A great opportunity - to get ripped off. (1 Viewer)

paul goode · Jul 31, 2008

Robert / Seattle said:
Or choose to do this very thing for a living, and hold others to the same standards and practices that they expect of you. I see it as a question of mutual respect, not predator-prey dynamics. The later is generally reserved for lower life forms.

Well Robert, I guess you have carved a niche for yourself in a community surrounded by mutual respect and for that I am extremely jealous.
I run a business in the UK and have done for many years and sadly more and more with every passing year the buyers in the food chain above me are taught to be more and more aggresive, devious, and underhand (hope none of my customers are birders

) Mutual Respect is something they would find hilarious. At the moment, in my industry, they hold all the trump cards and use them to their advantage - no give or take.

paul goode · Jul 31, 2008

joannechattaway said:
I'm with Robert et al here....don't have a problem with the entry fee; that seems reasonable (if a bit steep), given the organisers time and effort involved but the photographer giving up all copyrights to the picture is wrong. The photographer and all his/her skills; artistic and practical, gained through hard work, effort, creative ability, technical knowledge and time are the sum of what's gone into the picture.......to me it's a bit like Paul McCartney giving up the copyrightes to his music. Some may say that's an extreme comparison but I've worked long enough, most of my working life, in the arts (not photography, my pictures are crap) to know that there are many unscrupulous promoters, gallery owners etc out there who just want to screw us creative types...seen it too much.......the term "something for nothing" springs to mind.

(Just my 2 pence worth...don't want to offend anyone)

Joanne

But I don't think we have asserted that the rights have been given up. A 2 minute internet search produced 2 of last years winning entries for sale by the photographer.

Robert / Seattle · Jul 31, 2008

paul goode said:
But I don't think we have asserted that the rights have been given up. A 2 minute internet search produced 2 of last years winning entries for sale by the photographer.

But the publisher can continue to run the photo anytime, and in any format, they choose to without additional payment to the to the author of the image -- correct?

Leif · Jul 31, 2008

It does sound like a rip off if they give themselves the right to to whatever they like with the winning image. A really good image can earn good money, so these people are getting other people to pay them to build up a library of images, from which they can make money. I wonder how many entries they will get? Hopefully very few.

No wonder many professional nature photographers have to supplant their income by teaching, and selling photo equipment online.

paul goode · Jul 31, 2008

Robert / Seattle said:
But the publisher can continue to run the photo anytime, and in any format, they choose to without additional payment to the to the author of the image -- correct?

It seems that they retain rights for use 'in connection with the competition' and for editorial. Who wins if Nike come calling, I haven't got a clue.

joannec · Jul 31, 2008

Leif said:
No wonder many professional nature photographers have to supplant their income by teaching, and selling photo equipment online.

Most artists/craftsmen supplement their income through teaching or through other means. It's only a very fortunate few who earn enough solely through their art/craft to make an acceptable living. I don't have a problem with teaching....it's passing on the knowledge and experience and is generally a good thing. Other things, though can be to the creative detriment.

Joanne

Robert / Seattle · Jul 31, 2008

paul goode said:
Well Robert, I guess you have carved a niche for yourself in a community surrounded by mutual respect ...

Thanks, Paul. But your guess is only partly accurate. This community is no more inclined to mutual respect than any other. My position in the "marketplace" is the result of my steadfast refusal to give my work away without fair compensation. To do so would undermine the efforts of others to make the same respectable living in the same occupation. (And as I said in an earlier post, charitable and educational "donations" are exempt from this practice).

I've even witnessed a belated and begrudging respect from publishers and other clients who initially attempted a one-sided deal, only to find them among my better and actively commissioning clients later on.

Cheers,
Robert

Leif · Jul 31, 2008

joannechattaway said:
Most artists/craftsmen supplement their income through teaching or through other means. It's only a very fortunate few who earn enough solely through their art/craft to make an acceptable living. I don't have a problem with teaching....it's passing on the knowledge and experience and is generally a good thing. Other things, though can be to the creative detriment.

Joanne

From what I have read, nature photography has become much more competitive compared to 20 years ago, in part due to many amateurs who give away images, or sell them for peanuts. The internet makes it easy to exchange images, whereas in the past you had to send slides to an agency. I can think of one amateur who allowed a large company to use one of his bird images in an advert for free.

fugl · Aug 1, 2008

Leif said:
From what I have read, nature photography has become much more competitive compared to 20 years ago, in part due to many amateurs who give away images, or sell them for peanuts. The internet makes it easy to exchange images, whereas in the past you had to send slides to an agency. I can think of one amateur who allowed a large company to use one of his bird images in an advert for free.

