An Open Letter to All Flickr Users . . . Am I Overreacting?

<p><strong>Please. Stop. Giving. Away. Your. Photos. To. Publishers. For. Free. </strong> <br /> <br /> ARGH! So, I just got a very sweet e-mail from a fellow Flickr user. She wanted to know if I would share my one-time use, rights-managed licensing contract. No worries, happy to. <br /> <br /> Except . . . she's giving a book publisher 17 photos without <em>any</em> compensation. I calmly, diplomatically suggested that she needs to go back to the publication and ask their photo budget and whether they're paying other photographers on the project. Even $40 per photo would go a long way to acknowledging her investment/work and avoiding undercutting the rest of the stock industry. <br /> <br /> I politely explained that just a by-line is not enough. People don't see the photo, look for the credit, look you up, and give you assignments. It just doesn't happen -- as much as we'd all like to think it will. <br /> <br /> This is her reply: <br /> <br />

<blockquote>

<hr size="1" />

Thanx for getting back to me so quickly! I understand your <br /> point of being paid but <strong>I am very honored to even have my <br /> shots considered for a book. I am actually okay with them <br /> not paying me</strong> but I want to make sure they do not use the <br /> photos in any other way other than for the book. As long as <br /> I receive the credit and I also started a blog which I will <br /> ask them to list that as well, I am happy with that. I don't <br /> know how many in the future I will do this way but since <br /> this is the first, I think it's okay.

<hr size="1" />

</blockquote>

<br>

<br /> <br /> Can someone suggest what I should respond now? She's just inadvertently slapped me in the face and said that what I do for a living is worth nothing other than being "honored." How hard is it just to ask what the publisher's budget is? <br /> <br /> Publishers find me on Flickr, too. But thanks to the copyright watermark, they ask what my terms are. I tell them, and they choose to pay me or not use the photos. It's really as easy as that. <br /> <br /> We've all been in her shoes -- a beginner who is approached for photo use. Therefore, I had no problem with her first e-mail. I was more upset with her reply. After I took the time to explain -- politely -- why it's a problem for the industry (and that she's being ripped off), she just plain said, "I don't care." That's what's most infuriating. <br /> <br /> I wanted to ask, "What is your day job? How would you feel if you suddenly aren't paid for that task anymore? That's the position you're putting me in by giving away your work to publishers for free." <br>

<br /> <br>

<br /> </p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>She's just inadvertently slapped me in the face and said that what I do for a living is worth nothing other than being "honored."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No, she's saying that what <em>she</em> has to offer isn't worth cash at the moment, and thinks that her prospects of making cash later will be improved by having been published. That bit of track record may indeed be worth more than a couple hundred dollars worth of licensing fees at this stage of the game.</p>

<p>Andrea, she is just sharing with you what her intention, and perspectives, are. It certainly is no reflection on you. Personally, I lean almost entirely towards your position on the issue......but your friend does not. Relax lassie, it takes all kinds....Regards, Robert</p>

<p>You can base the worth of your work on what you do and think it's worth, or you can base it on what other people do. I can't see any reason for the latter.</p>

<p>I would happily have any of my images used in a book for no fee. I don't photograph for a living though.</p>

<p>You don't have to. It's your choice and I wouldn't consider it an insult to be asked.</p>

<p>That is the "free market" we are living in: the strongest survive, the other just complain and see... The strongest here are the book publishers making money with what the others give "honored" for free...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>She wanted to know if I would share my one-time use, rights-managed licensing contract. No worries, happy to.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You are happy to give away something of value for free to the very person you criticize for being happy to give away something of value for free. In other words, its perfectly OK to for people to give away things so long as its doesn't happen to be something from your line of work. Sorry, but that's not overreacting, that's arrogance.<em><br /> </em></p>

<p>

<p>If the photos are really worth $40 each and she is giving them away then we are talking about $680 worth of photos, if this is enough to do damage to the stock industry then it is on pretty shaky ground, which it might well be.<br>

　<br>

I don’t shot for money, well I try not I do end up with people wanting to give me money from time to time, but mostly I just shoot for fun. For me one of the enjoyments I get from photography is having my photos viewed, so when the newspaper wants to use one of my shots I say sure. You could look at this two ways, sure the paper is getting to use my photos for free, on the other hand I am getting to use the paper for free, I get my photos printed fairly large in color and often on the front page of the spots section. The next few days I will have people telling me they really liked my photo. It would cost me a fair bit if I wanted to have a few thousand copies of my photos printed and distributed around town.<br>

　<br>

I really don’t see why every person who has a camera and wants to make a living off of it believes that somehow the rest of the world should stop photography for fun so they can make money. It would be like a band getting made at other people who play music for the fun of it and don’t charge. The point is if you are good enough then what other people do for fun should not impact your profits.</p>

</p>

<blockquote>

<p>It would be like a band getting made at other people who play music for the fun of it and don’t charge.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't think so. It would be like a band getting mad at other people who allow a recording label to issue and sell <strong>for-profit</strong> CD's of their performance for nothing. A situation which I can quite see raising a few hackles with various musician's unions.<br>

The book the op wrote about the photos appearing in isn't being given away, is it?</p>

<p>I don't shoot for money too. Having said that, if someone is paying me for my photos, its a great ego boost and encouragement. My photos do sell on Shutterstock for peanuts but its enough for me that they sell. I did however agree to publication of two of my photos for free in first Onexposure book, as I considered that to be a great honor.</p>

<p>This kind of reminds me of an argument I had with my husband when I first started out in the photography business:</p>

<p>My husband makes six figures at his professional 9-5 "comfy" (I use that in quotes because I don't want to demean his work -- he is highly skilled and works hard at what he does) job. I worked 80 hours the first year and brought home a net income of around $15000. "Congratulations!" he said. I knew what he meant (he was proud of me for hustling and making a profit) and I thanked him for his support, but because I'm very competitive with myself, it really infuriated me. "Would you agree to do your job for $3.75 an hour?" "No way." He said. "Then why should I?" So value, worth, and "honor" are all in the eye of the beholder. </p>

<p>Ultimately, it's up to us to determine our own value and then to find opportunities that will pay us what we think we're worth. Clearly, this is just not that opportunity. There's nothing wrong with you or the person inquiring, you're just not in the same place on this and you're not a good match. This happens all the time with prospective clients who DON'T book me or for whatever reason, I decline. No hard feelings. They may be lovely people. We're just not a match. </p>

<p>As hard as I know it can be, try not to agonize over this (this is a former worry wart speaking). Put your efforts toward creating positive momentum to create the opportunities you want.</p>

<p>Good luck :)<br>

Karen Lippowiths </p>

<blockquote>

<p>You are happy to give away something of value for free to the very person you criticize for being happy to give away something of value for free. In other words, its perfectly OK to for people to give away things so long as its doesn't happen to be something from your line of work. Sorry, but that's not overreacting, that's arrogance.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Fleshing this out a bit more, I don't think you set out to be a jerk or anything but your comments here aren't consistent with encouraging someone to find more value in what they do. Rather, the are about you. You claimed someone, who is doing nothing wrong, "slapped [you] in the face" and the person 'put you in some position' and opined that the issue is "what I do for a living" as if the person owed you some special duty. So much so, that you impose your own value judgments and claiming that her desired "by-line is not enough". Then, in good rant fashion, ask disdainfully "How hard is it just to ask what the publisher's budget is?" So not only is there the hypocrisy issue but all this 'it's all about me, how dare she' attitude displayed here that helped lead to the last word in the passage. I hope it is helpful rather than contentious.<br>

<em><br /> </em></p>

<p>I agree with previous posters. It's just the way the world works with anything...different strokes to different folks! It bothers some to give away photos for free, some others are happy to do it, some simply need to be credited with text in a caption, etc.<br>

I think ultimately we all just need to do what WE are comfortable with, ourselves as individual photographers, and not let other people's opinions define what we do though certainly taking other people's advice into consideration (because I always find it invaluable!).<br>

I think if you're going to lose sleep over something like this, be stressed out, etc. maybe it's not worth it? Determine if your investment, whether emotionally, financially or both, is worth the return.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I think if you're going to lose sleep over something like this, be stressed out, etc. maybe it's not worth it?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Is it that simple? If you do not work, because someone is working for free (and someone is getting money with that free work) you dont lose your sleep?</p>

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=287705">Eduardo Barrento</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"></a>, Feb 12, 2010; 07:31 p.m.</p>

 

 

<blockquote>

<p>I think if you're going to lose sleep over something like this, be stressed out, etc. maybe it's not worth it?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Is it that simple? If you do not work, because someone is working for free (and someone is getting money with that free work) you dont lose your sleep?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>

<p>My guess is that the person who gave the photos away for free took them for the enjoyment of taking the photos. I don’t think you can expect the world to own you a living selling photos that many people are taking just for the fun of it.<br>

It seems that about once a week we see someone posting about how much then enjoy photography and want to know how they can turn their hobby into a business. Well there is a problem with wanting to do something as a business that others do for fun, there are a whole lot of people doing for free what you are trying to charge money for. So you better be either very, very good at photography or you better be photographing things that most people would not choose to do for fun (say war photographer).</p>

</p>

<blockquote>

 

</blockquote>

<blockquote>

<p>So you better be either very, very good at photography or you better be photographing things that most people would not choose to do for fun (say war photographer).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>...or better at getting access to something than others, getting access to certain people, getting imagery to market quickly, better at marketing, better at business, ect... IOW, the ability to accomplish what the 'for fun' or 'thinking of selling photo' crowd can't.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>So you better be either very, very good at photography</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sorry Scott, that one is for laughing: I worked as a photojournalist for two big newspaper (big at least in terms of sellings). My first boss did not know how to use a ttl flash, the second one did not know what a hell is a panning. And so most of my collegues. <br />Your assumption is that the market works fine and good ones are choosen. That is so untruth. <br />And that is not all: in China and India people are working almost like slaves, almost no pay, and their products are cheaper. So much cheaper that in western world we dont sell ours. That said we have lots of unemployement. Have a guess now why people should not give away photos for free? What do you do for a living? What do you think if someone (for fun or forced to) is doing what you do for free, and you loose your job?<br>

By the way, newspapers bosses are now waiting for better camera phones to put the journalists (not photojournalists) doing the photos and the texts...</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><em>Melissa wrote:</em><br>

She wanted to know if I would share my one-time use, rights-managed licensing contract. No worries, happy to. </p>

<p><em>John wrote</em><em>:</em><br>

You are happy to give away something of value for free to the very person you criticize for being happy to give away something of value for free. In other words, its perfectly OK to for people to give away things so long as its doesn't happen to be something from your line of work. Sorry, but that's not overreacting, that's arrogance.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>John fleshed this out once, but I'd like to put a slightly finer point on it. I'm a lawyer. You gave away valuable legal advice to this person by giving her your licensing contract. I'd bill for that kind of advice. There's a good chance I would give her better advice than you did by giving her this contract. But your giving her this contract is no more a "slap in the face" to me than her giving away her photos is to you. </p>

<p>I really liked the way John put this point -- bluntly, but vividly. In one interaction, you did precisely what you criticize her for doing. And I don't think John was out to call names or be mean. Rather, it's worth calling this attitude out, right here in this forum, because a lot of us photographers -- especially those whose main income is from photography -- justifiably fear competition, but unjustifiably criticize it as bad. </p>

<blockquote>

<p> because a lot of us photographers -- especially those whose main income is from photography -- justifiably fear competition, but unjustifiably criticize it as bad.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Ok! ok! Photography is minor thing. Laws are important. Photography is not. To be a lawyer you have to study, be inscribed at the Order (at least here in Europe) and then you can practice, and make a living with that. That is ok. <br />But if someone, even if they knows a lot about laws, start to give their knowledge for free? If some curious group of people begin to work as a lawyer for free? The lawyers will defend their own right to exercise what they have learned at University, they are the ones who knows the matters, etc... or am I wrong? Of course, the lawyers (with Yan Ivey at the top) will say: "no problem, it is the competition"!<br />Probably I studied at least the same number of years of photography in the University as you studied laws... I dont know nothing about laws, but I admit you know about photography. But that is not the case of the major of persons who owns a camera and push the trigger, they do just that - they push the trigger - knowing nothing about visual art. They dont have a cultural visual background. <br />The problem here is cultural: when you read this lines you are probably find me arrogante. I am not saying that people who dont studied photography should not make a living with photography: at the oposite, I am saying that they should not give their work for free.</p>

 

<p>Think about it this way; most painters, photographers and poets are amateurs.<br /> They do it for the fun of it.<br /> <br /> Then take plumbers; most do not unclog poop for the fun of it; you pay them.<br /> <br /> One does not find plumbers going around unclogging drains for free in most cases.<br /> <br /> Folks buy a P&S camera at Walmart; then dream amount being a National Geographic photographer being paid to get images of Lions in Africa. The same folks do not dream of being down in sewer fixing a broken water main or sewer line.<br /> <br /> The amateur Photographer uploads images to sites to gain approval; there is no actual client. He/she wants the the image rated; but there is really no goal; no client; not commerical purpose. If amateurs have one person rate an image here as poor; or just average; they complain and want the moderators to cull out the poor report card ratings. If it was an actual client; one would have do deal with this negative feedback. The *escape* is you want all folks to love your rare sunset or soccer image and rate it as the next Mona Lisa; and folks will paypal you for each print at a thousand a pop/copy. Dealing with an actual paid client is too scary for most folks. <br /> <br /> Often the uploaded images are decent in size; and a few are real good too. Thus somebody on the other side of the planet basically has a free source of images for posters; postcards; calendars; but an illegal one. With an obscure small print job in a 3rd world country; the chances of catching the infraction are slim.<br /> <br /> Thus today one has all these amateur photographers waiting to be called up to the Majors (National Geographic); via free advertising of their work with their daily uploads to the vast internet.<br /> <br /> Only a small tiny fraction of images shot are actually done by pros; it is in the parts per million or billion level. The rest are folks shooting their friends; shooting soccer/kids; or the zillions of folks shooting a sunset.<br /> <br /> Probably 1/4 of the folks on the planet have at one time shot a photo; ie pushed the button.<br /> <br /> Many folks too tell jokes; but few make a living at doing so.<br /> <br /> The whole mindset with many folks is approval; and any paid job or gig is welcomed. Folks like to brag they sold an image to the Ventura Star more than they unclogged a neighbors toilet for 5 bucks. Giving away a images is the life blood tenet of amateur works; you HOPE that someday you get called up into the majors.<br /> <br /> Photography is a lossy hobby for most all folks; they do not make enough to pay for their equipment; even if their time is valued at ZERO.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>They dont have a cultural visual background.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If someone wants their photos, their background is irrelevant. The point here is about buying photographs, not buying photographers.</p>

<p>Jeff, the problem is that "someone" whats the photos for free not to buy them :) Did you read it all? And that "someone" is going to make a book and sell it...<br>

Kelly, posters from online photos?!<br>

I rest my case: as I can see here, people are happy (or resigned) with giving photos away for free... to bad! Sign of the times: people are turn into slaves again...but worst of all: they think that all it is ok...</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Jeff, the problem is that "someone" whats the photos for free not to buy them :</p>

</blockquote>

<p>What does that have to do with someone's background?</p>

<p>I've run into this exact same situation in a different industry (my day job), here's how I look at it. Much as you might like to think so, you just can't change another persons behavior. However, it's possible that this (fellow flickr user) isn't aware of this issue - the other side of the story. So what you CAN do, is just make her aware of it. Beyond that, you can <em>hope </em> that she does the "right thing", but don't get too worked up about if she doesn't - nothing you can do about it.<br>

<br /> You could say to her something like -- "I understand that as a person who doesn't make their living in photography, that getting compensated for your work isn't critical. But you might consider the fact that there's lots of people who DO depend on the income from selling photographs for their living, and that by giving your work away, you may be devaluing their work. Just something to consider..."</p>

<p> </p>

<p><em>"ARGH! So, I just got a very sweet e-mail from a fellow Flickr user. She wanted to know if I would share my one-time use, rights-managed licensing contract<strong >. No worries, happy to."</strong> </em></p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p >So.......... if I understand this correctly, you, Melissa, were asked to share your contract template. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >You were happy to do that – and without caveat – “no worries”</p>

<p > </p>

<p >But when you found out HOW that contract template was to be used, you wanted to attach caveat, that is to say you wanted to <em >advise </em>the recipient as to how they should use what you had already given or intended to give them with “no worries”</p>

<p > </p>

<p >The way I see it is you gave a gift – for whatever <strong ><em >your</em></strong> reason – similarly this other woman just wants to give her Photos to the Publisher - for whatever <strong ><em >her</em></strong> reasons are . . .</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Although I understand your “Good Samaritan” intent to offer her advice: on the basis of what you have told us, <em >you are still poking your nose into how someone else runs their life or business.</em> </p>

<p > </p>

<p >Your advice was not asked for at all, what was asked for was a copy of your contract template.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Also, even after you gave unsolicited advice, the other woman’s response to it was polite and included the statement that she did understand it.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >*** </p>

<p > </p>

<p ><strong ><em >“Can someone suggest what I should respond now? She's just inadvertently slapped me in the face and said that what I do for a living is worth nothing other than being "honored." “</em></strong></p>

<p > </p>

<p >Firstly, I suggest that you calm down, secondly I suggest you do nothing more and thirdly I cannot see how anyone has (metaphorically) slapped anyone else in the face.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Your heading asks “An Open Letter to All Flickr Users . . . Am I Overreacting?”</p>

<p > </p>

<p >The answer is “Yes” you are definitely overreacting in regard to this one off interaction between you and the other woman.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >***</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Further to the point about sticking you nose into how this other woman deals with her life – when she replied politely that she understood your concerns – you got all huffy about her reply.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Not only did you get huffy, but you went public and on the record with it. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >If you have a point of Principle to address a better ploy would be write an article on the topic as an “open letter” because taking personal affront <strong ><em >and then publically venting your personal upset and DIRECTING YOUR UPSET at an innocent party by ACCUSING HER of slapping you in the face</em></strong> and who, by your own evidence, has been nothing but courteous and polite to you . . . does your cause absolutely no good whatsoever. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >***</p>

<p >Just leaving aside how you want to control a situation which is not your business, let’s take another look at how this could have panned out: Let’s assume this other woman wrote this email to you.</p>

<p > </p>

<p ><em >“Hi Melissa,</em></p>

<p ><em > </em></p>

<p ><em > </em></p>

<p ><em >I really luv your photos and I now that some of your work is published. I have a few photos and a publisher is interested in them, but I think I need a contract. Do you use one? If you do, I was wondering if I could have a copy of it to use as my template.</em></p>

<p ><em > </em></p>

<p ><em >Thanks heaps if you can</em></p>

<p ><em > </em></p>

<p ><em >W”</em></p>

<p > </p>

<p >And let’s now assume that you paid a lawyer $XXX to draw and vet your contract, so you don’t really feel inclined to share it – or let’s say you just don’t want to share at all, for whatever reason – in normal day to day life you are under no moral or legal obligation to share any of your possessions with a stranger – so you email a reply:</p>

<p > </p>

<p ><em >“Hi W </em></p>

<p ><em > </em></p>

<p ><em >Thanks for you note – unfortunately I do feel I can supply a copy of my contract for you to use. I had this contract draw up by F&G Lawyers and they are very good, I can recommend them to you.</em></p>

<p ><em >I hope you understand I don’t lend my cameras to anyone and I just feel that having paid hard earned cash for the expert legal advice, is just like buying a new camera.</em></p>

<p ><em > </em></p>

<p ><em >All the best with your Photography,</em></p>

<p ><em > </em></p>

<p ><em >Yours Melissa”</em></p>

<p ><em > </em></p>

<p ><em > </em></p>

<p >So by your logic and taking your post here as an example: </p>

<p > </p>

<p >W could then jump on Photonet, publish your considered and polite refusal to supply your possessions to her and claim that you slapped her in the face because she thought, you thought, her work was not worthy . . . or whatever other fanciful idea pops into W’s head. ? ? ? </p>

<p > </p>

<p >WW</p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>