I’ve sent that little anecdote to everyone I know. Anybody that tries to work as a photographer should be required to get it engraved on their camera and tattooed backwards on their forehead so they see it everyday in the bathroom mirror.

I blog about photography for free but I don’t let people reprint it in a magazine with advertising. I’m still charging for photo editing, production work, location scouting and casting–things I always got paid for.

So, if you give away something for free to someone who normally pays and makes money off it you should not expect to be paid the next time around.

You have a video website with free videos but do you make videos for clients for free as well? Do you expect them to come back and pay you someday or ring up TGR instead.

I’ll give you a free snowshoe lesson tho because that should always be free. It’s just walking.

@1. Christopher: I don’t think giving away your work to build your resume has ever worked for anyone. You end up getting stuck giving it away forever. Does anyone have an example where it works?”

Rob, what are you doing here, on aphotoeditor.com, but giving away your work, i.e. freely sharing the fruits of your hard-won experience? Blogging is work; you ain’t getting paid. But you may at some point, right, partially as a result of this blog? Then giving it away will, indeed, pay.

Then again, the rumor around the Hole is that you’re moving to Durango to be a snow shoeing instructor at Purgatory. Could be good. I hear they’ve got sweet tree-shoeing around there.

They both said no.

Once you give things away, you will forever be labeled as someone who gives it away. Buyers will see no reason to pay more since they know you will do it for less.

@1. Christopher: I don’t think giving away your work to build your resume has ever worked for anyone. You end up getting stuck giving it away forever. Does anyone have an example where it works?”

I don’t buy it either and neither did most in attendance at the Photoshelter L.A. Town Hall meeting when the photo editor from Black Book magazine said they never pay photographers because they don’t have enough budget. I believe she said the magazine will give you some bare bones budget and crew to work with but if you want anything more extravagant then feel free to fork out your own cash. Two of her (young) photographers who had worked with her believed that working for free in exchange for tear sheets would be a good way to advance their careers. The editor herself stated that one could use her tear sheets to get paid jobs at other magazines. From looking at the magazine, it seems to have high production value and not appearing to be lacking in budget…

Obviously, I believe that the media companies do not measure up to the standard any longer when I make a statement like that. I do not feel that what they call journalism these days is any better than the average Joe’s with their blogs, photos, and videos. Infotainment has replaced serious investigation, partisan politics have replaced objective reporting - on many comparison points there isn’t much difference between the gray lady and the national enquirer.

This is just my opinion, but I am certainly not alone. In fact, there are so many of us walking away that media companies are on the decline as you accurately stated.

Why is it a surprise that after failing to maintain it’s position of responsibility in society that main stream media finds itself irrelevant?

Think again if you see any light at the end of the tunnel, with all of the cut backs taking place the descent will only continue to it’s predictable conclusion.

None of this has anything to do with you Peter, except that you are an editor for a general news website. I am not making this personal about you, it’s about the profession. Take it as some constructive criticism. My message is not unique, look for it elsewhere and you will find it written on the wall.

Does anyone watch The Wire? I love The Wire. This final season is about the institutional rot within the media of Baltimore. I am looking forward to seeing how they portray it, I am betting that they get it correct down to every last ugly detail.

My rant is over, my apologies to APE and all readers for getting so far off topic.

When a company uses a cc photograph it’s because they think the price is free. The photography in the campaign has no value. Probably because some creative thinks he’s a genius and has carefully sketched out the stock photo the art buyer must find and if it turns up in flickr with a cc who cares just as long as we don’t have to spend $300,000 shooting it.

It sounds like you’re implying that these amateurs who had their photos used without permission don’t deserve copyright protection because they’re not “professionals”. If the company thinks it is worth putting in an expensive advertising campaign, it’s definitely worth money, and it’s an insult that they have such double standards when it comes to enforcing copyright. I’d like to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you’re not saying what your tone implies, but I’m unclear.

Hmm..but who will inform you about the world then? flickr? YouTube? bloggers? Just asking…

I would like to make clear that my comment was not a personal attack.

Ed

Please don’t take that too personally. I can’t speak for Ed #15 (though I don’t see where he was speaking of you personally either) but my comment was about your company. I wasn’t attacking you.

With that being said, I do know how rough it is out there in journalism and you will not see me shedding a tear over it. News organizations and media have not taken care of their photography or photographers for quite some time now.

The way I see it, the demise of journalism is just karma coming around to bite the profession in the ass because those at the helm have not been good stewards of the craft.

Consider me one ex-professional who washed his hands of journalism because it not a viable business for a photographer.
I say let the media companies burn, brightly and to the foundation.

Anyone got any marshmallows?

i was asked to provide the photo library for use in a new software application in exchange for “credit” only. instead i negotiated a fair price PLUS full credit (including my contact info).

the software was a hit - however, when i got contacted as result of it, it was for “how do i install this software?” and other tech support related questions only!

turns out the software buyers were not potential photo buyers - so i made a good call

- - -

friend of mine shot early promo stuff for a band just beginning to get recognition - all for free, in return for “when we get big, you’ll shoot all our stuff”. well, they got big, but not big enough to overrule the record co. (their story) - or more likely, the band leapt at the chance to have a know pro shoot their stuff (instead of the ‘buddy from the old days’)

- - -

i have shot celeb stuff for “free” when i consider the value of inclusion in my portfolio to exceed my time/ effort

Maybe you don’t know, but the world of journalism and media is a bit tough these days. Just ask other photojournalists, if it is easy for them to earn living from their craft. You wish me to be out of bussiness, but not so quick guys…the competition is fierce, circulations are declining, and there surely will be more media companies going out of bussiness in the coming years. I am just curious to see how many professional photographers will be happy about that. It really isn’t that easy you guys might think. Good luck!

