Free Photos!... Not Really

March 7, 2011 @ 7:00AM

Free Photos!... Not Really

The War on Photographers Continues

By The Copyright Zone, Ed Greenberg & Jack Reznicki

There is a famous story of Picasso, who was sitting in a Paris café, when a fan came up to him and asked if he would draw a quick sketch for them. Picasso surprisingly agreed and quickly drew something on his napkin. But before giving it to his admirer, Picasso asked for a significant amount of money for the napkin. The admirer was in shock and said: "How can you ask me for so much? It took you only a minute to draw it!" Picasso replied, "No, it took me 40 years."

A student recently reminded us of that story (us being Ed and Jack) because we are collecting stories of fantastic offers to photographers, all over the world, where instead of paying money, the big companies will give photographers a "chance to have their work seen." Companies seem to think that they no longer need to follow the time-honored tradition of paying photographers for their work. Work that, like Picasso, took a while to nurture and develop.

So they offer no payment to photographers, the companies, syndicators, and media moguls keep all the money. The photographers get to feed themselves, their families, and feed themselves with “glory” knowing their images are seen by thousands or even millions. Charlie Sheen just started a Twitter account and got a million followers. They say, that many eyeballs seeing what he Tweets, is worth a million dollars a year to Sheen.

So eyeballs equal money. And if a million people see your image, what does Big Media do for you? They say: “Hey, thanks for the content. Send more. And leave us alone. Paying you is just, oh, too much trouble.”

Think this is unique? Not only do photographers suffer through this, there are many other creatives like writers, who face the same issues. All we have to say is “The Huffington Post” and think of all those $315 million dollars that Arianna Huffington collected for selling it to AOL. OK, $300 million we understand. A nice round number. But the $15 million is maybe to pay her contributors? For all the writers that created all that content for the Huffington Post? Nope. Not a penny to contributors.

While Arianna is driving her expensive car to buy a tank of high priced gas, contributors hope they can get enough money together to buy a bike. And pay their phone bill so it doesn’t get cut off while they wait for Arianna to call them with their cut. They got a long wait.

In light of that, we just got this note, below, from a friend. Could it be another newspaper wanting free photographs from professional photographers? Oh, yeah.

It is heavily edited but the point is crystal clear. If you are a photographer you are expected to work for free and donate your images, not to a charity, but to for-profit corporations. Could it be that the press wants all the money? Could it be that what Jack and Ed have been saying and writing for over a decade is actually correct?

Free photos? Well, it depends on your point of view as either a photographer or a media giant.

Enjoy:

=============================

Hi _______,

Just to let you know that now, the photographers being screwed in the USA are not alone. Out here in Hong Kong the South China Morning Post used to be the most profitable paper per reader in the world, circa 1997. In 2006 the group posted a net profit of US$42,000,000 with a readership of just over 100,000. They have just released a revised contract for freelancers with this covering note:

-------------------------------------------

Dear Colleague,

Thank you for contributing to the South China Morning Post. We would like to let you know that we are introducing a new, updated, contract for our contributors. This follows a thorough review.

Amendments have been made to bring our contracts into line with developments in the media industry, especially the introduction of new technology.

The new contract, therefore, is broader in scope when dealing with the form in which your works may be published. This will enable them to reach a wider readership.

It also expressly provides for your Works to be published unlimited times and for the South China Morning Post to license its customers to access them in our archives.

We have decided to end the practice of splitting royalty payments from third parties between the SCMP and our contributors. It was just getting too hard for us to manage all these contracts and royalties. In future, any royalties collected will belong to SCMP.

We value your contributions and ask you to enter into the new contract so that we can continue to receive and publish your Works.

Yours faithfully,

Cliff Buddle

Deputy Editor

Comments

RuthCT

1 year ago

Thanks for posting and writing this article.
wow, I would think not one photographer would want to contribute any future work if they are not being paid because this new contract is in place.

The Copyright Zone

1 year ago

Unfortunately, we know that's not the case. There will be a line of photographers willing to sign on. Sigh.

RuthCT

1 year ago

an even bigger sigh :( How can they not know what they are causing, even to their own photographic career.
It will not get them noticed. I have found at least from my work being published, that no matter how many magazines I am paid to have my photos in with articles etc, and its a lot in the past 7 years, not one has lead to any art sales or new business connections.
The only ones that notice, are those that already know me and recognize a photo I took. But at least I was paid. I think the only people that check the ownership of a published photo in an article, are photographers. Those that are reading the article for the content text, don't have any interest to know who took the photo.

