Author Topic: Photographers Taking Credit Instead of Money Magazine Article (Read 14205 times)

cathyslife · « **on:** May 13, 2010, 15:30 »

I'm behind on reading my NAPP Photoshop User Magazine. For those who are members, great article on page 72 in the April/May issue. It's a column called The Copyright Zone..."We'll Gladly Credit You Tuesday for a Hamburger Today".

The gist of the article is about a huge TV news network offering a big-name photographer who has studied a certain culture for decades only credits instead of money for his photos. Fortunately, he told them he didn't work for credits, but for fees and to come back when they had a budget.

But the article brought up a very good point...I have seen this all the time on local news stations. They ask viewers to send in images for their use and the creator sometimes doesn't even get a full credit, sometimes just a first name and location. Never mind getting paid for the shot.

leaf · « **Reply #1 on:** May 13, 2010, 16:20 »

this reminds me of a youtube video I saw of a famous photographer (I forget who now) ... or perhaps it was an actor who commented on this. About how people wanted him to work 'for credit' ... he wasn't into it

I just wish I could find that video now.....

leaf · « **Reply #2 on:** May 13, 2010, 16:23 »

haha.. I found it. Worth the 3:25 of your time it takes to watch it.


Harlan Ellison -- Pay the Writer

The moral: don't work for free

cathyslife · « **Reply #3 on:** May 13, 2010, 16:31 »

Great video...exactly the same issue!

a.k.a.-tom · « **Reply #4 on:** May 13, 2010, 16:37 »

funny.... the utility company, the mortgage company, the car dealer, the doctor, the phone company, the cable tv company,.... seems like all of the people I have to pay every month...
want..... cash. I offered the bank a couple nice plates of my wife's oatmeal cookies in lieu of the mortgage payment last month.... .. and they gave me a strange look. LOL

=tom

work for credit? .... then again, .....ah, maybe if I was being paid in beer and hot wings... ...nah, I guess that wouldn't work....

cathyslife · « **Reply #5 on:** May 13, 2010, 16:41 »

ah, bartering...now that's a whole nuther issue. At least you are getting something back in fair trade. And yes, funny how the bank's won't do that.

ap · « **Reply #6 on:** May 13, 2010, 17:03 »

when i started in photography last year, i was offered credit in exchange for a photo in a calendar of a popular and well known sports co. since i wanted to show solidarity with my new photog brethens and not give something away for nothing, i refused.

now, seeing this calendar full of beautiful photos minus mine own, i'm starting to regret this decision. i think it would have opened the doors to a young photographer and the money would have mattered not. but photographers keep insisting that this would be a detriment to the photo industry...i think in all arts related fields, name recognition is a lot more important than monetary reward, esp at the beginning.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #7 on:** May 13, 2010, 17:13 »

Funny, I just read that today. Obviously these productions are just trying to scam photogs.

Yet, pages later it suggests everyone join a stock site to make money off things that would just sit on their hard drive. Thought we were past that.

cascoly · « **Reply #8 on:** May 13, 2010, 17:35 »

there are a number of photogtaphy 'contests' that run similar scams - not only do you have to pay an entry fee, but they get full rights to use your pix wherever they want. some compound the insult by then publishing a book of the winners and runners-up [of course just about everyone gets in] and charging another large fee.

steve

lisafx · « **Reply #9 on:** May 13, 2010, 18:34 »

Unbelievable. I can understand local Penny Savers etc. trying to get images for free, but a major news network? From a pro photographer? Insane.

Tom got it exactly right:

Quote from: a.k.a.-tom on May 13, 2010, 16:37

funny.... the utility company, the mortgage company, the car dealer, the doctor, the phone company, the cable tv company,.... seems like all of the people I have to pay every month...
want..... cash. I offered the bank a couple nice plates of my wife's oatmeal cookies in lieu of the mortgage payment last month.... .. and they gave me a strange look. LOL =tom

work for credit? .... then again, .....ah, maybe if I was being paid in beer and hot wings... ...nah, I guess that wouldn't work....