Exactly, this touches on the point I tried to make earlier in the thread. Amateurs by definition take photos for the love of it, not for money, though few would actually turn down payment if it came their way. So, of course, they're "in it for the glory" and "give away their work". Why shouldn't they? What's the disincentive? Wildlife photography is fun and people want recognition for their efforts. And nobody's going to restrict dissemination of his work out of concern for the livelihoods of a few professionals.

Robert / Seattle · Aug 1, 2008

fugl said:
Exactly, this touches on the point I tried to make earlier in the thread. Amateurs by definition take photos for the love of it, not for money, though few would actually turn down payment if it came their way. So, of course, they're "in it for the glory" and "give away their work". Why shouldn't they? What's the disincentive? Wildlife photography is fun and people want recognition for their efforts. And nobody's going to restrict dissemination of their work out of concern for the livelihoods of a few professionals.

Try setting up a family fruit stand in front of a super market and see how far you get. Once again, professional photographers are held to a market standard that others are inevitably exempt from (indeed would not stand for), perhaps including your employer who provided you with the income and leisure time to pursue your hobby.

Just maybe if this contest was for amateurs only there would not be a substantive issue here.

fugl · Aug 1, 2008

Robert / Seattle said:
Try setting up a family fruit stand in front of a super market and see how far you get. Once again, professional photographers are held to a market standard that others are inevitably exempt from (indeed would not stand for), perhaps including your employer who provided you with the income and leisure time to pursue your hobby.

Just maybe if this contest was for amateurs only there would not be a substantive issue here.

I think we're talking past one another.. What do fruit stands and super markets have to do with anything I've said? I'm not trying to sell anything, I'm just pursuing a hobby. Like many other amateurs I sometimes post my work and people occasionally contact me (not often, I'm no great shakes as a photographer) requesting permission to use it in various ways. I always say yes, and never charge a fee. I'm an amateur and don't want the hassle. And I'm also, I'm afraid, a fact of life--there are lots of us out there snapping away with our "prosumer" cameras and that is not going to change anytime soon.. As far as my "leisure" and my "employer" are concerned, please, you don't know my circumstances.

I'm not sure what my attitude about photo contest rules is--mostly because I'm rather unclear as to the practical implications--but I can certainly see why you as a professional are concerned about them

ThoLa · Aug 1, 2008

paul goode said:
Business is harsh though.
....
That has to be accepted or do something else for a living.

This "funny", often heard argument is flawed in more than one way.

First of all it is a loathsome insult of all hard-working, honest people
who do not lead a parasitic, cynical life by exploiting others.

Secondly, in ecological terms it is simply not possible to have only ticks, fleas and mosquitos. There have to be other animals, whose blood can be sucked out by the parasitic ones.

In terms of predator-prey relationships: if you only have tigers and no rabbits, the top-predators will starve to death.

Tom (one man / one component food chain)

hollis_f · Aug 1, 2008

postcardcv said:
It's not just the readership of the magazine who can enter, it is also on WHE website. Imagine if there was a free photo comp with a £1500 top prize

You mean like the one being run by Digital Camera magazine (in conjunction with Jessops)? Except the top prize there is £15,000.

Strangely they seem to have no need to charge anything for entrance. Nor do they claim the right to publish your picture except for purposes in connection with the competition.

The BW/WHE competition is already going to limit entries as they will only accept images on physical media. The process of burning images to CD, printing a contact sheet and posting the whole lot off would be too much hassle for many. The DC/J competition, on the other hand, allows you to upload images. Far more simple.

hollis_f · Aug 1, 2008

paul goode said:
It seems that they retain rights for use 'in connection with the competition' and for editorial. Who wins if Nike come calling, I haven't got a clue.

After the 'in connection with the competition' paragraph comes this...

"The organisers reserve the worldwide, royalty-free right and licence for the full period of copyright to publish winning and commended images in a book or magazine, and at their discretion will pay reproduction fees to photographers."

That sounds like they've got free rein to publish and they don't have to pay you if they don't feel like it. They don't even have to give credit!

postcardcv · Aug 1, 2008

hollis_f said:
You mean like the one being run by Digital Camera magazine (in conjunction with Jessops)? Except the top prize there is £15,000.

Strangely they seem to have no need to charge anything for entrance. Nor do they claim the right to publish your picture except for purposes in connection with the competition.

