“Excuse the immodesty but News Corporation’s pre-eminence as a content creator comes as the debate over the primacy of content is over,” he said, referring to his campaign to get consumers to pay for online news and entertainment. “Content is not just king. It is the emperor of all things electronic. We are on the cusp of a digital dynasty in which our company and our shareholders will profit greatly.”
via The Australian.
“…not too far in the future blogs are going to drive new work to photogs more than websites – which are starting to look quite static and inert compared to the dynamism and fluidity of blogs.”
Most discussions about fair use revolve around people wanting to use photographs without paying or obtaining permission for the use. Of course there’s another side to fair use that photographers benefit from, which is when a picture has copyrighted or trademarked material in it.
Seattle photographer Mike Hipple found himself in the latter scenario when in February of 2008 he received a letter from the lawers of a sculptor named Jack Mackie. Apparently a photograph that Mike took 10 years previous and was selling as stock, featured a woman dancing along the sidewalk with a portion of Jack’s sculpture “Dance Steps on Broadway” visible. Mr. Mackie claimed copyright infringement in the letter.
My source for this information is a blog called “Mike Hipple Legal Defense Fund” (here) where Mike describes what happened and describes what he’s up against:
Interestingly, his brief flirtation with settlement came before my lawyer mentioned fair use. As soon as it was brought it up, Mr. Mackie refused to negotiate any further. Now I’m forced to fight this battle on behalf of myself and photographers everywhere—amateur or professional—who take pictures out in public. I don’t want to be here, but I can’t let Mr. Mackie bully away our important rights.
I should note that apparently Mike’s stock agency quickly settled with the sculptor using their insurance for these types of claims.
Without seeing the photograph in question this seems like an absurd case, but the problem with fair use as it exists now is that only a court can determine what constitutes fair use. That leaves Mike with the option to either fight it in court or settle. In an era where photographs are easily copied I think fair use needs a stronger definition.
More discussion on this case over at Photo Attorney. If you want to help Mike out, visit the legal defense fund blog.
See the list (here).
Some people are complaining because it doesn’t have a camera in it. Spoiled techno-babies, all of them. Just because something is technically possible, it doesn’t mean it has to be done. It’s technically possible to build an egg whisk that makes phonecalls, an MP3 player that dispenses capers or a car with a bread windscreen. Humankind will continue to prosper in their absence. Not everything needs a 15-megapixel lens stuck on the back, like a little glass anus. Give these ingrates a camera and they’d whine that it didn’t have a second camera built into it. What are you taking photographs of anyway? Your camera collection?
via The Guardian. thx marie-anne.
Interesting to see that several films at Sundance were centered around photography.
Restrepo
In 2008 Sebastian Junger (The Perfect Storm) and Tim Hetherington dug in with the men of Second Platoon for a year. Afghanistan’s Korengal Valley, a stronghold of al Qaeda and the Taliban, has proven to be one of the U.S. Army’s deadliest challenges. It is here that the platoon lost their comrade, PFC Juan Restrepo, and erected an outpost in his honor. Up close and personal, Junger and Hetherington gain extraordinary insight into the surreal combination of backbreaking labor and deadly firefights that are a way of life at Outpost Restrepo.
Ever wonder what it’s really like to be in the trenches of war? Look no further. Restrepo may be one of the most experiential and visceral war films you’ll ever see. With unprecedented access, the filmmakers reveal the humor and camaraderie of men who come under daily fire, never knowing which of them won’t make it home.
Smash His Camera
Paparazzi might be the norm in our celebrity-infested times, haphazardly snapping every movement of the rich and famous. Ron Galella, though, is the original paparazzo. He elevated the celebrity snapshot into art and, at 78, remains a stalwart in the business. Dogged in his quest to photograph celebrities in unguarded moments, he defines his passion for his work by the ups and downs of his career—documenting the parade of stars at a thriving Studio 54 and having the dubious honor of being sued by Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis (his favorite subject) and having his jaw broken by Marlon Brando.
