MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Photographers Taking Credit Instead of Money Magazine Article  (Read 9521 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Xalanx

« Reply #25 on: May 15, 2010, 01:12 »
0
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.


« Reply #26 on: May 15, 2010, 01:15 »
0
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.


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.

« Reply #27 on: May 15, 2010, 01:22 »
0
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 »
0
Could I just check, is Dan getting torn a new one for having the audacity to use a three syllable word on a forum?  :o

« Reply #29 on: May 15, 2010, 10:51 »
0
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.

« Reply #30 on: May 15, 2010, 11:13 »
0
^^^ 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'.

« Reply #31 on: May 15, 2010, 11:19 »
0
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. 

« Reply #32 on: May 15, 2010, 11:30 »
0
^^^ 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!

« Reply #33 on: May 15, 2010, 11:57 »
0
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 »
0
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 »
0
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 »
0

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.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
2 Replies
2135 Views
Last post July 16, 2008, 06:48
by RT
22 Replies
7641 Views
Last post May 20, 2009, 13:46
by null
12 Replies
5376 Views
Last post September 07, 2010, 16:02
by MikLav
21 Replies
6084 Views
Last post May 03, 2012, 11:04
by cardmaverick
4 Replies
1694 Views
Last post January 18, 2015, 20:44
by SME

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results