Every new business or art customer that contacts me, when I ask how they found me, they all say they found me from a Google search.

I'm baffled at how companies can expect photographers to to not be paid for their work. :(

AaronM

1 year ago

So... then what do you do to change the market for photography? The basic problem seems fairly simply - it's a buyer's market for a lot of photographs. Until that changes, this is going to be the situation.

I understand the frustration with enthusiasts and other amateurs who are willing to give their work away (if they even consider it work), and the damage this does to the profession, but isn't this always the case when something that was once restricted becomes widely available? The resulting lack of exclusivity results in a marketplace packed with acceptable material. And as long as there is a large amount of acceptable material, it won't command very high prices. Even in the desert, it's hard to get high prices for water in the middle of a flash flood - especially one that shows no sign of abating.

From what I have been able to determine, from looking at articles here and there and talking to people; going forward, it's all going to be about what you photograph, and how hard it is to get. Sometimes that means that it will be more important to be Johnny-on-the-spot or willing to go the extra 10 miles than an exceptional photographer, but I don't think that the djinni is going back into the bottle on this one.

As for companies promising "exposure" in lieu of payment, I've always regarded that as not-entirely-serious face-saving gesture for both parties. It takes the sting out of being told "you know, this really isn't worth anything to us," and it allows the company to pretend that they're not telling people "you know, this really isn't worth anything to us."

The Copyright Zone

1 year ago

Your points are valid, but we don't agree. It's not that the market is getting flooded, it's that the media companies are seeing fit to strangle their supply line of great images, thinking the public will always want common tripe. Time and time has shown us that quality does win out if done properly.
Wal-Mart comes to town and many stores close up. But many survive and thrive, knowing that the trick is not to compete with Wal-Mart. Those aren't your target customers. Service and quality still work. And it has.
Here in NYC right now, we're getting a bunch of "gourmet hamburger" stores opening up. If they all thought all the MacDonalds in town are simply cheaper, why would people spend a lot more for a hamburger? Quality. And better service. It works.

I know some high end photographers, in advertising and in weddings, both seeing some of their best years, getting great bookings. Why? The people competing at their level, photographers with those skill sets are diminishing.

The trick is not to compete with McDonalds and Wal-Mart, but to be the five star restaurant like the Four Seasons, the better department store, like Bloomingdales or Saks Fifth Avenue.

So the question becomes, where will those photographers, with the skill set needed to produce great work come from in the future, when demand shifts again, as it inevitably does? Where will these photographers be nurtured? Clients who cut their photo costs get their photo budgets cut the next year. That's how companies work. Photo buyers who paint themselves into a corner with cheaper work, may find that they are the next ones out. It's happened in ad agencies when art buyers cutting back, suddenly found their skill set was no longer in such high regard and they're out.

Another answer to this is Jack's next article that will appear Monday on Pixiq. "What makes a Successful Photographer". It's a good question and a good answer that addresses some of this subject.

AaronM

1 year ago

"It's not that the market is getting flooded, it's that the media companies are seeing fit to strangle their supply line of great images, thinking the public will always want common tripe."

I don't think that original article supports this case properly, Mr. Greenberg. (Although since I'm relatively new to Pixiq, perhaps I simply haven't seen older posts that you and Mr. Reznicki have made that build up to this.) What's missing for me is the evidence that media companies are looking to drive gourmet burger quality and service out of business by always buying McDonald's. What I took away from your original article is that media companies are looking for McDonald's quality for free, offering exposure in lieu of payment. Sounds like a raw deal to me, too, but then, as you say, "the trick is not to compete with McDonalds [...]."

As for the question of where will the next generation of great photographers be nurtured, I don't know the answer. It's exactly right that clients who are always cutting their photo budgets aren't going to be it. Just like hyper-cost-conscious shoppers aren't going to be the ones who nurture the Four Seasons, Bloomingdales or Saks Fifth Avenue. That's just the way the market works. If Stephen Sadove were to go on record as saying that people had a responsibility to shop at Saks to preserve it for the future, he'd be laughed out of town. As the market contracts for high-end photography, fewer people will be able to support themselves with it. Some of them will be forced into competing with common tripe to survive, and that might be the end of their careers. That's just the nature of the beast. But when the market revives, those that survived the lean times will be sitting pretty, and able to command high prices. Now, you could make the point that it's in the best interests of media companies to smooth out that boom-and-bust cycle, and you may have actually done that in other articles, but I didn't see that here. The theme of this piece seemed to be that media companies have an obligation to pay more than the market demands because photographers have a right to be paid. And while I see where you're coming from, I don't think the economics of the situation backs you up on that.

