Comments on: I Fixed That Copyright Problem On The Internet

By: Jim Goldstein

Jim Goldstein — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 21:58:09 +0000

The Creative Commons debates were easy to see coming from my standpoint. I posted an article about Creative Commons in relation to photography on my blog “Creative Commons A Great Concept I’ll Never Employ” in November and that got the ball rolling on some of the discussion. Based on that alone I set up an interview with Professor Lessig in mid-December for my podcast. By that time some copyright infringement stories broke and the debate moved up a gear. I released the interview January 1st. I recommend listening to it. The interview captures Lessig’s mindset on copyright law in general, his perspective on CC specifically in relation to photography and his thoughts on market changes impacting photographers.

2008 will certainly be the year of copyright debate.

By: Peter Garner

Peter Garner — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 20:04:56 +0000

I’m happy for person or persons unknown to use my images that I put on my various sites for publicity, but only if they contribute towards the cost of producing those images. Average cost per gig including flights, maybe $500?

By: A Photo Editor

A Photo Editor — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 15:19:16 +0000

@ Jonas: Good Point.

By: Jonas

Jonas — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 13:09:34 +0000

I won’t take anything on this site seriously until you charge me $0.99 per post.

Anything free is by default crap.

By: Dmorton

Dmorton — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 12:39:14 +0000

“without attribution” thats a bit rich being as you have only just made yourself known. To read your tone I would guess someone has been pulling your chain on this issue.

By: Robert Wright

Robert Wright — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 19:52:39 +0000

@37-I know of a few freelance shooters who still do work where digital studios exist, (a lot of work) they can compete and retain the work because they do a better job and can respond to changes in schedule where the digital studios are stuck. But you are right that a lot of it has gone away.

By: cb

cb — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 18:27:58 +0000

@34 - I agree except for the still life part. FOB & BOB in still life no longer exists. Conde Nast, Hearst, Time have all opened in-house digital studios. My former assistants shoot there for 10 hours/day for $500. with no rights to the images except portfolio use. They are saving millions/year in messengers alone and are all building digital archives. The only thing done out of house (unless the studios are too busy) is the well stories.

While it has opened up my calendar a good bit - to read and comment on blogs - I am only doing well work now (& then). From a financial point of view it is a good move for the publishers. It is just that after a year of it everything is looking the same. I am happy not to be doing that work any more and feel more creatively charged than I have in a while but I am earning a lot less money.

The same is true in advertising and catalogue. The agencies and catalogue houses have also opened in-house studios and the “bread and butter” work is done there thereby saving money for the big shots - the CEOs of the photo world. In other words, no more middle ground.

Personally, I want to hang with the CEOs. I’d rather bartend then work in-house.

So, to take it back to the content/rights discussion. The businesses are placing high value on exciting photography and will pay for and give up rights to use it. For more generic work they will pay a generic price.

By: Peter

Peter — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 17:42:19 +0000

Right. makes sense - at least in the context of editorial.

Ad work is also facing similar trends - my experience is that the middle ground is experiencing similar erosion to editorial as Robert mentioned.

Granted, ad work is a very different kettle of fish. But budgets are under attack as well. Does there now seem to be less high and mid level ad work out there, or have agencies/clients generally lowered their expectations because of budget restraints - i.e. what was considered mid level last year, is considered high level this year.

By: A Photo Editor

A Photo Editor — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 17:27:07 +0000

Yeah it’s more like 2-3 times a year now.

By: Robert Wright

Robert Wright — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 17:15:19 +0000

@33 easy, Front of book, Back of book, Well. The first two are middle ground, the last is high ground. The Well is the place where the features are.

I considered (note past tense..) myself middle ground because I did the majority of my work in fob or bob and had occasional well stories. All of the work was for A-list magazines. So I thought I was doing ok and eventually I would get more well stories, which did not happen. The reasons for that are a story in itself.

However few photographers could expect to do multiple fob or bob stories in the same month for the same magazine. Which is what I was doing, which is what the middle ground was about, reliability, making something out of nothing, no-ego. That still exists in still life for example, but not in portraiture. I think, and rob can comment on this, you could not expect to work 6-8 times per year on a title, that kind of regularity is vanishing, and the middle ground is shrinking.