Kone · « **Reply #10 on:** May 13, 2010, 18:51 »

This video should be posted on every single forum in order to remind us what we work for!

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #11 on:** May 13, 2010, 21:52 »

Quote from: leaf on May 13, 2010, 16:23

haha.. I found it. Worth the 3:25 of your time it takes to watch it.

The moral: don't work for free

That's awesome. There's another one called The Vendor Client Relationship that's pretty good too.


The Vendor Client relationship - in real world situations

leaf · « **Reply #12 on:** May 14, 2010, 03:12 »

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on May 13, 2010, 21:52

Quote from: leaf on May 13, 2010, 16:23
haha.. I found it. Worth the 3:25 of your time it takes to watch it.

The moral: don't work for free

That's awesome. There's another one called The Vendor Client Relationship that's pretty good too. The Vendor Client relationship - in real world situations

haha great. thanks

Microbius · « **Reply #13 on:** May 14, 2010, 07:14 »

Wasn't there the same kind of thing going on with Google not paying their illustrators.
"We're just the largest search provider in the world, but we'll give you credit then one day a big company that can afford to pay you might see it and hire you to do something similar for pay!"
.....hang on a minute

trek · « **Reply #14 on:** May 14, 2010, 07:23 »

Re: there are a number of photography 'contests' that run similar scams - not only do you have to pay an entry fee, but they get full rights to use your pix wherever they want.

About a year ago I noticed a USA Today Travel Photography contest. I thought "what do I have to lose". When I read the fine print it said that by submitting an image I was transferring my copyright... forever... It said I would need written permission from USA Today before exhibiting, reproducing or licensing my submitted photograph. It was nothing more than a massive sleazy copyright grab.

cathyslife · « **Reply #15 on:** May 14, 2010, 07:29 »

Quote from: ap on May 13, 2010, 17:03

when i started in photography last year, i was offered credit in exchange for a photo in a calendar of a popular and well known sports co. since i wanted to show solidarity with my new photog brethens and not give something away for nothing, i refused.

now, seeing this calendar full of beautiful photos minus mine own, i'm starting to regret this decision. i think it would have opened the doors to a young photographer and the money would have mattered not. but photographers keep insisting that this would be a detriment to the photo industry...i think in all arts related fields, name recognition is a lot more important than monetary reward, esp at the beginning.

You might feel you should have taken the credit, ap, but I believe you made the right decision. When people find out those calendar images were given away, you will have a whole host of impressive companies wanting to work with you...for free. It's easy to negotiate down with a company if you ask too much money, but once you work for free it's pretty difficult to go up from there.

danhowl · « **Reply #16 on:** May 14, 2010, 07:43 »

The whole issue is not as simple as many here are trying to make it out. I don't know the exact situation reference in the initial post, but there are situations where working for credit is an advantage--or at least it has been for and many of my peers. First and most logically is working for non-profits. Essentially volunteerism with a camera. There are a few non-profits that I shoot for selectively. I have actually gained resources and contacts that I have been able to take advantage of on commercial and editorial assignments. Secondly there are boutique magazines (sadly fewer and fewer each year) that work on higher creative levels than more commercial magazines that provide photographers opportunities to stretch into new areas or work on levels they wouldn't otherwise. Early in my career I shot numerous assignments for the NYC magazine PAPER on fashion and personality projects. I was able to ad initial tearsheets to my portfolio and I had the opportunity to do portrait sittings with celebrities like Puffy and David Ducovney which got me into the editorial stock agency Retna and sold over and over which more than compensated for the editorial fee I could have gotten from a single magazine.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #17 on:** May 14, 2010, 08:20 »

Quote from: danhowl on May 14, 2010, 07:43

The whole issue is not as simple as many here are trying to make it out. I don't know the exact situation reference in the initial post, but there are situations where working for credit is an advantage--or at least it has been for and many of my peers. First and most logically is working for non-profits. Essentially volunteerism with a camera. There are a few non-profits that I shoot for selectively.