Leon Gast (When We Were Kings) masterfully profiles Galella and places him at the center of the debate about the First Amendment right to privacy. Galella’s work and tactics have their critics, but his influence is undeniable. In a career defined by perseverance, he has created some of the most lasting, iconic photographs of our times.
Teenage Paparazzo
When precocious 13-year-old paparazzo Austin Visschedyk snapped a photo of celebrity Adrian Grenier (HBO’s Entourage), little did he know his life was about to change. Turning the tables on the juvenile paparazzo, Grenier stepped on the other side of the lens in an attempt to mentor a teenager obsessed with the lure of the Hollywood lifestyle. Grenier develops a meaningful relationship with his camera-clicking young friend as he attempts to reconcile their mutual exploitation. Indeed, Grenier puts himself on the line here, trying to make sense of his own recently acquired fame.
Given the success of Entourage and its place in the Zeitgeist, Adrian Grenier is the perfect person to explore our preoccupation with celebrity and the adolescent desire for fame. Exquisitely layered, Teenage Paparazzo moves beyond personal documentary, charting a cultural revolution of celebrity obsession that may have been born in the United States but stretches across the globe.
Catfish
Nev, a 24-year-old New York–based photographer, has no idea what he’s in for when Abby, an eight-year-old girl from rural Michigan, contacts him on MySpace, seeking permission to paint one of his photographs. When he receives her remarkable painting, Nev begins a friendship and correspondence with Abby’s family. But things really get interesting when he develops a cyber-romance with Abby’s attractive older sister, Megan, a musician and model. Prompted by some startling revelations about Megan, Nev and his buddies embark on a road trip in search of the truth.
Catfish centers on a riveting mystery that is completely a product of our times, where social networking, mobile devices, and electronic communication so often replace face-to-face personal contact. Henry Joost and Ariel Schulman’s grounded documentary is a remarkable and powerful story of grace within a labyrinth of online intrigue.
More at Sundance (here).
Former Art Buyers and current photography consultants Amanda Sosa Stone and Suzanne Sease have agreed to take anonymous questions from photographers and not only give their expert advice but put it out to a wide range of photographers, reps and art buyers to gather a variety of opinions. The goal with this column is to explore more of the commercial side of photography (not my area of expertise) and to solicit honest questions and answers through anonymity.
Our Second Question:
I sent out mailers and emailers to agencies recently and received asurprising amount of positive replies.
I recently drove for 9 hours after an Art Buyer seemed really enthusiastic about my work on the website and replied to my mail saying sure make the trip, I’d love to see your book. We sat down with two of his colleagues and things were going well.
About a third of the way in to the book he started to lose interest and then wandered off like a grazing dairy cow, I was bewildered but continued with his colleagues. He reappeared when the we’d already finished the book. Shook hands, said thanks for coming in and left. I exchanged a few more pleasantries with his colleagues and was left to pack up and let myself out on my own. Humiliated. Ok so this is the industry, not for wimps, fine. Maybe if the book and all the answers were perfect you might still get a jerk or get the right person on the wrong day. But how do you avoided blowing that valuable opportunity?
Our Response combined with the help of a very sought after rep and art buyer:
Just from reading this question – we see many red flags.
Our first thought when he said – “We were a third into the book and lost interest” and then follows up by saying “We had finished the book” – lets us know he was controlling the book viewing process and dialoging it the whole way through.
We think the first thing to remember is that every one can have a bad day and that may have been the cause. You never know what someone is dealing with on a personal level. Maybe the AB had bad news that morning, thought he could handle the meeting but just couldn’t. Since you don’t know, the best thing to do immediately is to send an e-mail thanking him for his time as you could see how busy he was and that you truly appreciate the time given. That you will send new work as you shoot it and would love to hopefully work together in the future. Okay, that being said after the fact what should you do in the future?
