Be Excellent To Each Other

Received a nice email from Seattle Metropolitan Magazine regarding this photo:





After mulling it over I've gone for it. After all I haven't activated the Getty Commons licensing account on Flickr, because it didn't occur to me that someone would soon be contacting me after my photos. I realise I could have tried my hand and haggled over a payment, but this is the first time this has ever happened to me and I feel kind of absurdly flattered to do it for free, despite them getting out of paying people with hopeful Flickr targeting. This raises interesting questions, obv. In today's internet age where a lucky shot from an amateur can creep up on near-professional status, is it honourable or right for magazines to scour Flickr for pleasing pics by vain, ego-ridden people like myself desperate for very, very cheap nay free validation? Is the age of professional photography over? Am I an idiot for saying yes for free glossy paper? ("Yes," - Stuart Campbell, probably.)

Whatever happens, I'm activating the Getty Commons licensing thing so that if it happens again I now have a possibility of money headed my way if future offers by other bods are made. If it weren't a one time editorial use I would have wrangled money. But again, yes, I am ego-buffed and happy. Never again for free unless a charity or little indie thing wot I like, but yes, I am flattered and willing this occasion.

Let's talk the shady world of photo licensing! And hey, at least Seattle Met asked, unlike those bastards at the Daily Mail, right?

Yours, man who may be a complete .

Oh. And I'm back from America just yesterday, but completely jet-lagged. Faugh.

I'd say getting credited for it is fair enough. It's a superb picture.

excellent! Nice one Pete. It's such a breathtaking photo it deserves to be consumed by a wider audience rather than hidden away in Flickr. Payment would be nice, but hopefully this will help lead to paid commissions in the future.

BTW, have you considered making a photo book of your snaps? You could create quite a narrative with some of your pictures. (Sorry, I've been snooping on Flickr)

Each case is different, but personally I'd be wanting money. Everyone wants something for free these days.

At the very least ask for a hard copy of the magazine to be mailed to you + a credit.

If they run with it they have at least promised me that.

Congrats Pete! Bloody lovely photo as well.

BUT! You're undermining your work and the work of others by giving it away - ask for money next time! There's a similar problem in journalism, and it's probably the main reason I'm not working as a journalist. There are too many people willing to work for free, so actually making a living by competing with that is nigh on impossible.

Excellent photo Pete, and congrats for getting published. The first of many, we hope.

Nice one Pete, it deserves to go public that shot.

Personally I'd have asked for cash I think, but the credit could lead to more work from them/others... so er yeah.

Either way, I hope it get's chosen and I'm glad your not in a hillbilly's sex dungeon.

I've had similar requests from five different magazines over the past two years, and I usually decide on the nature o the magazine. Three of the magazines have been Japanese - one was a children's magazine about toys and wanted to run a feature on cultural toys from around the world and wanted to use a picture of my matryoshka collection. Two of them were charity magazines - one from Japan, one from Germany, so I said yes. Can't remember what the others were off the top of my head, but I think I only said no to one French magazine. All gave me credit, and some a link to my blog.

I've spotted pictures of mine in a number of UK magazines with no requests for use, though, so how many times your pictures have appeared without request is another matter.

Send in the Kissyfur!

If you're happy with a credit, so be it. Just be realistic about it being for vanity, s'all, as it will almost certainly not amount to anything other than a nice feeling for you and some "yays" here. To a point I agree with Meems about judging it on an individual basis and whether you want to or feel it's right to give it away for free — it is yours to do so with how you please. However, giving stuff away isn't my default position because it does cheapen everybody's existence in the commercial sector and ultimately someone is making money out of that magazine and they're making more money by getting your stuff for free.

For the record, Getty images (yes that Getty) has the oversight job of researching and securing purchase of images on Flickr, it's up to you to signify what rights you want to attach to your images. It is a problem stuff being used for free and most big publishers particularly newspapers will default into taking the piss but will usually pay up if you notice and just call them, inform them that you intend to invoice them for a reasonable amount and move on.

Nice shot by the way

A similar argument exists over freely offered knitting patterns. There are some designers that feel that freely offered knitting patterns do a disservice to the designers' work as it cheapens the existence of the commercial knitting pattern market.

Some folks get really quite angry about it, feeling it quite disgusting that someone could compete with their business by offering a product for free, describing it as morally wrong.

I have both free patterns and patterns available for purchase. The free ones draw attention to the ones available for purchase. If commercial patterns are worthy of being paid for, they will be, but they need to be of a high quality to do so, rather than someone feeling justified in charging £4 for instructions on how to knit a garter stitch scarf. I think the competition has done something to drive the quality up, because no, a lot of people won't pay for badly constructed half-arsed patterns as they did (had to - even the simplest patterns wee purchased when everything was printed on paper) years ago, but will still gladly pay for a well thought out, innovative and well-written design.