There's no reason non-profits can't pay for services like any other business. Many have huge budgets and hide behind the "non-profit" phrase. I've had someone from a multi-million dollar non-profit in NY contact me twice (a year apart) about doing images for their site. Twice, I've sent back a quote with proper pricing for their size and usage, and I never here from them again. They probably think I just want the "exposure" from their site or something.

gostwyck · « **Reply #18 on:** May 14, 2010, 08:52 »

Quote from: sjlocke on May 14, 2010, 08:20

There's no reason non-profits can't pay for services like any other business. Many have huge budgets and hide behind the "non-profit" phrase.

Exactly. It'll be a fair bet that the person doing the asking will not themselves be working for free.

FD · « **Reply #19 on:** May 14, 2010, 08:57 »

Personally, I found this one more concise. Think of all the exposure you will get... The argument often used by micro agents to offer images for free.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HyTpzgAW5NA[/youtube]

danhowl · « **Reply #20 on:** May 14, 2010, 11:14 »

Quote from: sjlocke on May 14, 2010, 08:20

Quote from: danhowl on May 14, 2010, 07:43
The whole issue is not as simple as many here are trying to make it out. I don't know the exact situation reference in the initial post, but there are situations where working for credit is an advantage--or at least it has been for and many of my peers. First and most logically is working for non-profits. Essentially volunteerism with a camera. There are a few non-profits that I shoot for selectively.

There's no reason non-profits can't pay for services like any other business. Many have huge budgets and hide behind the "non-profit" phrase. I've had someone from a multi-million dollar non-profit in NY contact me twice (a year apart) about doing images for their site. Twice, I've sent back a quote with proper pricing for their size and usage, and I never here from them again. They probably think I just want the "exposure" from their site or something.

Nowhere did I say all non-profits can expect free services, but there are many reasons that some non-profits can't afford quality photography to aid their efforts. It does not surprise me that you choose not to participate. I, however, have gladly worked on photo projects with the Boys & Girls Clubs in NYC and Kids In Distressed Situations (Kids fashion industry charity) because the children's fashion industry has been very good to my career over the years.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #21 on:** May 14, 2010, 11:16 »

Quote from: danhowl on May 14, 2010, 11:14

Nowhere did I say all non-profits can expect free services, but there are many reasons that some non-profits can't afford quality photography to aid their efforts. It does not surprise me that you choose not to participate. I, however, have gladly worked on photo projects with the Boys & Girls Clubs in NYC and Kids In Distressed Situations (Kids fashion industry charity) because the children's fashion industry has been very good to my career over the years.

I didn't say whether or not I do any charity work. You misread my statement.

I don't know about "many reasons" some non-profits can't afford it. There's only one - they don't have the funding. I was pointing out that a good number of non-profits actually do have huge budgets and can afford it.

Xalanx · « **Reply #22 on:** May 14, 2010, 18:39 »

Actually MOST of the non-profits organisations have solid funding.

danhowl · « **Reply #23 on:** May 14, 2010, 19:48 »

Quote from: Xalanx on May 14, 2010, 18:39

Actually MOST of the non-profits organisations have solid funding.

Please quote sources when making emphatic statements like above.

Randy McKown · « **Reply #24 on:** May 14, 2010, 21:31 »

Quote from: danhowl on May 14, 2010, 19:48

Quote from: Xalanx on May 14, 2010, 18:39
Actually MOST of the non-profits organisations have solid funding.

Please quote sources when making emphatic statements like above.

emphatic ... heh ... I thought he guilelessly enumerated a proverbial statistic .. don't be so lethargic

Xalanx · « **Reply #25 on:** May 15, 2010, 01:12 »

Yea I'm working a list with non-profit organisations and their funds, to publish it precisely in this forum.

