Matt Laur Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 <p>Thomas: you're missing the point. Artists aren't expected to give things away. Rather, millions of artists are <em>anxious </em>to give things away, since they either do it because they love it (the very definition of 'amateur' - which has nothing to do with skill, but rather with motivation and how the activity fits into daily life) or because they're certain that they need the exposure.<br /><br />No one expects "artists" (plural, meaning ... all of them) to give things away. But since so many of them are willing to, it has created a situation where looking for freebies is the first stop for many publications and institutions. Why shouldn't they? They may only get what they pay for, but they can set their own priorities and standards. If a publicity hound of an artist that has a day job to pay the bills is willing to give away his work in exchange for press, that is totally up to the artist.<br /><br /><em>It's like saying....the most creative minds on the planet are expected to create and provide stuff for everyone else........for free</em><br /><br />Nah. It's like saying, "The artists who don't have solid representation or good business plan or can't be bothered to create something for which there is <em>actual demand</em> are expected to receive the exact share of the art-buying market's cash that they have actually earned."<br /><br />If an artist can't carve out a niche in the market, your only other two options are to let them continue to <em>look</em> for a market, or to give them money that nobody else would otherwise have spent on them. And thus you get government funded art. And that is subject to committee tastes, and political influence (see the recent flap over the White House looking to push out their political/policy messages using taxpayer/NEA-funded artists and programs). <br /><br />It's not BS, it's reality. Artists (just like anybody else) need willing patrons, or customers, or some other form of income. It's nobody else's responsibility to provide any of those things to them - it's up to the artist to demonstrate value and actually do something about it in front of people who <em>choose</em> to compensate them for it. I've seen lots of hard working, passionate, Really Serious artists who ... produce dreck for which they cannot attract a single buyer. I cannot think of a reason to let them off of that hook. If nobody "gets" them or can't imagine decorating their house/magazine/office/life with what they produce, then surely the artist has the intellectual integrity not expect a way to force others to pay for their time and materials?<br /><br />That's no more appropriate than forcing taxpayers to fund the making of cars that nobody wants. Ah, I see perhaps where the confusion is setting in. We live in interesting times.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_swinehart Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 <p>You want to make a statement? Set yourself on fire along with the negatives...</p> <p>Otherwise, this falls into the category defined by the sage, Otter, "I think that this situation absolutely requires a really futile and stupid gesture be done on somebody's part."</p> <p>And, that's exactly what you're doing...</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alvinyap Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 <p>I'm curious, would burning negatives produce poisonous fumes, and would burning negatives in general be harmful to the environment? I'd get rid of them in a more eco-friendly way if they do.</p> <p>Regards,<br> Alvin</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thomas_sullivan Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 <p>"...Nah. It's like saying, "The artists who don't have solid representation or good business plan or can't be bothered to create something for which there is <em>actual demand</em> are expected to receive the exact share of the art-buying market's cash that they have actually earned."..."</p> <p>No, that is actually the flip side of the coin...........where the producer expects someone to give them something for nothing. I'm not saying that, and never would condone it. I'm saying NOBODY should expect the other to give them something for nothing.</p> <p>If their work sucks, or the buying public don't want it.............so be it. But what you have now is a situation where because the hacks are willing to give their stuff away to get "recognized" the buyers expect even the best artists to do it also. Like the commenter above said, why shouldn't they try to get something for nothing. The artist is behind the curve even before they go out to promote their stuff.</p> <p>Have you gone out and actually looked at what galleries are promoting as good art lately? Some of it is really good.........but a lot of it is crap. And I don't mean it's crap because i don't like it.....I am very open minded to new ways of doing things and I give a lot of leeway to artists trying out new ideas. So I base whether it's good or not, on the success of the finished piece....but if it is crap, it's crap. I mean, in music, I like Beethoven....but I also like Nine Inch Nails....both of them are sheer geniuses in the way they carry out the completion of their particular idea. But, the way things are these days......If the artist came from a decent art school and has a BS or MS in Art....half the time that's all the gallery cares about. Make a decision based on just how great the art is..........ha!......that very seldom happens.... I grant, there are people who get in the arena solely because of how good they are.....but that is a low per centage.</p> <p>They shouldn't get government handouts either. Altho I see nothing wrong with private orgs or people supporting an artist. They do that of their own free will based on their estimation of the artists worth.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ted_marcus1 Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 <p>How about this: Put the negatives in a bank vault. Then stage your public burning to prove your point, but with scrap film.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GerrySiegel Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 <p>Send them off in a helium balloon with an endangered monk seal inside the basket. You maybe need a good sales agent/ manager.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fld Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 <p>OK, I will add my two cents worth: NEVER ever destroy your originals. 'Nuf said!</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeff_livacich Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 <p>Don't burn the negatives.<br> If you burn anything, burn the prints. That's what you displayed, that's what you weren't compensated for. Burn some of the brochures and in-flight magazines. Don't burn your negatives.<br> Burning your negatives implies that you don't value your images for their own sake; that you value them more for what they can make for you.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_liberty Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 <p>Everything's the way it's supposed to be. Suffering is good for you. Helps your creativity. You want money? Go to a bank. It has nothing to do w/ anything creative. Van Gogh sold essentially nothing his entire life! No sales. Nada. Didn't keep him down, and you and I ain't Van Gogh quality. You're missing the whole point.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patrick j dempsey Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 <p>Van Gogh shot himself and bled to death for two days after spending years in and out of mental institutions from the syphillus he contracted from his prostitute girlfriend, who was the only girl who would have him. He sold no paintings because they had no value and no-one wanted them. He cut his ear off after attempting to attack his only friend, Paul Gauguin with the same razor the night before. Besides all of that, Van Gogh was largely doing his work out of expression of his religious zeal and to illustrate his ideas about spirituality. He was not striving to become a professional artist. I think you have missed a few points there John.</p> <p>Jean, I think you should take it as a lesson. Don't give away your work for free anymore, and maybe contact a lawyer and see if you can get some of these organizations to kick you some cash. Businesses all work on the same model, it doesn't matter how big or how small they are. If they find something they want, they always wonder if they can get it for free. If you give it away for free, then they don't take you seriously. If you tell them they can't have it for free, one of two things will happen, they will find someone else who will give it to them for free, or they will pay you. And an important point... if you have not given away COPYRIGHT for free, then none of these businesses can use your images on merchandise or in advertisements. If you have given away your copyright for free... well... then I'm afraid you have just let yourself be suckered.</p> <p>At this point, your images are well known. Now that they are well known, someone will want to buy the rights for prints, t-shirts, mugs, posters and promotional materials. Burning your negatives won't fix this situation, it will only make it WORSE because you won't ever be able to prove that they are your images, and people will start selling them and you will get nothing. Either way, I would seriously consider contacting a lawyer who deals in copyright and see what can be done about these businesses.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mdc002 Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 <p>Don't burn your negatives! There will be a time later in your life that you will regret such an action!</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scrivyscriv Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 <p>Off topic.</p> <p>Where is your book sold? <br /> I'd like to look through it, and buy it if I enjoy it.</p> <p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the_mongrel_cat Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 <p>i'm finding some of these responses a bit weird. i am surprised that so many on this thread are arguing with you, fair enough you could have said no, but the thread is really about people's attitude towards your work - WORK, <em>noun,</em> what people do for recompense.</p> <p>as far as i can see, the OP is just venting about the fact that everywhere he turns people are asking for something for nothing. imho that is something it is ok to be frustrated by. as another poster stated <em>"One wonders if on plumber.net if plumbers also give away their work too?"</em></p> <p>it does seem as though the first thing people think when they need photography is "<em>hmmm, i'm sure i can get this done for free.</em> " closely followed by "<em>well, it's good for their portfolio.</em> " and "i<em>t's only digital, doesn't cost them anything.</em> "</p> <p>this common consensus is rife. it is expected that a photographer will be grateful to work for nothing, just for the opportunity. never mind that they have invested muchos money and time (time from their one and only precious life) and effort into their profession/art.</p> <p>i think i'll tell nikon that they should be grateful for me to take pictures with their camera and lenses. great exposure for them (no cheeky comments here). i'll bet my mortgage that they'd tell me to fork a roll.</p> <p>Jean-Baptiste Avril, i am in full support of your chagrin. you have captured my heart with your rant. rage, broil, rail and fury at the injustice of it. burn it all, burn the whole feckin world.</p> <p>good luck</p> <p>ps - i really hope you don't burn the negatives :)</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_h.1 Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 <p><em>i am in full support of your chagrin. you have captured my heart with your rant. rage, broil, rail and fury at the injustice</em><br> <em></em><br> <em></em><br> Really? Let's review where his fury is directed. Mr. Avril tells us "I believe that public and private institutions don't play their role into supporting the artistic life through the artists essential needs: money, grants, whatever you want to call it." In other words, he is furious that organizations, of all kinds, are not sending him money because he is an 'artist'. A more charitable portrayal, if you will, is that these organizations have some duty to give him money if they want to use his art. Of course that's nonsense unless they agree to do so in a contract or if his images were used in without permission or something like that.</p> <p>Now let's review, again, the actual reason why so many organizations do not agree to give Mr. Avril and other 'artists' money. The reason is because the 'artists' so frequently give away their art, that the art has lost its pecuniary value. If there were anyone Mr. Avril should direct his fury at then, it these 'artists' giving away work for free.</p> <p>It turns out that such fury need not be directed far away. Mr. Avril, himself, gave one body of work to six different organizations in a row. These organizations will now refuse to offer the next photographer any money because they learned, once again, this time by Mr. Avril's conduct, that photographers will just give away their work.</p> <p>Mr. Avril's fury should be directed at himself. He has contributed to the very "injustice" he is furious about.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
william l. palminteri Posted October 23, 2009 Share Posted October 23, 2009 <blockquote> <p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=937861"><em>John Henneberger</em></a><em> </em><a href="../member-status-icons"><em><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/1roll.gif" alt="" /></em></a><em>, Oct 22, 2009; 10:06 p.m.</em><br /><em>i am in full support of your chagrin. you have captured my heart with your rant. rage, broil, rail and fury at the injustice....</em><br> Really?</p> </blockquote> <p>You know, not for no reason, this has become one of the longest and most pointless threads I've seen yet. This guy's gotten TONS of free publicity due to the childish attitude he's displaying. Yet we've seen no samples, no links, no nuthin', just a lot of narcissistic whining about who should pay this guy after the fact. He might be doing the world a favor by burning the negs.<br />Day after day I wake up to "forum alerts" in my email hoping to find something constructive about the craft, and it's all about this guy burning his negs.<br />This guy wants free publicity in a public forum ? We're giving it to him !<br />What's next, I'm gonna see this guy on "Leno", hyping the event ?<br />You know what, mail the negs to me, I'll burn 'em and then maybe we can get back to something a bit more constructive.</p> <p>Bill P.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike dixon Posted October 23, 2009 Share Posted October 23, 2009 <p><em>Yet we've seen no samples, no links, no nuthin', just a lot of narcissistic whining about who should pay this guy after the fact.</em></p> <p>There's a link to his website and portfolios of his photos on his community member page (just click on his name).</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
william l. palminteri Posted October 23, 2009 Share Posted October 23, 2009 <blockquote> <p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=22127"><em>Mike Dixon</em></a><em> </em><a href="../member-status-icons"><em><img title="Moderator" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/mod.gif" alt="" /><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub10plus.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/1roll.gif" alt="" /><img title="Current POW Recipient" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/trophy.gif" alt="" /></em></a><em>, Oct 23, 2009; 07:07 a.m.</em></p> <p><em>Yet we've seen no samples, no links, no nuthin', just a lot of narcissistic whining about who should pay this guy after the fact.</em></p> <p><em>There's a link to his website and portfolios of his photos on his community member page (just click on his name).</em></p> </blockquote> <p>Okay, so I click on his name, go to the link, scroll through tons o' photos, there's a section marked Tel Aviv 2009.... are those the photos in question ?<br> I have no idea, just more time wasted on this guy.<br> If it's that important to him, post a link, or a photo.</p> <p>Bill P.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike dixon Posted October 23, 2009 Share Posted October 23, 2009 <p>The quality of the photos wasn't the issue he raised; he wasn't asking for a photo critique. A link to the photos in question isn't relevant to the discussion.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
william l. palminteri Posted October 23, 2009 Share Posted October 23, 2009 <blockquote> <p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=22127"><em>Mike Dixon</em></a><em> </em><a href="../member-status-icons"><em><img title="Moderator" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/mod.gif" alt="" /><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub10plus.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/1roll.gif" alt="" /><img title="Current POW Recipient" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/trophy.gif" alt="" /></em></a><em>, Oct 23, 2009; 07:43 a.m.</em><br> <em>The quality of the photos wasn't the issue he raised; he wasn't asking for a photo critique. A link to the photos in question isn't relevant to the discussion.</em></p> </blockquote> <p>True, Mike, he obviously wants the attention by staging this "grandstand play", I just wanted to see what all the hubbub was about.</p> <p>This guy's sucked up enough of my time.</p> <p>Just burn the d***ed things and be done with it.</p> <p>Bill P.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelly_flanigan1 Posted October 23, 2009 Share Posted October 23, 2009 <p>Most all artists and photographers do their work for fun and not money. Most plumbers *tend* to get paid for dealing with poop; while artists wait to be *discovered* in their lifetime and make some actual sales that can be a decent income.<br> <br /> A wedding photographer or plumber has an actual client; one that has a need; a deadline.<br> The *lowly* photographer at Walmart who shoots kids photos is a pro; while an artist waiting to be discovered is an amateur. One has a real job; another is in dreamland. The artist looks *down* at the real photo job; because it pays; has to deal with deadlines; has to deal with rigid requirements and pesky kids.<br> <br /> Artists purposely choose path of poverty; or one supported by another job; since the *long bomb* of their work being profitable is usually nil.<br> <br /> Actors and Athletes also have a low chance of "breaking in" to a real professional paying job. Most of the images that folks shoot is traded; given away; it is NOT sold. Since is the bulk of folks are amateurs; only a tiny fraction of images are actually sold.<br> <br /> Look and the daily upload of images just on Photo.net where folks get free exposure; and get free comments. In a real pro photo shoot one would actually have a real finicky human to please; a paying client; one with a deadline; one that might pay for ones work.<br> <br /> The *mindset* of artists is to be discovered; that all this suffering is somehow going to pay off. The man in the sewer also suffers; while knee deep in poop; replacing a broken pipe at 2am in the morning in a manhole.<br /> The internet gives folks a real low cost of exposure; about free advertising. It also is a way that artists give away their works; be releasing high res images.<br> <br /> When the economy is poorer; folks still want their plumbing to work; and thus the buying an artists cat of sunset images gets placed on the back burner.<br> <br /> Here at the print shop we have hundreds of artist clients all waiting to be discovered; all supporting their cause by other means; a tiny few maybe are break even.<br> <br /> Artists wanting to be discovered and paid for their creations is thousands of years old; many times their work is discovered after they are dead.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jb-avril Posted October 24, 2009 Author Share Posted October 24, 2009 <p>Dear M. Flanigan<br> I'll be honnest, I didn't read all the past comments, but I feel that I have to answer to your lastest.<br> First of all, I know that "going public" about a personal decision is an open door to absolutly everything, and that's the game, but sometimes, it's enough.<br> This is the second time I'm going public on this site (first time after having the "photo of the week" on a bosnian picture) and one thing strikes me. The most unnecessary comments usually come from people who have, let's say, less than 30/50 pics of their holidays, friends and family in their portfolio section. But they believe they have an appropriate opinion on everything.<br> "Most all artists and photographers do their work for fun and not money. Most plumbers *tend* to get paid for dealing with poop".<br> From what I can see on your portfolio, I am wondering if you're more into the plumber category than the artistic one. If that so, that's fine! we need plumbers too, even on this site.<br> Plumber are nice people, and very helpfull. They also have the chance to do not have to commit themselves to something irrationnal and transcendental. They don't look in their professional life for a certain very special something. They also know that their work is going to help, but only in the vicinity of a kitchen or a bathroom, not into someone else's life bringing a specific testimony and/or an emotion.<br> That what makes the difference with a author-photographer.<br> To finish with; the fact that most artists died in poverty is not to be considered as something normal. Unless you may call "fate" people stupidity. Things can change, as long as some of us try to bring up something and not hide it in the closet.<br> That what makes the difference between a man on his knees and a man standing up.<br> PS// "the buying an artists cat of sunset images". sure the two words (sunset/art) belong to the same sentence :))</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelly_flanigan1 Posted October 24, 2009 Share Posted October 24, 2009 <p>Jean-Baptiste;<br> <br /> About all the images I placed on Photo.net were just examples of stuff when my photo hosting sites were dead/boggy/down. Since I have shot photos for 55 years I really do not need to upload stuff to get comments; approvals; feelings.<br> <br /> Heck I shot photos in High School to please a real editor and also local city newspaper in the late 1950's; ie an actual application. I shot wedding images for folks in the early 1960's with MF and 4x5;and sports stuff in the 1970's.<br> <br /> Artists have always had this slacker:) attitude; waiting to be discovered; with no real clients.<br /> Artist photographers sometimes get discovered and make a profit; and manytimes they just go on with the ingrained waiting to be discovered mode.<br> <br /> Most all of the worlds images shot are for fun and not profit.<br> <br /> ***Most artist photographers cannot fit the rigid pro job of pleasing an actual client like a Walmart mom; Wedding Bridezilla; or Newspaper editor that wants 3 events covered at once; (ie shoot and scoot).<br> <br /> ***Real life paid jobs like Photography; Plumbing and Printing are not always the ritzy dream jobs that artist- photographers want.<br> <br /> You need to breakout of the amateur/give away ones work mindset you have and go pro; ie you want to make a living with photography.<br> <br /> Some of us did this 50 years ago; ie because we wanted and NEEDED an income.<br> <br /> There is nothing wrong with dreaming about being discovered; and the gravey train of cash flowing in.<br /> In printing for the public I deal with alot of dreamers; mostly folks waiting to be discovered . The choice of staying an amateur or going pro is yours. The point about plumbers are often more educated in business than artist-photographers; one is paid to shovel poop; one gives it away and cries because they are not being paid for the poop.:) Alot of art is really poop.<br> <br /> IF I have two dreamer/artist/photographers in my print shop at once; each one will reply that the other artist's work is poop after the other chap leaves. That why in printing fine art is often joking called fine-fart work; each person does not think his/her own farts stink. With Art at some point the lack of income; lack of actual cash being paid for ones work needs to be addressed; if one wants to explore going pro.<br> <br /> Whether one is writting poems or songs; making images or paintings; playing comic or actor; cutting yards or plumbing at some point ther has to be an income source to make ones craft sustainable; unless on has another job; or alot of savings or a rich uncle.<br> <br /> Actors do this in LA; they wait on tables and eat beans until getting a lucky break.<br> <br /> Burning ones negatives; paintings; sewer snakes; lawnmowers is a sign of being frustrated; folks do not appreciate ones work.<br> <br /> What an actual paying client wants and is willing to pay is often way different than what an amateur dreams about. The movie industry can run some 12 hour days; a dreamer waiter actor in LA from Iowa may think it is just a few hours of work per day. Real life often has mundane tasks that a pro has to do for client; that dreamers take as demeaning.<br> Many folks break in an industry by shear street smarts; a hussle factor. Find out what folks want and listen; they may glady pay for your work that is a tad different. The long bomb wish hoping to be discovered doesnt work for all budding actors, artists, photographers; some hussle factor helps.<br> <br /> Good luck.<br> This is a rough to peddle art when many at odds over the basics like having a job or paying for medical costs. There are many thousands of folks waiting to be discovered; all the give away images on todays web dilutes what art is worth. There is less pork money in the government to support starving artists.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelly_flanigan1 Posted October 24, 2009 Share Posted October 24, 2009 <p>Burning one's negatives or tools makes a point; but may not help one be discovered. It is just an odd stunt; ie like the balloon boy affair. Having ones actual negatives might help in a copyright dispute.</p> <p>The bulk of all images shot in the world are for fun.<br> <br /> The bulk of folks who play a musical instrument do it for fun.<br> <br /> The bulk of comics do it for fun. I saw Roseanne Barr at the Comedy Store in LA in the early 1980's before she got discovered; the other stand-ups that night are still waiting to be discovered.<br /> <br /> Here is a shot of "Tess McGill" from 20 years ago; only about 12 episodes were shot for the TV series. Should I post a high res 4000 dpi scan of the 35mm slide; or hope someday it will be worth millions? :) :) Sandy's first movie was about the same time; ie Who Shot Pat ie Patakango. (1989)</p> <p><img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/sandy/tripods-503.jpg?t=1256408165" alt="" /><br> <br /> <br /> Thus do I burn the above image in protest; or save it as a memory?<br> <br /> What good does destroying an original do?<br /> <br /> Do I burn the Bettie Page 4x5 film pack negative below I bought at the Semi Valley Swap meet about 20 to 25 years ago for a 50 cents? It was just "old stuff" then from a old magazine guys garage; old worthless crude being sold along with stuff to clean out the house. I bought it because Bettie was a 1950's heartthrob; the girl next door. This was before she got rediscovered again. Today the 4x5 original is worth more than 50 cents; even when includes inflation. The 4x5 Bettie page negative is worth more today than the Bullock 35mm slide if sold on Ebay.</p> <p><img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/epson4x5/tripods-543.jpg?t=1256408904" alt="" width="236" height="302" /></p> <p>Would Kennedy been a happier if Klaw burned the 4x5 Klaw negative below (in the 1960's) that I have today?<br /> <br /> <img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/epson4x5/tripods-467.jpg?t=1256408992" alt="" width="132" height="169" /></p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GerrySiegel Posted October 25, 2009 Share Posted October 25, 2009 <p>I had a boss that gave motivational talks to executives. Got no pay for them. He said "I do it because every so often I see a "gleam" in some manager's eye in the audience." You may have struck a spark in your work too or will...</p> <p>I really can appreciate your feelings about indifferent response to valuation of photo art and good photo reportage. Looking back to the infancy of our craft, when photography was tintype and dagguerrotype, little framed unique portraits were treasured an valued as we know. Photography, you must agree , is in a large sense a commodity. It is not <strong>really</strong> a commodity, and we here know that, but it is not given the recognition for the effort put into the job... like the garment store that asked me to do portraits in their sale window for speculation whatever that means.. I said thanks but no thanks folks...no budget again was the reason given.<br> We just had our Passat worked on. $130.00 labor rate. Groan!. I could not barter photography for one hour of labor...so much for valuation.<br> If you were to set salary for a photographer, (as is done) in what category would you place it in the Job Classification Manual (based on knowledge,skills and abilities). And in NYC vs Tel Aviv?<br /> Hard to do, right. Your point, Avril, is that it is worth more than a plum, zip....noone can dispute that. You can get some satisfaction and make the statement in graphic form. A performance art of sorts. More I think of it I say go for it with a gusto. And have it photographed and video recorded. Invite celebrity dissidents and musicians and unpublished writers,etc. (Sure, send Zoe and others a copy.)</p> <p>That will make it a real humdinger bonfire. Regards and aloha, gs</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philippe_carly Posted October 25, 2009 Share Posted October 25, 2009 <p>I know the feeling ! My 2 c ? Just say "NO" to any free use ! And when told "it would make you good publicity", answer "advertising what? that I give my work away ?". I believe it was the Tel-Aviv museum who wanted to publish one of my photos in some of their publications, they had no budget (heard that before ?). I said "No budget, no photos !" I further asked "Does the printer print your book for free ? Do you get free electricity ? Do your staff members work for free ? Why should you pay these people and not me?". Guess what ? They paid and used the photo. What you need to understand is that EVERYONE will try to get free stuff. Just say "No money ? No stuff !". Simple as that. Just be careful to make it an iron-clad rule though, so you can't have someone trying to twist your arm "yeah, but this other person got to use some of your photos free". I'd hate to see you burn your negs.. however if you can raise enough attention and create a "buzz" it may be a good way to convey a message. Just make sure though your loss won't be bigger than you gain. Regards and less us know what happens....</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now