Just credit? Not for me

[gregpphoto]

Travelandleisure.com contacted me via flickr asking to use a photo for an article. The message says nothing about payment, just the ever-present line "we will give you photo credit". So I write back kindly asking what T&L's standard rate is for a single image, web-use only. No response. I follow up, politely, and again, no response. Now it's no sweat off my back, but I know they moved on to the next person that they thought they could get a free photo from and probably did. I lost out on credit (which has inexplicably become a form of payment in itself), but I maintained my integrity.

How, WHY does a company like Travel and Leisure hunt for free photos when they could and SHOULD easily pay for the photos?

[shaggymatt]

I've been contacted a number of times through Flickr. Everyone expects something for free because it is on the internet. They will move onto the next person who will think cool, free credit for a picture I took. When I responded about pricing for my images, I never hear back.

For this reason, I make only the low resolution images available to non-friends. An image that could possibly generate a sale (something not of my kids) I'll watermark.

[Newfoundland_RCMP]

Its not just companies. I had the Canadian Coast Guard contact me wanting to use a photo in a pamphlet they were producing. When I told them they would have to pay for the picture I never heard from them again. The way governments spend money I'm sure the budget for their pamphlet included money for photography.

[dreamcatcher23]

I know it's the way lots of things are going... but if there are so many people out there offering things for "credit" or for free, why should they bother paying someone if they're happy with the freebies?

jus' saying, not trolling or anything... but if they can get something for free (and often do), of course they'll skip the ones that ask about payment. It's a simple business choice.

[gregpphoto]

For this reason, I make only the low resolution images available to non-friends. An image that could possibly generate a sale (something not of my kids) I'll watermark.

Ditto. I only post low res to the internet.

[gregpphoto]

Does anyone feel as I do, though? That it's not just "oh well" but it's a very serious problem? I'm sure Travel and Leisure pays for people to write the articles, design the website, etc. WHY NOT PHOTOGRAPHY? How is it that photography is the one medium that has become so devalued that "credit" is tantamount to "payment"? And if that. I've had people talk to me as if giving me credit was somehow them doing me a favor. Excuse me, but as long as I own the copyright, you must BY LAW give me credit. It's not just some favor you're doing for me.

[u_loco_local]

Does anyone feel as I do, though? That it's not just "oh well" but it's a very serious problem? I'm sure Travel and Leisure pays for people to write the articles, design the website, etc. WHY NOT PHOTOGRAPHY? How is it that photography is the one medium that has become so devalued that "credit" is tantamount to "payment"? And if that. I've had people talk to me as if giving me credit was somehow them doing me a favor. Excuse me, but as long as I own the copyright, you must BY LAW give me credit. It's not just some favor you're doing for me.

agree

[Hogloff]

Does anyone feel as I do, though? That it's not just "oh well" but it's a very serious problem? I'm sure Travel and Leisure pays for people to write the articles, design the website, etc. WHY NOT PHOTOGRAPHY? How is it that photography is the one medium that has become so devalued that "credit" is tantamount to "payment"? And if that. I've had people talk to me as if giving me credit was somehow them doing me a favor. Excuse me, but as long as I own the copyright, you must BY LAW give me credit. It's not just some favor you're doing for me.

There are thousands times more photographers available than writers or web designers. How many web designers do you know that do it as a hobby? How many writers do you know that will knock off an article one weekend just for kicks. I know many photographers that take photos for the fun of it ( including myself ) and many of those photographers have not issues at all giving away their photos and if they actually get their name in a magazine, that is just a bonus. Unfortunately, that is the way photography is heading. Seems everyone on these forums are preoccupied with this fact, bitching about it instead of figuring out a business model that might work in this new environment.

Like so many previous businesses, technology comes along and drastically changes the business. This is happening to the photo business right now. You need to change with the business or you will be out of business. Why do you think magazines like Travel and Leisure are looking for free photos. They are all fighting for their lives as the technology called the internet has drastically affected their business and has had a very negative impact on subscriptions and advertising revenues.

[Metalstrm]

I agree with some of what you are saying, but well, most people don't cook for money, but chefs are paid. Imagine an environment where everybody starts hiring chefs simply for credit, a little tag attached to your plate which says "Cooked by ...". I bet chefs would be out of business soon.