The family of the player (or the player) clearly wins because they have a free photo to work with. They may choose to go back to the photographer (or even another photographer) to print the photo, and I’m sure this happens quite a lot (Ritz Camera, Penn, SnapFish, and Shutterfly have been very successful at post-processing images and printing them for private individuals).

I argue that the photographer still wins because he (or she) is still paid by the newspaper for use of the photo in a publication. How much he or she is paid relative to how much he or she lost from the print is the real question.

One also has to consider the willingness of the subject to purchase the photos in question. Many people will stop by and taste the free cheese cubes but don’t have any intention of ever buying the actual cheese from the shop. In that situation the local newspaper photographer doesn’t lose out at all from the amateur who offered free photos to the player because the player never intended to purchase prints in the first place.

I’m glad you’re willing to engage me in this dialog. It’s been very thought provoking and interesting.

While I was talking about giving away images to large magazines or corporations, your situation demonstrates a microcosm of the same effect: In the situation you describe, you just undercut the local newspaper photographer who makes a small commission when parents purchase reprints.

Now there IS a difference between giving away your work to a potential client in the hopes of generating more work — that’s tantamount to giving away cheese cubes at the grocery store.

Still, that isn’t the same as putting the cheese in an easy-to-steal location with a sign that says “Hi! We hardly ever prosecute!” as was basically suggested @1 as a means of building a resume.

My argument is the same with the minimum wage. If you are a business owner who can’t afford to pay someone the federal minimum wage to produce your product or service then your product or service is not viable or neccesary and should go out of business.

If you are a news organization that can’t afford to pay for photography then your news isn’t worth anything.

Basing a commercial venture based on the work of others that receive no compensation for their content is despicable. It should be against the law (may be so in some jurisdictions), used to be shameful, and is wrong.

There is clearly a difference between an advertising agency placing a photo in a nationwide periodical and giving away a photo to a high school basketball player for their personal use.

And I disagree that by giving away a product it lowers it’s value. My photos have no value if nobody looks at them. If I offer a photo of a high school basketball player to the parents that photo has enormous value.

There’s a guy I know that mows lawns and cleans pools for a living. He doesn’t describe his job as a lawn mower or a pool cleaner. He’s hourly help that is on time, reliable, and dependable. His real value is in showing every week at the same time to make sure the lawn is taken care of (or the pool is cleaned).

In my opinion that’s a huge aspect of being a professional photographer: you show up at assignments, do the job, and submit the results in a timely manner. There are shades of gray in the actual “do the job” part (clearly people have varying skill, and the great ones should be paid a premium), but the other aspects of a shoot have value even if the photos do not offer a financial reward.

PS - I’m not a communist.

Besides, anytime someone gives away a product, it lowers the that product’s value across the whole industry. Why would you purposely sabotage the very industry you are trying to become a part of? This career path is tough enough already, methinks.

CC photos are, of course, still protected by copyright, and use contrary to the license terms is still a copyright violation. The big problem out there is that few of the images that get posted are registered, and so the ‘easy to get damages’ are likely small. If anything needs change it is the law regarding registration and damages, which allows willful infringers to avoid paying penalties for misuse of the works.

Any changes in the law notwithstanding, if we can keep exposing the misappropriation of rights by large organizations, they will eventually pay the price and learn the lesson.

Let’s take my example - I work as an editor for a general-news website. Sometimes, I need an editorial photo to accompany our articles… so what do I do? I go to flickr and pick up something from the CC repository. From my perspective, it is perfectly justifiable for someone to give away their photos in return for credit line.

Of course, I could also ask for a permission of copyrighted work and quite a few photogs would happily agree, but I would not. Why?

1) The main reason is that I don’t have a time to do that. If I get articles from my correspondents, I usually need to put it online ASAP…I don’t have a time to contact a photographer, wait for the response, etc. I need to find some good-enough phto quickly and that’s it.

2) As we are a commercial entity, it just doesn’t sounds right to ask for the photos without monetary compensation.

So why don’t we want to pay? Well…the first thing is that we can’t afford it for the time being, and it is not very justifiable provided we only want 300 pixels wide pictures illustrating the article and those can be found rather easily in the CC heap.

A lot of what’s being stolen of the web is stock style. I made the mistake of giving away some of my photos for magazines and ads several years ago. My ego was stroked by being published in a TIME publication and a few other things, but ego doesn’t pay the bills. Not one of the photos I gave away led to anything more than something for my mom to be proud of. It wasn’t until I started charging and standing up for my work, that I was taken seriously. Charge from the beginning and save some head and heartaches. As long as you don’t see the value in your work, no one else will either. The only “free” you’ll get from me anymore is if I shoot for a charity event. “Accepting copyright infringement” is not an option. When you sell your work AND it’s in your portfolio, it’s a plus - plus. No downsides to accept at all.

How many photographers would normally be targeting their work at the average joe? Should we not be seeing this as possible extra income and giving them the opportunity to purchase our photographs simply and quickly?

If I wanted one of your photos how could I get it? Could I buy it in a shop? Or purchase a print from your website? Or just take a screen grab from your site?

Does anyone let you purchase a lo-ish res copy? All I’d want is a 1280×800 resolution copy to look at on my computer, but there is no way to get that legally.

I’m not sure how effective this approach is in other verticals within the photography industry.

Can you comment on what type of watermark Mr Yon used in his photos? Cropping a photo so that a small tagline at the bottom with the Copyright information is removed is extremely straightforward and is not the type of watermark I’m referring to.

I think it would be extremely difficult to remove the slanted and randomized watermarks that traverse the entire image. I’m not sure how to create them myself but I’ve seen several on PhotoShelter.com from photographers I know who are concerned about pirated images.