(Sorry for being so wordy. Thanks for reading.)

The Copyright Zone

1 year ago

Not wordy at all. Good comments and good dialog are always welcome in any amount.
You can catch more of us monthly in NAPP's Photoshop User Magazine in out Copyright Zone column.
We also have a lot of articles in our old blog,
www.thecopyrightzone.com

Trudy

1 year ago

In the same way it is an employer's market so employees will be mistreated is the same way it is a buyer's market and artists will be mistreated. It's what happens when there's a shift in power, and sadly such relationships seem to be more about power than actual relationships.

It's certainly hurtful as a photographer to deal with the copyright infringement/plagiarism/no pay/other disrespect thing but I doubt it will be going anywhere anytime soon.

Photographers just have to figure out how to navigate around such mess and though it stresses us at times, we simply have to keep moving forward and navigate around it because these low ideals aren't gonna vaporize.

Good post.

Abhas D. Rajopa...

1 year ago

Some of the photographers too have the feeling that their photographs are viewed by maximum of people. So much often they too do give photographs to media and others for free.
This article equally applies to the scenario in Nepal as far as I have seen. With amateur photographers increasing in number and so are various media houses and other sectors, this has been quite true.
In Nepal professional ones are still countable; so such situation have been in high dominance.
Hope the media investors and others see this article and give respect for photographers.
And thank you Ed Greenberg & Jack Reznicki for this article....

The Copyright Zone

1 year ago

Thanks Abhas for sharing the situation in Nepal.
As far as media people giving us more respect- we're not holding our breaths on that one.

sickened

1 year ago

Does this site realize that you are highlighting this sick lawyer "Edward C Greenberg" that tried to profit off that poor little girl in the Arizona's shooting.

As a parent and citizen of this country, I find your site to be in serious violation of our ethics code by featuring anything this sick greedy man has to say.

I think this sends a horrible message!!!

MHW

The Copyright Zone

1 year ago

Dear MHW:

As an attorney in a pending matter I am ethically prevented from responding to your blatantly erroneous post in a comprehensive manner and discussing specific facts. Suffice for now to say that your "facts" are not.

We trust that you have a problem with every newspaper, magazine and television outlet who stole copyrighted images of the murdered child and used them and profited by their violation of Federal Law - The Copyright Act, Title 17 . The subject copyrighted images were purloined, stolen, appropriated, infringed and used for profit by countless news organizations.

Many paid up when confronted by us and acknowledged their use. Those monies were/are being donated to charities in both Arizona and NYC. Your post demonstrates a profound ignorance of the relevant facts. The Pediatric Cancer Unit at NYU Medical Center is receiving funds from the undersigned greedy lawyer. Mr. Wolf has not financially benefited one dime. If you knew anything about the case you would know that the monies are going to charities although there is no legal obligation on anyone's part to do so.

You seem to have no problem with big businesses and media outfits from coast to coast stealing the work of an individual photographer and profiting thereby to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars - at least. A photographer and an attorney with no obligation to make charitable contributions decide to do so and that irks you. Amazing. If you are a photographer or illustrator and your work is ever stolen in such manner as to generate vast profits for some big business, we trust that you will stick to your "code" sit back and do nothing.

I'd love to go on but this greedy, slimy lawyer, unethical lawyer has to let his actions speak for themselves. You have the blessing of anonymity and the ability to uncritically accept the words or views of others while not letting the facts get in your way.

By your "code" the photojournalists covering wars, murders, disasters and so on where people are killed by the thousands ought not be paid so as not to benefit from a tragedy. Newspapers and magazines which include photos of corpses or torture victims ought not be sold for money. TV should never sell commercial time for shows about murders, shootings or cholera outbreaks lest they profit on the tragedies of others.

Your post demonstrates how easy it is for those with no knowledge to comment about things they know not.