Kat Dalager of Campbell Mithun in Minneapolis has been especially kind to show you how to do this. The first thing I do is go to my Agency Access account and look her up. She is listed as the Print Production Manager, but over sees art buying and buys herself. So when making your list make sure you include art buyer, creative buyer , print producer and print production manager since Agency Access uses their titles but makes sure they purchase photography.
From this page, you have a live link to the agency as well as the map:
And you can see samples of their work:
You can also look at their work at www.agencycompile.com This is a free service but used for new business and marketing managers so it will not give you the creative personnel, hence the reason for a database.
After you have researched the company, research the person:
And you can find a video with her talking about the business:
When we went through more Google pages , we find this:
She is adorable and friendly. You can see that in the video as well. And this from Plaxo:
Read this and find common ground to create a non-invasive conversation- you don’t want to get too personal. But it is good to see who you are talking to. Suzanne found this info on her own and found a lot. You may not find this much information on one person but you can find plenty about the company where they work. Kat reviewed this and she said:
“One thing to mention is cross-checking sources because they are only as current as the information provided to them. For example, we no longer have H&R Block.
Also, since they can see we don’t have any car accounts, it would not be the best use of my time or theirs to send me a car book.
1 technicality: I go by “art producer” rather than “art buyer”
To summarize, some meetings go bad and that’s just part of the process. When I (Amanda) repped for a short period of time I experienced the same thing, so you are not alone. I flew to NYC to meet someone and at the receptionist desk I was told she was too busy to meet with me. I also had an AB look at the portfolio in the lobby. So there are no prejudices against particular people for meetings – everyone will experience a bad meeting in their lifetime. We say – good! That means one important thing – you are doing meetings. With every 5 bad meetings comes a great meeting. A client once had a meeting and was told “Great work, but we have no clients that need your style to ever hire you”. A week later – that same agency called to book him for a job with a new client. Go figure. Keep your chin up and just battle through it…it’s part of the game
If you want more insight from Amanda and Suzanne you can contact them directly (here and here) or tune in once a week or so for more of “Ask Anything.”
…because nothing can save publishing as it’s been operating for the past several decades. The iPad does nothing to change the brutal mandate that has been pushing publishers to change for these many years; if anything it compounds the imperative.
via Subtraction.com.
I know I’m more of an optimist than most, but whenever I see something like this it makes me think that the free culture/attitude is less about “I want everything for free” and more about “I’m tired of being lied and tricked into buying something and I need a way to trust you before we do business.”
Video by Michael Hanson while shooting the story for the NYTimes (here).
UPDATE: iPad
Everyone in the media industry will be waiting with baited breath as Apple unveils its tablet computer today (live here at 10am PST)
Will the Apple tablet save publishing? No.
It will force them to get off their collective duffs and start investing in defending their brand digitally, but just like the music industry the business model–where you’re forced to buy a bunch of crap to get at the one thing you want–is broken. I’ve long predicted a bright shiny future for people who deal in photography and the tablet is one more device where things shouting for our attention will require creative geniuses to give us arresting imagery.
Designer Joe Zeff has this to say (here):
Watch closely as newspaper and magazine publishers bet their last nickels — not an exaggeration, in some cases — on this new medium. It provides the 50-somethings who run these companies a chance to captivate subscribers and advertisers by returning to their roots — producing and selling the terrific newspapers and magazines that made these brands valuable in the first place. But even better than the original, with up-to-the-minute content that can be individualized for every reader — and advertiser. Happy days are here again, along with the ubiquity, relevance and brand loyalty that has been absent from the publishing world for the past 15 years.
Jason Kincaid over on TechCrunch (here) describes how a tablet will change the way we consume media and a big part of that consumption will be in rich media where text, graphics, audio, video and photography combine to immerse users in a story telling experience.
I for one am looking forward to getting rid of the piles of magazines, browsing an endless newsstand of titles and buying well written, well photographed and well designed stories to read.
