4 ms·

I also really hate this argument. I'm what you call a serious amateur photographer. I make images because I love the process of creating and sharing art. Telli

I also really hate this argument. I'm what you call a serious amateur photographer. I make images because I love the process of creating and sharing art. Telling me that I shouldn't ever share my work because it erodes the value of others who have an entirely different motive is borderline price-fixing. If you, as an established professional, can't compete with hobbyists and newcomers trying to break in, then you might need to find a different business model.

Domenic_S 15y ago
The sentiment on this thread would be really different if instead of an unnamed calendar, the client was Coke running a $3MM international campaign and offering the author $100. Why is that?
- mirkules 15y ago
  The discussion is about two different things: 1. The amount of money offered for the author's work 2. Imploring others to not take "lowball" offers in order to preserve a certain pricing/business model. Regarding #1: Everyone is allowed to make any kind of offer, and the author is free to refuse them, just as he did. Photography is a business, and everyone is trying to make a deal to make a buck. If Coke offered $100, that's their prerogative, and it's up to the author to either haggle up higher, or refuse them flatly. Personally, I see no reason why the author was so offended -- the emails weren't rude, they weren't demanding, and the email person "L" was almost apologetic for having only $100 to spend. Since I don't know what company this is, we cannot make assumption on why the author thinks they will sell the calendars for $12.99 (although, there are religious undertones, and my suspicion and speculation is that they will not sell these at a huge profit as the author believes) Regarding #2, that's been covered well. If I want to sell my software at $0.99 per app and it undercuts the competition, great. We saw iOS developers complain that the $0.99 games are undercutting their profits, but it turned out to be a sustainable model. It's not my problem if I give my photos (or product) away for free and undercuts his model.
- MartinCron 15y ago
  Probably because humans have a sense of perspective and fairness that isn't always in sync with what a purely rational economic actor would do. Just a guess. Something similar did happen to me. An ad agency found a photo* I had taken and wanted to use it in a campaign. I usually give things away to non-profits, but this was going to be a large-scale thing for a major drug company. I asked what price the person thought was fair and we settled on a reasonable price. Maybe I was lowballed? I don't know and don't really care. It was more than $100, though. I didn't set a nonzero price just because I wanted to protect other artists ability to make money off of their work, I set a price because I thought it would be cool to have some extra money to buy some new camera gear. * The picture in question: http://www.flickr.com/photos/martincron/2208026093/in/set-72157603762050058 http://www.flickr.com/photos/martincron/2208026093/in/set-72...
sterling312 15y ago
This is precisely the problem, and I'm glad you mentioned it. If the cost to produce a calendar-grad image is so cheap that an amateur can produce it, perhaps the force of creative destruction has rendered the traditional photographer to compete on the same ground, perhaps it is time for traditional photographer to reconsider the service they are providing.
- aklemm 15y ago
  So true. The photographers need to get into the calendar making business or some other value-add beyond simply creating images.
wicknicks 15y ago
I agree with you. But this shows the culture in fields different from ours. What the photography area is witnessing is what we saw when free software came about. Smart photographers are using this to their advantage, whereas others are cribbing about it. I wonder how hard it would be to negotiate a deal where the photos are given for free, but with a caption or footnote pointing to the photographer's website. That would make the calendar the best advertisement he has had in years. People are going to be staring at his photos all year long!
- MartinCron 15y ago
  I wonder how hard it would be to negotiate a deal where the photos are given for free, but with a caption or footnote pointing to the photographer's website. That's basically how one of the Creative Commons licenses works. It's a valid choice for photographers, but not the only choice.
  - tomjen3 15y ago
    That may be true now, but if the commercial value of these photographs asymptotically approach zero (or close enough for us) then that may be all they are worth -- the choice becomes credit or nothing at all. And at that time the photographers would properly choose credits over nothing at all.
    - bartonfink 15y ago
      They'd properly choose another job.
- underwater 15y ago
  And those who see the credit will contact the photographer and ask if they can use his work for free "because it will give him exposure." If everyone did this then the photographer would never be paid.
  - wicknicks 15y ago
    Not so sure about that. As people on the thread commented, the popularity could lead to better contracts. For example, wedding photographers get paid quite well. If there are so many "free" contracts, that itself is a valid reason to start charging for the next one: I won't do your work, unless you pay me -- sorry, I have too many requests, and need to prioritize.
tomjen3 15y ago
Just so you don't feel like you have to apologize for your self, preventing you from sharing your work at whatever price you feel fair isn't borderline price fixing -- it is absolutely price fixing.
- MartinCron 15y ago
  Fair enough. I injected the "borderline" qualifier in there because it hasn't proven to be an effective strategy at price fixing. I just pictured a violent "photographer's guild" gang, riding across the countryside on their penny-farthing bicycles in matching vests and destroying the cameras and/or memory cards of those who would dare try to undercut them.
  - tjr 15y ago
    I think the penny-farthing-bicycle-riding, vest-wearing photographer's guild sorts of people mostly still destroy film rather than memory cards.