I had to do many times with this kind of organisations and every time they were backed up by serious investment. Emphatic... some people are so pathetic.

PixelBitch · « **Reply #26 on:** May 15, 2010, 01:15 »

Absolutely spot on...I remember being asked to work for a lower fee and being told that on the next job of course I would get a higher fee...bollocks...I always used to call them on it and decline. One particularly sweet moment was when a trendy young photographer fresh out of college underpriced me on a shoot I'd done for a client 3 years running...then 2 weeks later they called and told me he'd screwed up and they wanted me to do the shoot at my usual rate. There is no shortage of clients who will try and take the piss...and sadly no shortage of desperate photographers willing to fall for it.

Quote from: cclapper on May 14, 2010, 07:29

Quote from: ap on May 13, 2010, 17:03
when i started in photography last year, i was offered credit in exchange for a photo in a calendar of a popular and well known sports co. since i wanted to show solidarity with my new photog brethens and not give something away for nothing, i refused.

now, seeing this calendar full of beautiful photos minus mine own, i'm starting to regret this decision. i think it would have opened the doors to a young photographer and the money would have mattered not. but photographers keep insisting that this would be a detriment to the photo industry...i think in all arts related fields, name recognition is a lot more important than monetary reward, esp at the beginning.

You might feel you should have taken the credit, ap, but I believe you made the right decision. When people find out those calendar images were given away, you will have a whole host of impressive companies wanting to work with you...for free. It's easy to negotiate down with a company if you ask too much money, but once you work for free it's pretty difficult to go up from there.

Albert Martin · « **Reply #27 on:** May 15, 2010, 01:22 »

First of all:

There is no name of 'major TV network' so this case is not clear enough. Why not use name of that network so we all know who is in need for free photographs?

Nothing is for free on this planet - so why they want free photos? Maybe you can get some second of their advertising commercial time so you can then sell that to those who need it!

Anyhow it is very big BS.

Microbius · « **Reply #28 on:** May 15, 2010, 04:55 »

Could I just check, is Dan getting torn a new one for having the audacity to use a three syllable word on a forum?

ComfortEagle2095 · « **Reply #29 on:** May 15, 2010, 10:51 »

For several years I've done occasional photography for a local fitness magazine. I had to set up appointments with people they were featuring and travel around to shoot at various locations. Then there was processing time, etc.

Their fee was just $25. So low it almost never covered my expenses and certainly didn't produce any kind of profit but I was new and wanted the exposure and by-line. Plus I thought eventually as my skill increased they'd pay me more.

Here it is three years later and they are asking me to travel long distances and take hours out of my day for the same $25 fee. I told them I wasn't going to shoot photographs for a fee that didn't even cover my expenses anymore. I thought since they've come to rely on me and I've done a great job for them that they'd pony up some more cash. Of course they didn't. I guess they think they can find another beginner who'll work essentially for free.

I mean, come on, they buy one or two custom photographs a month. Everything else they use is cheap stock. I guess that's why they are a small player and will probably stay a small player.

Anyway, has the exposure and by-line earned me anything? No. Not a dime. Bad investment on my part. Lesson learned.

gostwyck · « **Reply #30 on:** May 15, 2010, 11:13 »

^^^ How come it took you "several years" of working at a loss to work it out? They were basically using you as a staff photographer. I find it staggering that they'd even have the brass neck to ask __ let alone anyone actually accept such 'terms'.

danhowl · « **Reply #31 on:** May 15, 2010, 11:19 »

Co-incidentally, the Today show ran a feature on the portrait photographer who shoots the guest hosts of Saturday Night Live. I'm sure there was no compensation for displaying the images. The fact that it is the same network muddies the issue, but when a news or info-tainment program does an editorial feature on a subject, frequently that subject is not compensated. If that subject is a photographer and the point of the feature is the work it would not be unheard of to display images without compensation. Similarly if a photographic artist is promoting a book or gallery exhibition they are not compensated to come on a tv program to promote it.

cathyslife · « **Reply #32 on:** May 15, 2010, 11:30 »

Quote from: gostwyck on May 15, 2010, 11:13

^^^ How come it took you "several years" of working at a loss to work it out? They were basically using you as a staff photographer. I find it staggering that they'd even have the brass neck to ask __ let alone anyone actually accept such 'terms'.