Edward C. Greenberg

The Copyright Zone

1 year ago

This is Jack responding. Since I’m not a lawyer, I’m not tied legally as Ed is in responding. So I don’t have to be as nice.

Using MHW’s "logic" and personal "ethics", if any organs were harvested after this unbelievable tragedy, then any child receiving those organs, or worse, the doctors who operated, are all “profiting” from this horror.

In the end, what happens is that the media companies, who are really the bad guys in all this, because they are the ones profiting, get to keep all their profits and kids in the charities that could have benefited, don’t. Charities these days are seeing funding cut back and this ends up being just another cut that now doesn’t help underprivileged kids.

Why are these underprivileged kids not getting this money? Because of the uproar that people like MHW stirred without getting the facts. And where did they get their “facts”. Spun from what the media companies put out there with slanted stories. Yeah, no bias there.

The media companies basically stole property that wasn’t theirs, licensed it with their bylines as though they owned it, and charged their clients to use it. It’s like Hertz stealing your car from your driveway, renting it out, and keeping all the money. No difference.

And I know this isn’t the first time Ed has handled a case like this, where a small child was murdered and charities received the money. Look up the Lisa Steinberg murder case. The NY district attorney said that without the photos that Ed ran to the DA’s office before any media saw them, was instrumental at getting the murderer, Joel Steinberg, put behind bars. The images proved prior abuse with was the key evidence in that case. The photographer in that case, the late Stuart Gross, was a friend of mine and he donated a lot of money to charities so that a lot of kids would “profit” from what the media companies that originally profited had to pay for their abuse. Look it up.

In my “ethics” code (and BTW, I’ve sat on several industry ethic committees), what is in serious violation, is people slinging mud, without knowing the real and true facts. Shame on them.

Jack Reznicki

AaronM

1 year ago

I have no idea what you are talking about. This is simply another of the anonymous and unsourced accusations that can be found all over the internet. From the limited information I have, your problem seems to be that Mr. Greenberg is demanding that people who have licensed his photographs as if they were their own turn over the money they received.

I fail to see the issue.

There are a number of people who have profited "off that poor little girl." Just as I presume that many people are going to wind up with money in their pockets as a direct result of the recent tragedy in Japan. The fact that someone was killed or injured in a tragic even does not mean that those people who are doing their jobs in relation to that event should forgo being paid for their work. Ambulance drivers, doctors, morticians, all of them. Each was paid for the service they provided. There is nothing unethical in that. And we would consider it highly unethical for others to claim that they had done the work, and then ask for payment.

Your assertion, that Mr. Greenberg is somehow being unethical for asking that his rights be respected in this case seems spurious at best, and malicious at worst.

The Copyright Zone

1 year ago

Hey Aaron,

For clarification, the girl referred to is Christina-Taylor Green, who was tragically murdered in the Tucson shooting. Ed was not the photographer, but I'm sure you've seen the photo of her in any number of publications, newspapers, magazines, TV news shows. All with a syndicator's credit line, never the credit of the photographer who took that photo.

Ed is not the photographer, but the lawyer representing that photographer. There is little he can say actually about it. In fact, he wouldn't talk to me about it, unless it's something that is public information because of his legal obligation as the attorney. My info is from talking with the photographer himself (a very nice guy being vilified in Tucson) and reading what's been in the newspapers. That's why Ed and I are responding separately and signing separately.

The photographer who was going after the infringers, the syndicators, said he was giving the money he got to a charity in Tucson. The local media there made the photographer the "bad person" here, "profiting" from the tragedy, never mentioning the money that the media itself was passing among themselves. That fact never seemed to have made any of the stories in Tucson papers.

People like "MHW" started slinging mud, without knowing the facts, just buying what was reported by the local media who infringed the photo in question.

Hope that clarifies.
Thanks for your comments.

Jack Reznicki

AaronM

1 year ago

Aha. I see. Looks like I was a bit off the mark. Thanks for giving me the lowdown, Mr. Reznicki.

Still, I stand by my understanding that people who work around tragedies are commonly paid for their work, and it's ridiculous to slam them for objecting to being cheated out of being compensated. This case seems even worse, in that people are siding with the real "profiteers" in this case. (Rule number one: Never take someone at face value when you understand that they have a reason to mislead you...)

Sigh.

Anyway, whether other or not people appreciate it, I think that Mr. Greenberg doing the right thing in helping this guy argue his case. Bravo.