Domenic_S 15y ago

The sentiment on this thread would be really different if instead of an unnamed calendar, the client was Coke running a $3MM international campaign and offering the author $100. Why is that?

mirkules 15y ago
The discussion is about two different things: 1. The amount of money offered for the author's work 2. Imploring others to not take "lowball" offers in order to preserve a certain pricing/business model. Regarding #1: Everyone is allowed to make any kind of offer, and the author is free to refuse them, just as he did. Photography is a business, and everyone is trying to make a deal to make a buck. If Coke offered $100, that's their prerogative, and it's up to the author to either haggle up higher, or refuse them flatly. Personally, I see no reason why the author was so offended -- the emails weren't rude, they weren't demanding, and the email person "L" was almost apologetic for having only $100 to spend. Since I don't know what company this is, we cannot make assumption on why the author thinks they will sell the calendars for $12.99 (although, there are religious undertones, and my suspicion and speculation is that they will not sell these at a huge profit as the author believes) Regarding #2, that's been covered well. If I want to sell my software at $0.99 per app and it undercuts the competition, great. We saw iOS developers complain that the $0.99 games are undercutting their profits, but it turned out to be a sustainable model. It's not my problem if I give my photos (or product) away for free and undercuts his model.
MartinCron 15y ago
Probably because humans have a sense of perspective and fairness that isn't always in sync with what a purely rational economic actor would do. Just a guess. Something similar did happen to me. An ad agency found a photo* I had taken and wanted to use it in a campaign. I usually give things away to non-profits, but this was going to be a large-scale thing for a major drug company. I asked what price the person thought was fair and we settled on a reasonable price. Maybe I was lowballed? I don't know and don't really care. It was more than $100, though. I didn't set a nonzero price just because I wanted to protect other artists ability to make money off of their work, I set a price because I thought it would be cool to have some extra money to buy some new camera gear. * The picture in question: http://www.flickr.com/photos/martincron/2208026093/in/set-72157603762050058 http://www.flickr.com/photos/martincron/2208026093/in/set-72...

sterling312 15y ago

This is precisely the problem, and I'm glad you mentioned it. If the cost to produce a calendar-grad image is so cheap that an amateur can produce it, perhaps the force of creative destruction has rendered the traditional photographer to compete on the same ground, perhaps it is time for traditional photographer to reconsider the service they are providing.

aklemm 15y ago
So true. The photographers need to get into the calendar making business or some other value-add beyond simply creating images.

wicknicks 15y ago

I agree with you. But this shows the culture in fields different from ours. What the photography area is witnessing is what we saw when free software came about. Smart photographers are using this to their advantage, whereas others are cribbing about it. I wonder how hard it would be to negotiate a deal where the photos are given for free, but with a caption or footnote pointing to the photographer's website. That would make the calendar the best advertisement he has had in years. People are going to be staring at his photos all year long!

MartinCron 15y ago
I wonder how hard it would be to negotiate a deal where the photos are given for free, but with a caption or footnote pointing to the photographer's website. That's basically how one of the Creative Commons licenses works. It's a valid choice for photographers, but not the only choice.
- tomjen3 15y ago
  That may be true now, but if the commercial value of these photographs asymptotically approach zero (or close enough for us) then that may be all they are worth -- the choice becomes credit or nothing at all. And at that time the photographers would properly choose credits over nothing at all.
  - bartonfink 15y ago
    They'd properly choose another job.
underwater 15y ago
And those who see the credit will contact the photographer and ask if they can use his work for free "because it will give him exposure." If everyone did this then the photographer would never be paid.
- wicknicks 15y ago
  Not so sure about that. As people on the thread commented, the popularity could lead to better contracts. For example, wedding photographers get paid quite well. If there are so many "free" contracts, that itself is a valid reason to start charging for the next one: I won't do your work, unless you pay me -- sorry, I have too many requests, and need to prioritize.

tomjen3 15y ago

Just so you don't feel like you have to apologize for your self, preventing you from sharing your work at whatever price you feel fair isn't borderline price fixing -- it is absolutely price fixing.

MartinCron 15y ago
Fair enough. I injected the "borderline" qualifier in there because it hasn't proven to be an effective strategy at price fixing. I just pictured a violent "photographer's guild" gang, riding across the countryside on their penny-farthing bicycles in matching vests and destroying the cameras and/or memory cards of those who would dare try to undercut them.
- tjr 15y ago
  I think the penny-farthing-bicycle-riding, vest-wearing photographer's guild sorts of people mostly still destroy film rather than memory cards.