Having said that, I think pros do have to rethink their business strategy in this environment.

[shaggymatt]

Excuse me, but as long as I own the copyright, you must BY LAW give me credit. It's not just some favor you're doing for me.

Do you *own* the copyright?? There is actually a legal procedure for filing your works with the Library of Congress I believe it is for a valid US Copyright registration. I looked into it a while ago, and I believe you have up to a year to register files, and there is a $35 fee.

http://www.copyright.gov/forms/

There are a lot of provisions when licensing your work for sale. It is more of a courtesy to give credit for your work. They can buy full rights to your work and not give credit. It is all to be spelled out in the contract.

Thankfully, I have a friend who does contract law for a living, so I run everything past her!!!

I do agree with everything you said though. Photography on a hole has been devalued as camera prices fall and presenting your work on the internet becomes easier. Uncle Bob would be thrilled and brag to his buddies that he had his work published (for free) in Travel and Leisure.

[RDKirk]

I agree with some of what you are saying, but well, most people don't cook for money, but chefs are paid. Imagine an environment where everybody starts hiring chefs simply for credit, a little tag attached to your plate which says "Cooked by ...". I bet chefs would be out of business soon.

What this means is that people won't pay for what they can do themselves or get free. That's why ma-and-pa diners close and specialty restaurants remain open. That's why carpenters have become "home remodelers"--they have to do more than a homeowner can do for himself.

Photographers who are able to offer a product that the average camera owner knows he can't duplicate will remain in business.

Travel photographers who can write the story that accompanies their lovely pictures will continue to do well.

[digirebelva]

Do you *own* the copyright?? There is actually a legal procedure for filing your works with the Library of Congress I believe it is for a valid US Copyright registration. I looked into it a while ago, and I believe you have up to a year to register files, and there is a $35 fee.

http://www.copyright.gov/forms/

From the US Copyright Website
Who Can Claim Copyright?
"Copyright protection subsists from the time the work is created in fixed form.."
"
"No publication or registration or other action in the Copyright Office is required to secure copyright"

The benefits of registering with the US Copyright Office
"
If registration is made within three months after publication of the work or prior to an infringement of the work, statutory damages and attorney’s fees will be available to the copyright owner in court actions. Otherwise, only an award of actual damages and profits is available to the copyright owner.


I belive that covers the "Do you own the copyright" question and why you should register your photos..:D

[sspellman]

Greg-

The reason that even T&L solicits for unpaid photos is simple-it works sometimes. Its the same reason there is spam-the revenue generated far exceeds the cost.

Websites like Flickr offer even commercial clients the opportunity to scan millions of pictures and solicit free use very easily, and essentially are part of the problem. When you offer hundreds of photos for free viewing by the public, you do not create the impression that they have high commercial value.

-Scott

[gregpphoto]

Greg-

The reason that even T&L solicits for unpaid photos is simple-it works sometimes. Its the same reason there is spam-the revenue generated far exceeds the cost.

Websites like Flickr offer even commercial clients the opportunity to scan millions of pictures and solicit free use very easily, and essentially are part of the problem. When you offer hundreds of photos for free viewing by the public, you do not create the impression that they have high commercial value.

-Scott

Unfortunately, you're right, it does work. But how does me showing my photography on the internet have any effect on the value of my work? Is there a difference between flickr and a website? I see all the time in peoples profiles "my works are for sale ask for permission yada yada."


"No publication or registration or other action in the Copyright Office is required to secure copyright"


Thank you.

[James D]

Focusing on a reality check with a DOF that will make you Shudder

Times are changing very rapidly in the photography business and professional photographers must quickly learn to adapt and find their niche if they are to survive. Fifteen years ago if someone had told me that major camera manufactures would announce there were going to stop selling 33mm cameras in the US market place or that companies such as Kodak and other major film and camera companies would all but do away with 33mm film development services and products, I would have laughed at you - but they did. Then to see companies such as Ritz Camera and other similar companies practically fold and go out of business over night because the sudden switch to digital was simply too fast and too much for these companies to manage.