I remember my first encounter with a fat wolf. I was researching stock images of wolves for a story we were running in Outside Magazine and I could find nothing I liked. All the wolves from the specific location in the story looked like mangy old flea-bitten dogs. It wasn’t until I widened my search to include any wolf photo available as stock did I discover healthy, strong, wolf looking wolves. Upon further inspection I learned that these were captive wolves (who apparently are well fed).
If you haven’t heard the recent uproar about Spanish wildlife photographer Jose Luis Rodriguez being awarded first place (here) in the Wildlife Photographer of the Year contest run by the British Natural History Museum and BBC Wildlife Magazine then being stripped of the award (here) after people called into question the authenticity of the wolf in his winning image (here).
I quickly lost all interest in the controversy when I read this (here):
“José Luis started by placing meat in the corral.”
Great wildlife photography for me is equal parts photography and sport. If baiting the animals is acceptable to the judges who cares if it was captive or wild?
I like what photographer Bob Keefer has to say (here) about the whole kerfuffle:
But the weirdest thing is, the winning photograph is awful. Whether “real” or staged, it’s utterly cheesy, the kind of demented nature porn that has come to dominate the nature photography market around the world. Who cares if it’s a picture of Ossian? It’s boring, overwrought and melodramatic. The judges knew this when they picked it, referring to its “fairy tale” qualities.
The judges should be fired, both for choosing the photograph in the first place and then for their handling of the complaints about it.
Someone online obviously felt the same way. Why stop with one jumping wolf when you can have 3 and a full moon to boot (UPDATE: obviously an homage to the three wolf moon t-shirt phenomenon that went completely over my head – ape):
The recovery is underway for the nation’s fashion magazines, which many consider a bellwether for the rest of the consumer magazine industry.
via NYPost.com.
Photographer Eyal Landseman created a stop motion music video for Oren Lavie’s song “Her Morning Elegance” and now it’s up for a Grammy Award (here). How cool is that?
The photographer is exhibiting and selling 22 prints from the 2,321 images that make up video in a nice little publicity stunt (here).
The video has 10 million views on YouTube.
Editors also are tasked with coming up with new revenue ideas, in another culture shift for Condé Nast, said another source, adding, “At this company, editors spend money.”
via MediaWeek.
“This is also why poor photography, published poorly is so damaging. People are only going to look so many times. Once their quota on the subject is filled, they’ll stop looking. This past week has shown me very few memorable images. I’m afraid as photographers we’ve missed our window to make a lasting impact on our viewers with Haiti.”
via Mostly True.
I’m so excited about a great new column I’m kicking off today called “Ask Anything.” Former Art Buyers and current photography consultants Amanda Sosa Stone and Suzanne Sease have agreed to take anonymous questions from photographers and not only give their expert advice but put it out to a wide range of photographers, reps and art buyers to gather a variety of opinions. The goal with this column is to explore more of the commercial side of photography (not my area of expertise) and to solicit honest questions and answers through anonymity.
To submit a question you can email me or leave a comment in one of these posts.
The First Question comes from me:
One commercial photographer told me he was bringing in $250,000 in profits and another said he has several million in billings. So, what do successful commercial photographers make? I’ve always believed it was a lot. How has the economy effected the way people price? Are photographers starting to base their usage on their cost of doing business instead of the cost of the use?
Amanda and Suzanne: The responses have been amazing, from photographers with all levels of success to a very high level art producer. We really enjoyed the personal and honest insight we got as to how they bill and the thought process behind it. It reminds you that you are not alone in this negotiating process. Keep reading – we had 1 photographer bold enough to give the answer everyone has been waiting for.