This may not have an equivalent position in the photographic world, but the feelings among some pro photographers/designers seems to correlate a little.

It certainly correlates with a lot of areas. Personally, I think it's completely up to the individual if they want to give their stuff away. It's totally up to them and I'm not going to hate them for it. The real problem in journalism is down to the editors who will happily take free sub-par copy over quality paid-for copy. With photography this is possibly even more of a problem because you have the likes of Pete who is clearly extremely talented, but does photography as a hobby. So editors are getting professional quality stuff from a talented individual for naff-all.

What's a reasonable amount?

I had a Land Rover magazine use one of my photos in their magazine and I told them they could have it for free because I didn't know how much to ask for.

They did send me an issue of the magazine, but I subscribe anyway

£12

Magazines have a per page budget, and picture use is broken down that way, so you could always ask. For specialist mags it won't be a lot as they rarely have the circulation or the advertising revenue.

Two tips are, whoever goes first always loses in negotiations, so ask higher than you think you'll get and they'll feel good about knocking you down. Obviously some experience is handy but I can't write a 1000 words on varying budgets. Basically a glossy mag or newspaper will pay a fortune if you have the first summer shots of Kate Middleton in a bikini, and by fortune I mean quite possibly six figures. A specialist magazine like this LR title will have a microscopic budget generally and their circulation isn't going to increase 3 fold with your image, so I reckon £50 - £100 for a full page but I'd ask for £150 and divisions of that depending on the size of usage. Then let them knock you down.
If you really have no idea just be candid and say "I have no idea what your budget is? What would you normally pay for such an image?"
This last one can turn up some surprising amounts when you're working for a new client and you're not sure exactly what it is they want to use the images for. My experience of magazines is that most of the people on it are a bit clueless when it comes to negotiating as it isn't something they do often and though they obviously have to be more fiscally conservative nowadays, it still isn't their money they're spending.

Lies! I'll show you all! I'm going to be a STAR! (Flings arms out wide like Withnail atop a hill.)

*cough*

Wise words, DB. Thanks for the info. Professional photography confuses me. Its a scary land, as whenever I read an interview with a professional photographer when he's not talking about technique and concept he's usually indirectly shouting at me somehow. I am quietly pleased that this enquiry from a reasonably sized Seattle magazine means that my humble D40x is still a contender. Take that, pixel counters!

(Though next year I'm buying a D7000. I really want to knock it up a notch. BAM!)

Mimi, what you said about knitting patterns is interesting. Going through old junk shops and the like I come across lots of knitting magazines, and am sometimes astonished at how blatently crap and garish the patterns they proudly display on the covers are. It can only be good that talented free/modest loyalty price people like you are upping everyone's game and the level of expectation.

As for photography outside journalism and gossip, it seems that more and more photographers are becoming published on little photo-book labels, and sometimes doing it all themselves. Doesn't always work, but some make a nice little earner that dispells somewhat the vanity stigma that self-publishing once had. (Of course self-published novel writers are a different matter. Yikes. )

Zardoz, I was also offered a photo-assignment of a Hill-Billy's basement, but wisely turned it down. I don't think he was just talking about subterrenean property either. No, wait... he was.

Just got my Seatle Met magazine through the post. My photo is half-of-an-A4-page spread! Woot! It's a glossy publication of 104 (count 'em!) pages and I'm part of the cover page article, "52 Weekend Getaways". Nice reproduction of the photo and yes, sufficiently sized credit on the same page.

$4.99 an issue.

Hmm, should have asked for money.

I'd got several lines into the op and decided that I'd be wanting some money.

*Opens up Flickr before beddy-byes...*

'Flickr Mail'

You've got to be shitting me...

Mm. My future thoughts.

Just write back saying your fee is £x, and thank them for their interest (this is what I do with coding requests).
The only time I'll do free stuff is if it's a charity that I very much support.

The people that you didn't do a very good job of hiding ( ) employ 42 people, so they can fucking well give you some money for a photograph.

Say no. It's flattering but they're running a business and making money. They can't go on taking photos for nothing just because photographers don't know any better. They know what the deal is, they're just taking advantage. Give them a price or tell them you're not interested.

Chances are, they've already planned out a feature or whatever with your image in mind, and you rejecting them will throw a spanner in, forcing them to find another "free" image of both a similar type, and, possibly (usually in the case of magazines rather than websites), re-jigging the page layout, which is a faff on. So they might take you up on your fee.

edit: Just realised the Flickr group name. They have a large budget - TV ads and everything. Don't let them take the piss. "Visit England, where we rob from our own to make it more appealing to you!"

I agree with Grim... There's money to be made here Pete! You're definitely good enough.

Tell them to GTFF. These people are the worst kind of scum. Try using this if you feel unsure:

http://shouldiworkforfree.com/

If they want it they pay, if not they should get lost. If they wanted that photo for themselves they'd have to hire a pro to get it.

They're probably right though, being a government funded agency they probably don't have any money.*

"Can we have some money for pictures, please?"
"Erm... current economic climate... bankers... tough on jobs & tough on the causes of jobs..."
"Very good George, yes or no?"
"Sorry, but no... but to make you feel better I'll remind you that we're all in this together LOL."

*May be a lie, surely even the this current shower of mongs are smart enough to see the value in advertising for tourists.

It's not usually the "picture budget" that gets a cut. They just fire half of the staff and continue spunking money on things like copier paper that everyone wastes, having the A/C on all of the time instead of opening a window, new computers, new vending machines, a new top-pay-band "efficiency manager"-type, etc.

Bah, they could offer a damn voucher for free entry into Buck Palace or anything like that if they don't have actual monies.

Tight buggers.

Money or nothing. And these dicks want free?

That's the way to do it.

So whilst a public body shouldn't go around wasting money on anything if they even dare to politely ask someone on Flickr if they can use a picture in order to save money then they are cunts. WTF? I'm sure loads of people would be stoked to see their picture on there, everyone's a winner and I'm really struggling to give a shit if professional photographers noses are put out of joint by it.

They're not "cunts" for trying, no, but Pete should refuse.

Everyone isn't a winner - it's completely undermining people who make a living selling photographs. All to save a bit of money from their picture budget, which they undoubtedly do have, they're just encouraged to try not to spend it if they possibly can so somebody at some point can get a pat on the back for saving a few hundred quid.

And yeah, loads of people would be chuffed to see their photo on there - that's the entire point. That's why they're getting away with free photos all of the time. That's not how the world is supposed to work. They're exploiting people. They're a fucking business. Government funded or otherwise. It's their responsibility to pay their way.

It's not a case of noses being put out of joint, it's a case of career photographers scraping by because businesses are exploiting gullible "one-off" published amateur photographers. It's lovely for the amateur to see their name in lights so to speak, but it genuinely is harming people. Businesses who can easily pay their way are just getting a free ride out of it.

edit: And they didn't politely ask anyway. They lied. "I'm afraid we can't offer you a fee for it" is complete bullshit. Are you telling me they got every image on that site for free? Not a chance. It's chancing and it should be discouraged by everyone.

Hell, and even if they don't actually have any money - refuse outright. Then they won't be able to get any pictures and the powers that be will have to provide additional funding, thus allowing photographers to actually make some money.

If someone has started a "business" on the basis that they can just grab photos for free from Flickr, it's not a viable business and it deserves to start paying up or die on its arse. Stop helping them.

I think Pete should decide on whether he wants to let them use his picture for free purely on the basis of how he feels about it, not because of fear of it 'undermining' professional photographers. Pete's photos are better than many so called professionals, and whether he wants to let his work be used for free shouldn't be driven by whether it hurts the feelings of professionals.

Way back in this thread I mentioned that a similar argument exists over whether people should offer free knitting patterns as it undermines the work of people that charge for patterns. I sell some patterns, some I have published for free. If that undermines the work of 'professional' designers and those people want to whinge about it then they should up their game and offer patterns that are superior in both design and innovation.

That said, it's an entirely different matter whether Pete should give away his excellent work for free. All I am saying is that I don't think it should be based on whether or not it undermines the professionals. Personally, I think Pete should start charging a small fee for his picture use as they are great, but agin, his choice.

On a related note, I discovered a PM from about 6 months back from the (now ex) editor of a gaming magazine saying he believed they had used some of my pictures of balls of yarn without permission and could I confirm this as he wished to apologise for not asking if so. They had as it happens, but I wasn't angry, and would have said yes t go ahead and use them without a second thought as I really like the magazine, just wondered why someone hadn't dropped me a line to ask/say so. Anyway, sadly he has gone now so probably won't even get my reply, but I wonder how he found out? *Looks for mole*

Sorry Mimi, but I respectfully disagree. As I've said above - a business that relies on possibly getting stuff for free from people like Pete isn't a business, it's a charity. Second, it's not about hurting the feelings of professionals, it's about taking money from them.

It's like running a nightclub by playing torrented music because you can't afford to buy CDs. Or something. Don't open a frigging nightclub in the first place.

edit: Absolutely awful analogy. Sorry.



I don't think you can really take "upping your game" and "offering higher quality" into account when you've got a choice between "free" and "£200". It doesn't matter about quality to these people if money is there to be saved. So from that point of view, there's very little that can be done by a professional photographer short of SERIOUSLY upping his game and getting a pic of Michael Jackson and Princess Diana on a date or something. Pete's photos are fantastic, certainly, but take for example the first image (absolutely lovely, don't get me wrong). But if there's Pete's photo and an almost identical professional photo for £200 taken from the same angle in similar conditions, they're obviously gonna go with the free one.

By all means Pete should undercut the competition, but don't give them it for free!

I think you need a License of Copyright Agreement to be signed regardless of fees. You don't wanna look like a mug, do ya?

When the internet is suddenly awash with millions of great quality images then it seems to me staggeringly obvious that it is going to affect their market value, even to the point where they can be obtained for free in some cases. There is no way it's "supposed to work", times have changed.

Also you appear to be saying that if they paid people off Flickr for using their photos that this would somehow undermine professional photographers less? How, exactly?

In any case professional photographers from what I've observed seem to make money mostly through getting paid to turn up somewhere at a specific time to take pictures of a fairly specific thing and distinguish themselves from amateurs by being able to turn out excellent results even within these constraints. If they find themselves making less money from stock images then tough titties really.

...until they ask the next guy and he says "yes", or even better they find a pic under a permissive licence they can use without asking. WTB, you're trying to ice skate uphill here. It's too late. There are too many lucky amateur photographers who are willing to give their stuff away and there are too many good social photography sites that make them easy to find. You're not dealing with a company commissioning work -- you're dealing with a company who is just asking to re-use something someone has already done for their own satisfaction.
Unless, of course, it works. Which I strongly suspect it does.

Pete is certainly well within his rights to say no, but if you think that means they'll pay him rather than move on to the next guy who says "sure, use my photo for free" then you're dreaming.

Well yeah, you're right. Significant damage is already done. But does that mean everyone should just give up entirely? The entire point of what I'm saying is to give my opinion on what can be done to rectify the situation. Stop giving photos away. Maybe some people will read it and it will spread. I'm not the only person in the world holding this opinion. What's the point in arguing about anything if "there's nothing we can do now"? Pete could make some money here. If he doesn't, yeah they might move onto someone else. Never mind.

Lots of pros will upload their "stock" stuff to places like Getty, who will pay them comission on a per-use basis. Grabbing free amateur stuff from Flickr completely undermines this revenue stream.

They're using this now, anyway.

I was going to say, it's trying to turn back the tide, this one.

I do sympathise, and in this particular scenario I think it's a bit cheeky of the magazine to want it without paying, but I don't think there's much point complaining about hobbyists releasing work for free.

And it's not just photography which people release for free, it's almost any other creative output, since the internet and digital media came along. Would we rather not have that?

Yeah I agree, but I think saying "ah well, fuck it, the damage is done" is very at odds with what I assumed most people on this forum are like. There's a principle to consider here. I'm genuinely very surprised so many of you are willing to give these clowns your stuff for free.

It's like burning tyres in your back garden or something.


I think this is an utterly wonderful thing. It's the greatest thing to happen to society, like, ever. People sharing their work and their ideas with other people for sweet fuck all. Absolutely brilliant.

But not giving their stuff to a business to save them money. That's not what it's about. You're just helping someone else make money. Let the people look at your stuff, sure. Other individuals. But don't give your stuff away to people and businesses to make money from.

Ah, a climate change non-believer, eh?

I see you expanded your point a bit further so I retracted that

I'm with you on "The principle of the thing" to be honest.
But Doc is right that it's probably into "cutting off your nose to spite your face" territory.
I'd be interested to find out if Pete asked for a small fee, what their reply would be, just to test this.

Burt Tank is truly the gift that never stops giving.

Getting stuff for as little as possible (preferably free) & then selling it on for a profit certainly sounds like a business to me... and they won't be around long?

You're a bit early for starting on the sauce.

Oh, totally.



But never underestimate the power of a small group of indivi... ah fuck it, it's a lost cause, innit?

I have an ex girlfriend whose photo was used as a massive cigarette advertisement in South America. It earnt her enough money to buy a new Mini Cooper S and a flat.

There do exist photo libraries which will stick your photos on, and then people buy them and you get money for. The ex's one had some stipulations about number of megapixels and camera settings but that was about it.

I'm sure that people are aware of these, though.

Well done, Pete!