When I first began taking pictures “real” film was all that was available in the marketplace and I would go purchase several rolls of 35mm - 400 film with 36 exposures and carefully plan my pictures. I would then take the rolls of film to a local high quality film processing company. When one hour possessing took off it was great, especially when some local drug store chains jumped on the band wagon and invested in much better processing equipment and offered commercial accounts for photographers.

Overnight digital cameras came out and PP programs like Photo Shop took off and along with the affordable prices of small photo smart printers these items quickly combined to become the nails in the coffin for 33mm film processing and its equipment and this happened almost faster than you could get a roll of 35 mm film developed with double prints.

Digital equipment evolved just as quickly as I my last camera was considered “revolutionary” in the field of digital photography and garnered all the best reviews and accolades when it was unveiled, however today (five years later) that same camera is considered a dinosaur and the company Konica Minolta who manufactured it is out of camera business.

As mentioned the print media has suffered huge changes as well, look at how many long standing traditional newspapers and magazines have gone belly up. The print medias still around are struggling to even pay their bills, much less their writers.

Professional photographers have to understand the huge changes in the field of photography combined with the abundance of available photos and the rapid increase of the number of people who have taken their photography skills to the next level.

Ten years ago there wasn’t 8 gig memory chips that could store 4,000 pictures, the was no 20X optical zoom lenses, or even 20 mega pixel cameras, not to mention there wasn’t Flicker, Photo bucket, or the social networking sites that exist today on the internet. Today millions of images are uploaded daily onto the internet, which only cause hobbyists to become more qualified with equipment and technology not to mention great forums like this one where photographers get together and “network” sharing all their skills, tips and equipment experiences while newbie’s and hobbyists lurk in the shadows picking up tips and learning how to shoot pictures just like the professionals.

In the end it’s only going to get harder to sell your “professional” photographs for any real profit, as the competition is growing faster than Kudzu on a Carolina highway. The only way you will be able to make it in this business is with the best customer service, greater attention to even the smallest details, “more” and better professional equipment, and in at the end of the day it will probably be just like capturing a perfect picture - being in the right place at the right time with the proper lighting.

[gregpphoto]

@James: But if those people would just charge for their photos instead of giving them away, we wouldn't have this problem. If $100 buys you a mediocre photo and $200 buys you a great one, you might not always get them to buy the $200 photo, but they'll buy it more than if it were $200 and $0.

[ToddR]

Focusing on a reality check with a DOF that will make you Shudder

Times are changing very rapidly in the photography business and professional photographers must quickly learn to adapt and find their niche if they are to survive. Fifteen years ago if someone had told me that major camera manufactures would announce there were going to stop selling 33mm cameras in the US market place or that companies such as Kodak and other major film and camera companies would all but do away with 33mm film development services and products, I would have laughed at you - but they did. Then to see companies such as Ritz Camera and other similar companies practically fold and go out of business over night because the sudden switch to digital was simply too fast and too much for these companies to manage.


Those 33mm cameras never really caught on, anyway. :p

[wyofizz]

I belive that covers the "Do you own the copyright" question and why you should register your photos..:D


When was the last time you checked on the cost to register a photo?
I was looking at registering a logo and it was $300+

Dave

[James D]

@James: But if those people would just charge for their photos instead of giving them away, we wouldn't have this problem. If $100 buys you a mediocre photo and $200 buys you a great one, you might not always get them to buy the $200 photo, but they'll buy it more than if it were $200 and $0.


You can charge all day long but if nobody is paying it still won’t matter because people today and all about frugalness, convenience, and getting something for free.

[James D]

Those 33mm cameras never really caught on, anyway. :p


are you joking?

[James Robert Gratiot]

Unfortunately, you're right, it does work. But how does me showing my photography on the internet have any effect on the value of my work? Is there a difference between flickr and a website? I see all the time in peoples profiles "my works are for sale ask for permission yada yada."

(No judgement on T&L business practices... just answering the above question.)

It could be used in your marketing. Suppose you "sold" free pictures to T&L online, the WSJ online, and National Geographic online. Here is the difference between that and flickr:

Suppose you send out a direct mail brochure advertising your work. Which sounds more impressive in your sales letter:

"I've published thousands of photos on flickr."

or

My work has been published on Travel & Leisure.com, The Wall Street Journal.com, and National Geographic.com.

Casual readers of the letters aren't going to worry about whether or not you got paid for those pictures... all they're reading is "Travel and Leisure," "Wall Street Journal," and "National Geographic." Which does sound impressive.

[ToddR]

are you joking?

Yes, but I still made an accurate remark, though tongue-in-cheek.

It's just with three erroneous references to the nonexistent* 33mm film format in the post I cited, I couldn't resist.

*Now, there may be some obscure 33mm format out there, but clearly 35mm was what was meant. I even Googled for it, and after discounting typos and references to 33mm focal length, I think I'm safe. :p

[James D]

(No judgement on T&L business practices... just answering the above question.)

It could be used in your marketing. Suppose you "sold" free pictures to T&L online, the WSJ online, and National Geographic online. Here is the difference between that and flickr:

Suppose you send out a direct mail brochure advertising your work. Which sounds more impressive in your sales letter:

"I've published thousands of photos on flickr."

or

My work has been published on Travel & Leisure.com, The Wall Street Journal.com, and National Geographic.com.

Casual readers of the letters aren't going to worry about whether or not you got paid for those pictures... all they're reading is "Travel and Leisure," "Wall Street Journal," and "National Geographic." Which does sound impressive.



I agree with this 100% and in time having the ability to claim you have been published opposed to only being Flickered will set you apart. Those publications will also continue to raise the bar for quality photos they accept, to make my point juts look at a magazine form the 1980s and the pictures in them compared to the pictures in more recent magazines.
Once you are established, accredited, and have a reputation only then you can start really charging and expect to get paid.

[SolidxSnake]

@James: But if those people would just charge for their photos instead of giving them away, we wouldn't have this problem. If $100 buys you a mediocre photo and $200 buys you a great one, you might not always get them to buy the $200 photo, but they'll buy it more than if it were $200 and $0.

Who's to say that a hobbyist should be charging? I know plenty of hobbyists who would he happy to have an image published.

I think many are forgetting that photography as a business has to compete with photography as a hobby :)

[Concretin Nik]

(No judgement on T&L business practices... just answering the above question.)

It could be used in your marketing. Suppose you "sold" free pictures to T&L online, the WSJ online, and National Geographic online. Here is the difference between that and flickr:

Suppose you send out a direct mail brochure advertising your work. Which sounds more impressive in your sales letter:

"I've published thousands of photos on flickr."

or

My work has been published on Travel & Leisure.com, The Wall Street Journal.com, and National Geographic.com.

Casual readers of the letters aren't going to worry about whether or not you got paid for those pictures... all they're reading is "Travel and Leisure," "Wall Street Journal," and "National Geographic." Which does sound impressive.

Well, after lurking and reading hundreds of posts on "what to charge" and "is photo credit enough for a noob"... I decided that I wouldn't do "credit only" gigs...

But THAT is an excellent point on why I WILL do a few of those... particularly if the "client" is well known (nationally or is prominent in the community). Being selective is still important, but to use the client as a selling point is a good idea.

I never knew, nor even suspected, photography was so confusing... I din't think it was easy by any means... but wow... there's so much to think about, and the photo is only a fraction of it all...

Excellent point as well Snake.

Thanks! This forum has been(and continues to be) a fantastic resource!

[digirebelva]

When was the last time you checked on the cost to register a photo?
I was looking at registering a logo and it was $300+

Dave

Dont know about a logo but you can register a cd full of photos for one price, $45 right now, going up to $65 after Aug 1

"Registration of a group of published photographs (Form GR/PPh/CON) (paper filing) $45 $65*"

[gregpphoto]

You can charge all day long but if nobody is paying it still won’t matter because people today and all about frugalness, convenience, and getting something for free.

Who are they getting it from for free if everyone charges? They'd be forced to either pay or take the photos themselves.

[gregpphoto]

(No judgement on T&L business practices... just answering the above question.)