Hot Emerging Photographer:
What is an average successful profit for a commercial photographer? My rep doesn’t price based on CODB, but on what the market bears. And it’s definitely going down from what it used to be (from the mouth of my rep). Times are changing, sadly enough it’s because the high earning commercial photographers with big overheads are struggling to stay alive and taking jobs for much lower fees in order to pay it. In turn, that makes the emerging photogs like us less competitive because we don’t have the experience and portfolio that they do. Then to think about hiring a staff, and having to pay for that. Now I understand why photographers get paid quite a bit. My rep basically bids on what the client’s budget is, we push the production as low as we can to do a good job then create the fee out of the gap. I think if everyone goes by CODB that will drive the market down even more because the smaller guys don’t have as high of a CODB. I vote to keep an industry standard of fees. Especially with this digital era.
Established Photographer 1:
250K in profits! I want to be him. In my best year, I grossed 225K and I was quite pleased. I can’t remember what I net’d but would have to guess around 1/3 of that.
I’m not sure I’m not a great one to compare as I keep it small, simple, and avoid big overhead. I’m happy with a couple of big jobs a year. I’d rather work fewer, better jobs than be cranking at 100% all the time (and burning out). It’s also difficult to compare me to most; I was away from business from 2005-2007 and have had a very challenging economy to grapple with upon my return so there’s no steady recent history for me to gather information with.
I have estimated jobs based on usage, and I haven’t won many of them :-(
Established Photographer 2:
I have always tried to avoid talking about this kind of stuff. Even though I bill well over a Million Dollars in gross billing annually. What you actually pay yourself is much, much less.
I am at the top of my game and probably make about what a halfway decent Attorney makes.
It is quite exaggerated what photographers make.
Keeping up with new equipment, software, insurance, salaries, and repair keep you from making any truly great money.
I assure you the owners of Advertising Agencies make much more money than us guys in the trenches.
Sure there are a few Super Star photographers but they even go broke. Take Annie Leibovitz for example.
Established Photographer 3:
Alas, I am south of 250K…. I think my rep told me once that most guys are around 20 – 25% of their gross, I was typically around that to maybe a bit more. I don’t know specifically what the numbers are, just in a general sense – as I remember that 08 taxable income was about the same as 07 but at less billings in 08.
I don’t do cost of business pricing per se, but can’t say I am a poster boy for usage fees either. I have found that it’s harder to get a premium for bigger usage on some projects (i.e. art buyers ask for a specific usage and then later want unlimited for a year or 2 for the same money or relatively modest increase in the fee). That’s big and small agencies, not across the board, but it’s not unusual. Maybe I am getting played, but it usually happens in competitive bids where they say the other guy will do this usage for this money, so to be competitive I need to come closer to that number – that kind of thing. I typically but not always cave into it, as my costs are relatively low now, I don’t have a staff or a rep, my equipment is paid for and my studio mortgage is relatively reasonable – less than what I was paying in rent a few years ago….. so in that sense my cost of business does figure into it, but I only consider it when pressed to meet another person’s price.
Established Photographer 4:
o.k. here is the poop in Vague terms.
Yes, many years the take home profit (the photographers net earnings after operations) is over 250K but that depends a lot on investments in equipment etc.
Last year for sure the usage is based on the size of the client and the size of the buy. For example a one year print license starts around $2,000 per shot. Big clients/ big media buy $5,000 per client. There are some exceptions for tiny clients and design firms.
Established Photographer 5:
Depending on what you shoot, it’s not necessary to bring in several million or even a million to generate 250k in profit (e.g. – Still life and product shooters don’t have the high production expenses compared to someone who shoots talent). In a good year, I can earn $200k personal salary on $800k in sales. (THIS AIN’T ONE OF THOSE YEARS….). I’m sure those billing 3 million can earn a profit of a million. What their personal salary comes to is another matter altogether.
It’s in our best interests to keep money in the corporation, as a corporation is taxed differently (lower) than an individual. Many buy company cars & new gear at the end of a good year to reduce taxes payable. There are creative accounting (and totally legal) ways to reduce one’s personal salary while maintaining a very nice lifestyle. The perks of running your own business.