(I added bold) But wouldn't a staff photographer make some kind of salary, even if it's minimum wage? At least it's more than $25!

gostwyck · « **Reply #33 on:** May 15, 2010, 11:57 »

Quote from: cclapper on May 15, 2010, 11:30

But wouldn't a staff photographer make some kind of salary, even if it's minimum wage? At least it's more than $25!

Yes, of course. Essentially he was being sent on assignments, at a time and place of the magazine's choosing (as opposed to existing images from his library). A staff photographer would not only be paid but would normally have equipment provided too.

lisafx · « **Reply #34 on:** May 15, 2010, 22:13 »

Quote from: ComfortEagle2095 on May 15, 2010, 10:51

For several years I've done occasional photography for a local fitness magazine. I had to set up appointments with people they were featuring and travel around to shoot at various locations. Then there was processing time, etc.

Their fee was just $25. So low it almost never covered my expenses and certainly didn't produce any kind of profit but I was new and wanted the exposure and by-line. Plus I thought eventually as my skill increased they'd pay me more.

Here it is three years later and they are asking me to travel long distances and take hours out of my day for the same $25 fee. I told them I wasn't going to shoot photographs for a fee that didn't even cover my expenses anymore. I thought since they've come to rely on me and I've done a great job for them that they'd pony up some more cash. Of course they didn't. I guess they think they can find another beginner who'll work essentially for free.

I mean, come on, they buy one or two custom photographs a month. Everything else they use is cheap stock. I guess that's why they are a small player and will probably stay a small player.

Anyway, has the exposure and by-line earned me anything? No. Not a dime. Bad investment on my part. Lesson learned.

Thanks for sharing this. It's a good cautionary tale. I think a lot of us might have been similarly suckered in the beginning.

My father-in-law, an electrician, was always getting asked to do side jobs for acquaintances for free. His standard answer was "I don't need the practice".

ap · « **Reply #35 on:** May 15, 2010, 22:49 »

Quote from: ComfortEagle2095 on May 15, 2010, 10:51

For several years I've done occasional photography for a local fitness magazine. I had to set up appointments with people they were featuring and travel around to shoot at various locations. Then there was processing time, etc.

Their fee was just $25. So low it almost never covered my expenses and certainly didn't produce any kind of profit but I was new and wanted the exposure and by-line. Plus I thought eventually as my skill increased they'd pay me more.

Here it is three years later and they are asking me to travel long distances and take hours out of my day for the same $25 fee. I told them I wasn't going to shoot photographs for a fee that didn't even cover my expenses anymore. I thought since they've come to rely on me and I've done a great job for them that they'd pony up some more cash. Of course they didn't. I guess they think they can find another beginner who'll work essentially for free.

for something like this, i would do an exchange for both property and model release to make it worth your while, in addition to the meagre $25 'processing' fee. this is truly an insult to photographers since this is assignment work and you can't add these photos to your portfolio.

ap · « **Reply #36 on:** May 15, 2010, 23:00 »

Quote from: cclapper on May 14, 2010, 07:29

You might feel you should have taken the credit, ap, but I believe you made the right decision. When people find out those calendar images were given away, you will have a whole host of impressive companies wanting to work with you...for free. It's easy to negotiate down with a company if you ask too much money, but once you work for free it's pretty difficult to go up from there.

now i feel a little better...at least i have a good story to tell, when i'm a seasoned photog, as to who i said 'no' to.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Photographers Taking Credit Instead of Money Magazine Article (Read 14205 times)

lisafx

Microbius

Xalanx

Xalanx

Microbius

lisafx

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors