they aren't bothered about the album. Then there are couples who realise that they need to pay more to get a good service, and that's why there are still photographers able to charge thousands for their services, as well as a good few levels in between. The talent will always rise to the top... people vote with their money - eh, put their feet where their mouth is - er, you know what I mean...

Calina

more growing pains: the Guardian and the NUJ re licensing terms now.

RoryW

slightly off topic but found this quote when linking off the link above and in a profile of a photographer....

"At the age of 8, Tony accidentally took a good photo and has been trying to do it again ever since. A challenge he feels has been quite difficult and expensive"

sheesh

People still pay good money for wedding pictures but they want something more creative now if they are paying top dollar. the cool thing is that the photographers prefer to do something creative too so the market is sorting itself out you could get semi reasonable shots if a couple of friends are into photography but if you want something special you need to pay someone.

(can you imagine a boards wedding!!!! everyone tripping over tripods picking up the wrong camera, nikon-canon fights lol)

Dave3x

Calina's points are interesting, but comparing the music industry to photography isn't exactly the right way of looking at things. In the music industry, the artist records once, and hopes to sell huge volumes of the same piece of work. You might think of it as similar to stock photography.

Now, the internet and digital photography in unison probably are damaging the stock market- as someone who designs for print media, istockphoto is fantastic, though I'm aware it undercuts any reasonable professional's rate by using amateur work (and for that reason, don't particularly like it in an ethical sense).

However, once-off, custom work, like publicity shots, ad campaigns, etc., and proper studio work (which no amateur can really afford) are unlikely to be affected by the current trends. What's happpening here is a change in the lower end of the market, and even there, I'm not so sure it's really having much of an affect. I've recently watched a friend make muliple image sales to the Irish media. True, many pros would consider what he has charged "token" rates, and to a certain extent it IS about increasing one's portfolio. But in the year since his first sale, he's stopped doing any free work whatsoever, because he values intellectuial copyright and the value of photography as an art.

I think it's appropriate to compare the circumstances of photographers to that of writers. Every second angst-ridden teenager in the world has a vast collection of poetry and prose- and no-one gives a damn! They only read the pro's work!

Individual photographers and small firms might be affected, as might the stock industry. But, I really don't think the industry as a whole has a whole lot to fear.