|
Search this group's discussions
|
Get published for only photocredit?
|
A slight moral quandary...
Gulf Air magazine (one of those in flight magazines that try to sell you overpriced executive toys and gadgets) wants to use one of my pictures I took while in Bahrain.
The flip side is that they want to pay me with just a photo credit.
It's not the lack of money that bothers me, per se.... I'm flattered they like the photo and thrilled to actually being in a magazine. However, if they get a photo from me for free, that means that some photographer that is actually (trying) to earn a living at his craft is going to be deprived of income. This has been a topic of discussion in many of the photography forums I frequent... I don't want to be one of those guys who drive the prices down for everyone else. That's almost as bad as scabbing.
On the other hand, I've never considered the photo to be commercially viable. It was one of the first pictures I took with my first digital camera. I don't have it in a RAW format, and there is nothing outstanding about the shot. It's just an average vacation photo (at best).
It would be nice to be published, and have this credit in my portfolio. It could drive traffic to my store (though I see that as very unlikely). I might be able to get some other work with the publishing company(Ink Publishing), since they have many inflight magazines for all over the world...
But do I shaft the photographic community by doing this?
Oh, and the photo in question... the "Tree of Life"
[http://farm1.static.flickr.com/142/335721471_6b26022f45.jpg]
Posted at 3:12PM, 16 February 2009 PDT
(permalink)
|
|
I guess my big question would be why can't they pay you? It would seem if they really want it and do many in-flight magazines that they could at least pay you something for it. A photo credit for that doesn't seem like a fair trade to me. My guess is that they are doing this because they don't want to pay a photographer who might "know better" and are hoping to get some free images. - Just my personal opinion.
Posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I'd be telling them to take a long walk off a short pier unless they can give you something in return. What about free air tickets if they can't/won't pay cash?
Posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
What are you going to do with it if they find someone else? In other words, put a value on it, what its worth to you or walk. It sounds like they found yours, they will probably just go back to the same pool. Not saying its right/wrong just the way things are. If you feel its worth x, then hold your ground, if its more important to have a tear sheet, then let them have it.
Posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
You are selling your self short if you let them use your image without compensation. A credit is not compensation.
Charge them
They are in the business of selling stuff and they are using your image to do that.
They are trying to get something for free.
When you go to them and try to get a photo paid for, they will just turn to the next guy who gives it away for free.
Don't do it.
Posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I look at there media kit. They claim 600,000 readers that means about 200,000 real world. Still I ran the numbers for a 1/4 page photo with a circulation 300,000-500,000. If I would say they can pay. The other option is to take some ads in trade. Getting published is easy, getting paid is harder.
Posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Don't be afraid to negotiate with them. The fact is even if they paid for the thing on iStock, they'd still have to pay something. They aren't saying they won't pay you for the image, they're just beginning the bargaining.
Posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
My 1st published photo was on the cover of a city travel brochure, for credit only. Face it, guys, no one is getting rich off of photography these days, and with so many wannabes and gearheads, and the wealth of low cost/ no cost stock photography out there, professional photography is a dying breed. Having said that, I was recently contacted by an ad agency on Madison Ave, that wants to purchase one of my images for their client to use in a major ad campaign. But my advice, on the 1st try, take the credit, as it can get you noticed.
Originally posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
ArthurJS edited this topic 40 months ago.
|
|
|
PS-the key to this whole process is to have your photographs properly tagged. You never know what a potential client may be looking for, and a shot you think is ordinary, such as the ones I previously discussed, may be potentially perfect for a client's ad campaign. Keep in mind they need room for logos, branding, and messaging.
A
Posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Kinda shoot yourself in the foot there with that one! So - insist on selling it knowing that they will move on and get no money AND no photo even with a credit that may boost you to other potential clients/audience. I see your point and do not take issue with it - only the argument that our photos (no, not the ones of Scott Bourne, Art Wolfe or Ansel Adams) are doing well when they garner the attention of *anyone* --- even those who will publish them for credit. Your choice - have a tearsheet with credit and no money or look at the magazine knowing it could have been yours having listened to all those who say not insisting on payment undervalues our work. I am tired of listening to those who want me pass on opportunities that are completely to my benefit - and my images to do with what I choose. (BTW - check out the January '09 issue of Seattle Metropolitan - page 104 - you will see a shot of mine that I was happy to get in with a photo credit....and there was no tear in the fabric of the professional photographer universe).
Originally posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
NetDep edited this topic 40 months ago.
|
|
Perhaps I will head on into a supermarket I have never tried before and walk out with a load of groceries without paying. The manager will no doubt understand when I explain the situation to him.
It's one thing to get credit only for a non-profit or a full-fledged charity. If somebody else is making money then you need to as well.
Posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
It would seem as though those who are not professionals, or who have never been published, have unrealistically inflated expectations, or cannot offer real world advice. Perception and reality are indeed two entirely different things in this business.
A
Posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I can provide some anecdotal advice as I had a similar situation happen to me. I was contacted by someone through FlickrMail that they wanted to use one of my images for an Educational publication in the UK that gets distributed to schools. They asked what credit I would require and any usage restrictions...note no mention of payment.
I had a few email rounds with the Publications Manager and said I was happy they wanted to use my image, but that they would have to pay a license fee. I asked questions about length of publication, geographic area, distribution, etc. They did end up paying a nice fee for the image.
The point of my post is that was the first image I have sold, I just didn't let them know that. Be polite and ask the right questions and stick to your ground and you'll be surprised how people respond.
Posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
There is a hard lesson every shooter that goes down this path of getting published for a photo credit learns: You are ether a player or you get played. I hate to be cold blooded and burst the bubble but I will. I have worked for various publications the reasoning never changes.
The Fantasy, they pick my shoot out of millions because they really, really liked it. I am getting credit for the image and that will say how they cool my work is and I can show my friends and family.
Reality, they want to use your shot to fill a hole nothing more, If they remember and if they have space you will get your photo credit. Your work has no value to them. If they can't pay they will find some other sucker. They value the paper in the bathroom more than your image. If they feel like it they might give you a tearsheet, or sell you a framed copy of the page your image ran on.
Not as romantic but is true.
Posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Flickr is a photography social network, not a professional stock agency or pro-studio web presence. Offering a photo credit seems like a reasonable first contact here -- I'm certain they didn't mean it to be a slight. Think of it as an introduction. Now that they have taken notice, the odds have gone up quite a bit in your favor.
Why even approach anyone with a copyright? If I was going to have to cull thru a bunch of photos, I would certainly minimize my time wasted and approach someone who had an equal quality filler up for grabs. www.flickr.com/creativecommons/ (I'm speaking in generalities here, no offence intended).
Originally posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
TXZeiss edited this topic 40 months ago.
|
|
|
Well said FullMetalPhotographer - it dispels a lot of the bullshit that has been flung around in this thread.
NetDep - no there "was no tear in the fabric of the professional photographer universe" but you may have cost a working photographer enough money to feed their family for a couple of days - your actions by accepting credit only helps give legitimacy to the idea that publications shouldn't pay for images.
There are times where I don't accept money for photos, there are other forms of payment (such as advertising in exchange for photos) and there are a select number of causes/publications that I donate my work to for reasons of my own - not because some photo editor is under pressure from bean counters to source content for free.
To shipwack - maybe you should ask the airline magazine for a tee shirt that will allow you to fly for free on the airline.
Originally posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
Black Shadow Photography edited this topic 40 months ago.
|
|
|
Paradigm shift. Times change. Economies of scale change. Change. I know that the stage actors all cursed the movie and swore it was the demise of art. I know that musicians swore it was the end of their art when the recording came along - and the record producers all swore the end with recordable tape - and CD's - and the ultimate bane - the internet. We still have stage plays, live concerts and musicians and actors still make money. What they all have in common is that they have adjusted and exploited the opportunities the new marketing schemes provide. Sure - it is easy to love the status quo but merely loving the status quo will nearly ensure demise.
@BlackShadowPhotography - since I got called out - you may be right. Then again, it may be that there are many photographers that charge for their work who will not be working regardless of my action. I hear this same argument from countless wedding photographers - Uncle Jim got a Rebel XT for Christmas and is shooting weddings for $200. How not fair to us $5000.00 per wedding shooters that is - is it? It is economic Darwinism - the truly best will be known and continue to increase in value and survive. Continue to want things to not change, to ignore the inevitable march of technology and go the way of the dinosaur. Or, think of new ways to market, new ways to reach new populations, how to add value to your product, new ways to structure your pricing -- adapt and survive - and not just survive - win!! Taking shots at a few people that think it is cool to see a byline under "filler" does not serve your - or any pro shooter - cause. And again - just my thought.
Posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Thank you, everybody, for your thoughts on this matter...
In the end I decided to ask for compensation, even if it means being passed over for someone not as picky. I haven't been rejected outright yet. While the editor is making remarks about how she has others under consideration that will allow publishing for free, I figure if she had a wide variety of choices we still wouldn't be talking. I've just sent her two watermarked images for her layout person to play with, since she says the flicker images were too small to work with, and I don't allow anyone to download different sizes (for a good reason, apparently...)
My decision hinged on three things. One, it didn't matter what "everybody else" might do, I was responsible for my own actions, and the rightness or wrongness of them was separate from what the next person might do. Two, as others have pointed out, photocredit is pretty much worthless, especially on a plane where the viewer was unlikely to be able to act on the knowledge in any way. Three, Gulf Air magazine apparently makes 4 million a year and reaches 200,000 people a month... Why -can't- they compensate me fairly?
I published this post in a couple of different places. One thing I found interesting was that the responses were more or less 50/50, even amoung pros and non-pros... I was expecting the people who earn a living from their photos to be a bit more hard core about "giving it away for free", but I was wrong....
I've also decided that if I -really- want to be credited in a magazine, a local publication ("Space Coast Living") is looking for freelancers...
Posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Hi David,
Ink Publishing often contacts people on Flickr. We have very small budgets and as contract publishers we do not make the huge amount of money you seem to have worked out above. We only use flickr when we are finding it hard to find the image we need on a photolibrary, so it is usually obscure things (such as your tree of life). You are under no obligation to give the image. I should point out to you however, that a photo credit, especially in magazines with as high a readership as ours, is not worthless and I have myself commissioned many a photographer by seeing a photo I like in a magazine and then googling the photographer. Also we often keep flickr photographers on file who have sent us images and commission them in the future should we trust in their standard of photography and ease of dealing with them.
hope this helps with your query
Helen Cathcart
Senior Picture Editor Ink Publishing
Originally posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
hcathcart edited this topic 40 months ago.
|
|
|
@ hcathcart
Forgive me for asking a few dumb questions? It is that old photojournalist in me.
Your company claims that your magazines reach over 300,000,000 readers. If I remember my circulation numbers right. Forgive me if I am incorrect with this for I am used to ABC. The claim is 3 readers for every magazine. By my math we are talking about 100,000,000 printed. You are getting your income from Ad revenue and airlines and company's that you publish for. So that means it is a completely bought and paid product.
Ad revenue is determined is determined by circulation so you have about a 100,000,000 circulation as a company. That means simply you can charge a premium for an AD.
So here is the conundrum you claim to have small budgets but high circulation and ad rates. What I am I missing here? By the way I do know the cost of printing, I was in charge electronic prepress for a central California Lee Enterprises. So you should have high profitability so paying going rates should not be an issue. Gulf Life claims 600,000 readership If I break the numbers down on that you should have a circulation of 200,000, so unless you are doing Hollywood accounting you should be able to pay the going rate for images.
You are basically saying if I understand this correctly. The photo credit has a high value because you have a high circulation but you have small budget for contracted publications something does not compute. What am I missing?
I think I understand what your basic pitch is. We will use your image and give you credit, but we can't pay you because we are on a small budget, but our readership is so high you might get work. We may if we like your work may commission you later for an assignment.
If you don't have the budget to pay now for a photo, how can you commission a shoot later?
Last dumb question. How about I take an ad in one of publications for free? If I like the response I just might buy more ads in the future.
I guess, I won't be getting job offers from you in the future.
Originally posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
FullMetalPhotographer edited this topic 40 months ago.
|
|
Simply put, if you negotiate with people wanting to use their image free for the first time you use them, but compensate them for use there after, It just logically makes sense that you are still going to look for another free photo to use the next time and not contact the same Flickr user again. Call me crazy but is just how I see it, if they are good enough to publish the first time, they are good enough to pay the first time. Work without pay is volunteering, which is fine for charitable causes. But if you are going to monetize on your work, photo credit is only going to get others to look at your work, which is clearly being done via Flickr anyways. Photo credit in a commercial magazine is really only good if you submitted pix in Pop Photo or Shutterbug, as at least you are getting a audience looking at photos...not bored on a plane.
Posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Let me pop in as an magazine art director...
I would never ask for a free photo. I think that's just rude and goes against what all of us in the creative industry do. Everyone's given plenty of metaphors, but to give mine, it's the same as someone coming to me and asking for a logo for free and in return people get to see it. And to be honest, that's the same tendency people have these days, not just with photography, but nearly all creative fields. And that's just one of the reasons I would never try to skimp other creatives - if we don't stick together, our professions will be compromised.
Leave out these arguments about photo credit being payment enough, real compensation comes in the form of money and/or discounts - the end. And yes, we all have budgets, but nonetheless if a company can't compensate content providers, it's time to shut the doors.
Posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I think the better question to ask an ad agency or client is, "is it possible, given the potential visibility this picture could receive, to receive financial compensation?" I would not demand it, as I do not feel that anyone approached by an agency or client, is in a position to do so.
Photographers, historically, are notoriously poor business people. The artistic craft, and business acumen necessary to sell a photographic work in what has rapidly become a commodity due to the sheer number of digital SLR's and stock photography outlets out there, are 2 entirely different disciplines.
A
Posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
It depends on how much YOU want to see your name in print. Because YOU will be the only person to ever read the photo credit. Sure it is possible somebody else will. But the truth is they will never remember who you are, or where they say the picture.
Photo credit are empty promises. They are there to draw the inexperienced. The, first timers, if you will. After that photographers know they get nothing but tear sheets from working for free. And that never pays the rent.
Posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I have seen much of this, and I am not totally against it, because if this is a nice picture, and nice page coverage, it will have some return. It is like free publicity, people with money will be looking your picture, they also might be interesting clients in the future. Now if the magazine is some crappy sort of thing that will not bring any revenues at all, then It is a bad deal.
I am not aware of many magazines that pay well anyway.
Posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
No one pays well these days in commercial photography, period. I think the point a lot of folks are missing here, is that with the proliferation of great d-SLR's in the hands of average consumers, people are developing skills at faster rates, and have tools at their disposal that many pros didn't even have just a few years ago. And, the value of stock commercial photography has plumetted. It has become, quite simply, a commodity.
A
Posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
|
Would you like to comment?
Sign up for a free account, or sign in (if you're already a member).
|
|
This Week in Photo /
Discuss
Feed – Subscribe to This Week in Photo discussion threads
