Pay for Pix or Freebees?

If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).

Larry S.

Larry S.

Well-known member
Supporting Member
Marketplace
Member's gallery
A couple years ago a well known photographer and writer took text and blasted hobbyist and amateurs for “giving” images to publications. The writer/photographer said pointedly that when I give or donate an image to another writer, newspaper, magazine or university (etc.), I’m hurting her/his ability to make a “living”. The publications I mentioned, especially newspapers, are strapped financially to stay in print and cannot routinely pay for images. Some do have staff photographers but it’s usually the ones with large readership or regional circulation.

I have donated wildlife images to various small newspapers and other publications for over 20 years with no regrets. I’ve been happy to help them present images that makes the paper interesting and the public aware of wildlife around them. I know one struggling wildlife conservation writer who cannot even afford used 10 year old DSLR gear to support her superlative writings. And this person is also a photographer. I will continue to support this person when called upon.

I would like to know how others feel about this. I’m a hobbyist and my work is not going to generate a private show, income, or sale of prints. There are many professionals in this forum and likely have opinions different than mine.
 
Last edited:
I think the copyright laws are clear. It's your image to sell or give away or prevent from being displayed or allow to be displayed. The pro who complained should strive for images that stand out so much that publishers want to pay for them.
 
Member's gallery
It's a tough call, as I can see the Pro's point. However, there are sooo many people out there if you support the Pro's position the organization wanting the photo(s) will just find someone else who will give them images for free. I've seen it back into the film days, a bank teller buys a Nikon N90 and takes 3 rolls of 24 exposure film and does weddings on the weekend. Is this hurting the wedding pro? I doubt it as her "clients" either aren't financially able to afford a pro or don't want to. There are many situations and it's hard to come up with just a single answer.
I regularly shoot for a venue that doesn't have the financial resources to afford a pro. I gladly donate pics for their use in advertising and souvenir sales and in return, I get perks the average public doesn't. If the images help the organization, I'm fine.
On the other hand, I've had requests from organizations that I suspect can more than afford the shots and in that case, I get paid. If they decide to go somewhere else and get it for free I'm ok with that.
The business model of a pro photographer has changed. With the proliferation of digital cameras and technology, average people are now getting shots equal to or better than the pros used to. A pro who is relying solely on selling their photos probably isn't going to make a living at it. Times have changed.....
Do what you feel is right.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top