It could be used in your marketing. Suppose you "sold" free pictures to T&L online, the WSJ online, and National Geographic online. Here is the difference between that and flickr:

Suppose you send out a direct mail brochure advertising your work. Which sounds more impressive in your sales letter:

"I've published thousands of photos on flickr."

or

My work has been published on Travel & Leisure.com, The Wall Street Journal.com, and National Geographic.com.

Casual readers of the letters aren't going to worry about whether or not you got paid for those pictures... all they're reading is "Travel and Leisure," "Wall Street Journal," and "National Geographic." Which does sound impressive.

I've had my photos published on the websites of The NY Times, Men.style.com (run by GQ) and Country Music Television. I was paid for all but the Times piece, and that was only due to my stupidity (although it did lead to the GQ piece, which paid). If you have to do it for free, yes, be selective, hopefully something that leads to paying work.

A pretty decent sized group, I think it was NYPress.com, wanted to use some photos of mine a while back. They had advertisements on their website from some respectable companies. And not only did they not wanna pay, they wrote to me as if getting credit on their website was a big deal. I got into it with the guy, politely of course, and by the end of it, he actually agreed with me. I asked him if he wrote articles for free and he said "No, I don't write for much though." I told him that's fine, but you do get paid, however little it may be. And that's the key. Undercutting is bad enough; offering up for free what should never be free is worse.

[JeffreyG]

@James: But if those people would just charge for their photos instead of giving them away, we wouldn't have this problem. If $100 buys you a mediocre photo and $200 buys you a great one, you might not always get them to buy the $200 photo, but they'll buy it more than if it were $200 and $0.


As my mother would say, if wishes were horses beggars would ride.

Photography is one of those tough businesses that is plagued with people willing to do it for fun. This makes life tough for people wanting to make a living at it.

Take solace - your airline pilot has the same problem. I think it raised a lot of eyebrows when people looked into the Colgan air crash and realized that the captain of that plane was a $70k a year employee and the 1st officer earned a rather shocking $24k. You can earn more working retail than as a licenced pilot working in commercial aviation in the US.

When your career interest involves doing something that people will pay to do, you sometimes have to suffer for your art.

[gregpphoto]

When your career interest involves doing something that people will pay to do, you sometimes have to suffer for your art.

Take gardening. You may love to garden, LOVE IT, but are you going to tend your neighborhoods lawns and flowers, for free? Not likely. Gear heads? You'll work on your car till dawn, but will you fix someone else's, for free?

Just get paid. Then we all win haha.

[GregMik]

Take gardening. You may love to garden, LOVE IT, but are you going to tend your neighborhoods lawns and flowers, for free? Not likely. Gear heads? You'll work on your car till dawn, but will you fix someone else's, for free?

Just get paid. Then we all win haha.

I agree to a point, What if Mario Andreti asked you to work on his car? Or Dale Ernhart JR?

Would you turn them down because they asked you to do it for nothing?

Pick the places you give your photos for free. Tasha and I have done this for the notoriety and have gotten payed back in the work it generates. Not that we do this as a living.

I am not sure I want to do it for a living. Then it gets to be a job....:cool:

Greg

[Hogloff]

Take gardening. You may love to garden, LOVE IT, but are you going to tend your neighborhoods lawns and flowers, for free? Not likely. Gear heads? You'll work on your car till dawn, but will you fix someone else's, for free?
Just get paid. Then we all win haha.

Yes, happens all the time.

[narlus]

I agree with this 100% and in time having the ability to claim you have been published opposed to only being Flickered will set you apart. Those publications will also continue to raise the bar for quality photos they accept, to make my point juts look at a magazine form the 1980s and the pictures in them compared to the pictures in more recent magazines.
Once you are established, accredited, and have a reputation only then you can start really charging and expect to get paid.

i dunno...i've seen a ton of fair to outright lousy music photos published on a routine basis...

[kgoings]

Take gardening. You may love to garden, LOVE IT, but are you going to tend your neighborhoods lawns and flowers, for free?

My mom does, I know she does for at LEAST 5 neighbors..that's what hobbiest's do. When I raced motocross...I worked on my friends bikes for free...I even worked on peoples bikes at the track (who I didn't know) for free.

[kgoings]

i dunno...i've seen a ton of fair to outright lousy music photos published on a routine basis...


ALL the time