The BW/WHE competition is already going to limit entries as they will only accept images on physical media. The process of burning images to CD, printing a contact sheet and posting the whole lot off would be too much hassle for many. The DC/J competition, on the other hand, allows you to upload images. Far more simple.

True they don't but if you read the t&c's it states "The photographer will retain copyright and where an image or images are reproduced, the photographer will be credited." So they'll credit you but there is no suggestion that you'd be paid. The read the bit below (#11 in the t&cs - http://poty2008.dcmag.co.uk/3913562627509971805/rules.html ) - they reserve the right to use the images in print, at exhibitions, on the web, in promotional material, merchandising and even to enter it in other competitions... and no suggestion of ever paying for it. To me this reads a lot worse than the BW/WHE comp.

postcardcv · Aug 1, 2008

hollis_f said:
"The organisers reserve the worldwide, royalty-free right and licence for the full period of copyright to publish winning and commended images in a book or magazine, and at their discretion will pay reproduction fees to photographers."

That sounds like they've got free rein to publish and they don't have to pay you if they don't feel like it. They don't even have to give credit!

If you look back at the previous six years of this competition you'll see that they do credit the photographers when publishing the winning photos.

Jos Stratford · Aug 1, 2008

Robert / Seattle said:
Try setting up a family fruit stand in front of a super market and see how far you get.

Just maybe if this contest was for amateurs only there would not be a substantive issue here.

Frequently however, here at least, you do see signs at the end of gardens, etc, of persons selling fruit, invariably at a fraction of the supermarket price.

With regard photographs, just as you have right to control the use of your images, so do I with mine. That means, if I took the picture, I have every right to give it away free, to take pleasure in seeing my work reproduced in major magazines, etc, without requesting payment. If my hobby (not profession) is photography and I enjoy sharing my results, that is the end of it, I do not need to be concerned with money matters. Though I might have sympathy for the 'underpaid' professional, it does not mean I should also start charging if I don't wish too.

There are many walks of life where so-called professionals are 'undermined' by people doing similar things for free, think of volunteers in the conservation field for example. That's life unfortunately for those that wish to make money from it.

paul goode · Aug 1, 2008

deleted

pe'rigin · Aug 1, 2008

Robert / Seattle said:
My position in the "marketplace" is the result of my steadfast refusal to give my work away without fair compensation.

There are two differing viewpoints from either side of the pond.

Robert and Paul's, bizarrely I do agree with both.

I like the American attitude to business they have a better appreciation of suppliers than us.

Paul’s correct about the UK, in the fact that everyone seems to be trying to get ‘one-over’ a supplier or contractor.

Copyright perception has changed dramatically over the past 20 years in the terms of ‘trust’ and client relationships. Where loyalty was at the heart of the business ethic, this now no longer exists.

stevetb · Aug 1, 2008

ThoLa said:
This "funny", often heard argument is flawed in more than one way.

First of all it is a loathsome insult of all hard-working, honest people
who do not lead a parasitic, cynical life by exploiting others.

Secondly, in ecological terms it is simply not possible to have only ticks, fleas and mosquitos. There have to be other animals, whose blood can be sucked out by the parasitic ones.

In terms of predator-prey relationships: if you only have tigers and no rabbits, the top-predators will starve to death.

Tom (one man / one component food chain)

C'mon, do we need posts like these? You do have a good point, but your own argument and analogy is heavily flawed, but I don't feel the need to try and break it down, and dont want to anger you or make 'enemies' on this forum - if we be pleasant about these things, it makes it alot nicer for everyone, and doesn't encourage retaliations.

I sit on the same side of the fence as paul - thats the way a large business works. If you are willing enough to spend £20 on a competition, then I'm sure you can read the t&c's, and make up your own mind.

I do also agree with Roberts point - yes there are a lot of photographers and businesses (the former often unknowingly) undermining those who have photography as a profession.
I can see what people are saying about it being an excuse to gather images, thus putting professionals at a loss, but I dont think the WE competition is really doing this. It is simply a competition in which a fee is placed to cover the fee of handling and sorting through the images - and of course, to get profit - WE has to have a strong motivation to do so. I don't think they are trying to build up a gallery of free images to use.

On the other hand, there are a lot less reputable companies who do rip off photographers - and I think we should be slagging them off - not each other! :-O

A great opportunity - to get ripped off. (1 Viewer)

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Registered User

Well-known member

Well-known member

Super Moderator

Super Moderator

Eastern Exile

Well-known member

Well-known member

Registered user

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread