2008 will certainly be the year of copyright debate.

Anything free is by default crap.

While it has opened up my calendar a good bit – to read and comment on blogs – I am only doing well work now (& then). From a financial point of view it is a good move for the publishers. It is just that after a year of it everything is looking the same. I am happy not to be doing that work any more and feel more creatively charged than I have in a while but I am earning a lot less money.

The same is true in advertising and catalogue. The agencies and catalogue houses have also opened in-house studios and the “bread and butter” work is done there thereby saving money for the big shots – the CEOs of the photo world. In other words, no more middle ground.

Personally, I want to hang with the CEOs. I’d rather bartend then work in-house.

So, to take it back to the content/rights discussion. The businesses are placing high value on exciting photography and will pay for and give up rights to use it. For more generic work they will pay a generic price.

Ad work is also facing similar trends – my experience is that the middle ground is experiencing similar erosion to editorial as Robert mentioned.

Granted, ad work is a very different kettle of fish. But budgets are under attack as well. Does there now seem to be less high and mid level ad work out there, or have agencies/clients generally lowered their expectations because of budget restraints – i.e. what was considered mid level last year, is considered high level this year.

I considered (note past tense..) myself middle ground because I did the majority of my work in fob or bob and had occasional well stories. All of the work was for A-list magazines. So I thought I was doing ok and eventually I would get more well stories, which did not happen. The reasons for that are a story in itself.

However few photographers could expect to do multiple fob or bob stories in the same month for the same magazine. Which is what I was doing, which is what the middle ground was about, reliability, making something out of nothing, no-ego. That still exists in still life for example, but not in portraiture. I think, and rob can comment on this, you could not expect to work 6-8 times per year on a title, that kind of regularity is vanishing, and the middle ground is shrinking.

While I fundamentally agree with this statement and trend (I believe it’s been happening for a few years) the question I have to ask it what defines the middle ground and high ground? Seriously, I’d really like to know. Especially since most things are relative.

Again, is there any (even ballpark) definition of the high & middle ground?

I guess Bill Gates was a visionary when he introduced WebTV back in the 90′s, it looks so simplistic now, the merging of two technologies based on one man’s greed to own the keys to the castle (the browser, the OS). Fast forward 20 years and now we see an even bigger powerplay, a convergence between cable companies, cel phone providers, studios, TV, which on some corporate level are all becoming more consolidated, the aim of which is to force as much advertising into our lives as possible. The idea is that you can justify higher and higher valuations of the same corporations if it appears that they are massaging bigger and bigger markets.

I expect to lift my toilet seat lid soon and see a googlead.

Copyright infringement takes a back seat to the real story – the real dialogue is about cash flow – which is my favorite part of your views presented here, Rob.

Maybe, we should all get to keep every dollar we come in under budget – even the photo editor.

Seriously, the important conversation is nailed by Robert above. Big Media is all about the cashflow of the internet. How many more articles do we have to read that talk about Big Media not being able to make any money off their web pages? Does anyone believe that anymore? Did anyone notice the new FCC rules?

The FCC voted last week to lift it’s 30-year-old ban on media consolidation allowing the same company to own a newspaper, television or radio station in the same city within the US.

THE FCC Commissioner Michael Copps said of the three to two vote: “Today’s Decision Would Make George Orwell Proud”

What’s going to be the difference between radio, tv, or a newspaper? It’s all going to be read/watched/listened to on your iPhone.

How many of you signed the letter to congress to overturn the FCC’s new rules?

I mean, look at richardkern.com and you’ll find a little amazon logo in the corner. It’s happening.

As for, gmail, yes it’s creepy. Think about it: it’s a company whose main focus is in search technology and you *think* you’re having a private correspondence? Time to reread the user agreement…

I could ask what a “real photographer” is, but I don’t think it’s relevant to the discussion so never mind. I don’t make the majority of my income from photography directly, but it’s integral to my income if that helps. (The logical fallacy is ad hominum by the way).

Regardless, I was referring to my writing and not my photography. I write and publish journals on martial arts topics, you can see an example here http://ejmas.com/ and as I explained above, I started doing this in the late ’80s as a print newsletter, before the WWW appeared. I also lost money as a glossy newsstand magazine editor before I went totally online to escape an insane business model. (The very highest paid people in a magazine should be the ad salesmen, without them nobody eats).

My reasoning is quite simple, by writing I establish myself as an expert in the field, create credibility, and attract students to the seminars I present which allows me to invite and pay for instructors from Japan who teach me. By giving stuff away for free I collect instruction in my arts. My “pay” is something other than cash.

Along the way I developed an online martial arts supply company which now provides my living, I take the catalogue shots myself so there’s the commercial application of my photography. You will note that the martial arts journals I publish and give away my writing to, also carry ads for my online supply company.

Google search hits translate directly into income. Owning copyright on my writing does not. There is no meaningful market in existence for martial arts writing. (Although I also write books and produce videos which I sell).

I also take “fine art” photographs and have had a couple of shows, sold a couple of prints, but don’t really promote myself much since I’d rather be shooting than schmoozing.

I publish an online photography-related magazine at http://180mag.ca/ in conjunction with a co-op studio I belong to, about half of the guys are commercial photographers, most of them never think about copyright, they shoot commercial stuff for pay, stuff that will never be licensed to anyone else but the original client. One makes a living shooting stock and believe me, he thinks about copyright.

You can decide if I’ve got the chops to discuss these things (oh, I’ve shot weddings for money and for free… my students), but your question does outline a common assumption, that everyone who gives away content is an amateur with another job who hasn’t a clue about the real world and just needs to be educated that he’s taking food from the mouths of pro shooters.

Lots of people create intellectual property but don’t retain copyright. In Canada we have the concept of work for hire which applies to photographers, you can get paid to work and your photos belong to those who pay you. Your compensation is the salary. I spent 24 years working for the University of Guelph in various jobs, the last 14 as a research tech where I published papers on various brand new chemical analyses that were commercially viable, but that I published (again, wrote the papers for no fee) so that they were freely available to anyone in the world who wanted to use them. I got paid a good salary and what I created helped other people create more stuff that went out for free to help more people to…

At the end of the day humanity sometimes benefited. Child of the ’60s here but really, if I shot a photograph that would benefit humanity I suspect I’d have little trouble giving it away even if it could bring me some serious coin.

@23 Robert Wright talks of ad free magazines… the model is there in some fashion photography mags already, high end photography, high cover price, no ads. The other end is low cover price and high ad content of course.

An even more extreme example is in academia where researchers may even pay a page fee to a journal for the privilege of publishing a paper. That’s after peer review by the way. The advantage there is that the author gets a paper in a “name” journal, ego and career benefits. The career benefit of course is in pay scale jumps and tenure with minimum publishing requirements. The journal gets to charge a bit less to libraries who buy the journal and maybe a third world University library gets to carry it.

Fashion editorial photography? I once wrote that I’d gladly pay Zink to publish a story of mine if I was seriously trying to become a beauty or fashion photographer. I’d certainly give my work away for free, it’s the business model in that field. You make the money on the ads, not on editorial.

Roversi probably got paid for that Times shoot but it wouldn’t surprise me if he hadn’t. Think about how much it would cost to buy the equivalent advertising space in the fashion supplement. And as every first year marketing student can tell you, editorial is the best advertising you can get.

There ARE legitimate business reasons for giving away work. There are also very powerful egotistical reasons for giving away work, why else do you think folks send videos to youtube or photos to Flickr?

And maybe, just maybe, there’s those who give work away because it benefits someone else.

Kim Taylor

quality work isnt cheap

im sure ive scared off potential clients with my prices
but
i feel they are reasonable
when they see the final outcome
i dont feel like im overpricing myself

you only sell yourself
and
your product
short
when you undercut
just to get the job
the exposure
and the small paycheck

What is happening in our business (esp. in NY) is that the middle ground is eroding leaving the top and bottom rung. There are many competent photographers who are getting pushed into work for hire agreements with digital studios or as staffers. The top rung is making more than ever and those of us just under the top rung are clawing for the scraps and trying to elbow our way in. Because there are so many of us its a buyers market. But of course all the competition is going to make for better images….you get what you pay for.

Not bitter here. I am just aware that this is a Business first
Art second, ( or at least equal to each other)
Business Loves creative commons .Business Loves Low Price

Hell I like low price.
But if I want to have a market in walking distance , well I have to pay for it. If I want A photographer with full lighting ,new 21 meg chip…. well Business is going pay.
Except when it can find it for free…..or very low price…..
Which is a lot more often these days.
Supply needs to come in balance with demand or don’t plan on paying for 2 kids in college and a nice house on editional photography (like I do and Did)
I need to get back to work here…… college to pay for.

Mark

Your Dudeness,

Yes, we all saw the scandalous topless teenager on the T site, but what I was speaking to was Robert Wright’s vision of having the advertising on a site actually BE the profit. As in, T Magazine pays Roversi absolutely nothing to shoot that Gallerina story, not even the expenses, but the business model is Roversi hosts advertising on his own site when people go there to drool over his images, and are shown advertising at that time. I just can’t imagine it.

If so, will we soon see ads here, on A Photo Editor Gone Astray, showing last-minute getaway flights to Durango, or the best hotel rate in Tucson, or membership drive ads from APA?

I’m just especially sensitive to it, because if anyone is a user of GMail from Google, you see those ads along the side of your personal emails, with content pertaining to what’s in the body of your email content. It’s just creepy sometimes, like someone’s looking over your shoulder as you type, or listening in on the phone conversation, on a party line.

Sorry for the nauseous feeling in your belly, but what would you rather do, actually have to PAY for that stupid “Times Select” service they tried and subsequently killed because nobody wants to pay for anything on the webbernet?

Information wants to be free, except when it costs something to produce.

So @9, the analogy to getting horrible food for free is a only accurate if they’re GIVING it away (actually plenty of bodegas in NYC sell food that’s gone off for full price) and unfortunately, I challenge you to find a gas station giving away even the low grade stuff for free. Maybe a better analogy would be BioDiesel. People give it away for free because they think it’s worthless used chip-oil but you think it’s just wooooonderful and makes your car smell like fritos.

APE: Sure, you can get crappy tourist photos for free, but just be careful what copy you place next to it (ie: “look at the idiot tourists next to the grand canyon” or “the yuppification of the grand tetons”). Those same idiots who are putting the content out there for free and who don’t realize they COULD let Corbis or Getty get 98% of their $400 (so they could make a whopping $8 off the sale, whoopee!) also don’t realize that you need to get model releases. Part of what you pay for as an image licensor is the peace of mind of having Billy Gates’ or Jonathan Klein’s legal department backing you up. Just google “flickr virgin mobile” (and skip the Virgin Mobile ad) to see what I mean. Still, if the copy is tame then go ahead and use the Flickr photo. It’s all crap anyway.

But and however, there are folks out there that are uninterested in copyright, who produce original content and who want to give it away for various reasons. I’m one of them, you’ll find a lot of my writing online free for the taking and pre-internet I produced a photocopied ‘zine that said “photocopy and share this newsletter” which went world-wide.

———–

Is there a brief way to describe your mindset on this approach? Is what you’re giving away for free related to your main source of income, or do you have another “day job”? This is not a set-up question: I’m genuinely interested. I just hope that you’re a real photographer, like many of the other Commenters here. If not, I’m not sure what you’re saying really applies that much.

And God forbid that Robert Wright is correct — the thought of me someday to going to Paolo Roversi’s site, or anyone else like that that I truly admire, and I see, alongside his images, a bunch of cheesey ads for Deardorff cameras, Polaroid film, B/W toners, B&H, just absolutely turns my stomach.