Personally, I don’t believe in the CODB model. It’s far to limiting and does not represent what one’s competitors are charging. I don’t believe one’s fees should ever be based on one’s overhead. My overhead is my choice, and so is that of my competitors. But my fees need to be as high as possible while being as competitive as one can be. Low bids are generally not well received by art buyers.
Hi-end guys/gals don’t price themselves as commodities. They tend to price very high to maintain their perception as hi-end.
License model, combined with photographers fee (shown as one line item!!) is the way the top guys estimate.
An Established Photographer with Actual Salary Numbers:
We grossed in 2008, $218,000 in fees alone. In 2009, we grossed $253,000. In 2008, we paid $100,000 in salaries to assistant photographer and myself combined. In 2009, that figure was $125,000. That is most of the picture. There are other benefit issues, such as health insurance, meals and travel, that come out of the business and reduce the net of the company… If you look at our net between 15K-20K each year, after buying gear, bonuses and finding every write-off. We are also a C corp, which makes me a salaried employee.
A Very Established Art Buyer:
Believe it or not, top photographers do gross a million or more in fees. Of course, agent commissions come out of that, but it’s still a nice living. I don’t see top photographers any more willing to compromise on pricing than before the economic downturn. It still comes down to the project and what it’s worth to the photographer.
Usage pricing is all over the board and there seems to be no rhyme or reason to it. It’s simple survival: people are doing whatever it takes to survive. Sometimes the compensation is reasonable, but I’ve also heard horror stories of unreasonable compensation and even blatant disregard to copyright laws. Unfortunately, in those cases it comes down to who can hold out the longest with lawyer fees.
I wouldn’t say it’s the Wild West, but I certainly don’t see the solidarity in holding out on pricing that an “up” economy allows. There is definitely an air of desperation among many photographers, especially those just entering the market. I don’t know that it’s any different from any other business, though. It’s tough everywhere.
Stock imagery seems to be taking quite a bit of a hit this past year as well. Account reps are disappearing and even the Big Two (Corbis and Getty) are making drastic staffing cuts.
I hope the recovery heads our way soon!
Our 2 Cents:
From across the board – everyone has the same hope and desires – do good work and bill appropriately. Regardless of your status in this market – it all is interconnected. You have to know your worth creatively to bill appropriately. Of course – Joe Blow may gross $500k annually but his overhead could be $300k – which means he is not better off than the wedding photographer netting $250k with very little overhead other than equipment updates. So from a wide range of talents – you can still net 50k – 1MM in our BAD economy. But you have to do your part to get those jobs and keep those clients and ask for what you are worth – NOT WHAT IT COSTS TO PAY YOUR BILLS!
Call To Action:
If you are willing to share your actual annual earnings – what you grossed in fees and what you took home at the end of the day (net) – please email us your exact figure and how long you have been in business and the type of photography you do (editorial, commercial advertising, consumer, etc…). We will be thrilled to be able to share if with your peers – while keeping you anonymous! We respect everyone’s confidentiality. This information in the end is not for us – but for you the photographer!
If you want more insight from Amanda and Suzanne you can contact them directly (here and here) or tune in once a week or so for more of “Ask Anything.”
My jobs tend to be fees inclusive of usage, and however high I can negotiate given the client.
“On each occasion, I was politely told that the typical buyer of advertising space lacked the time and intelligence to grasp complicated ideas such as I had just presented. Nor in six years was any notable investment made in a dedicated sales staff, reader research or web development for I.D.”
“Imagine going to a hospital and learning from the person holding the scalpel that he really doesn’t see a difference between your hand and your foot; after all, an appendage is an appendage, and a sock can be pulled over any of them.”
Read more (here) via, Magtastic Blogsplosion
“…if an anthropologist wanted to come back and see what discrimination [was] like in 1970, you’ve got it right here in the ad industry.”
via NPR.