Pay for Pix or Freebees?

[EricBowles]

I do sell images and also give away images. Here's my thought process:

An occasional image to an organization I already support is fine for free. But I limit the number of organizations to a very small number - typically 2-3 or that order of magnitude.

I've seen organizations with very large budgets try to operate with free photos. Some of these organizations have multi-million dollar budgets that are used to pay for marketing, printing, design and other services. If they can pay for those services, they can pay for photography. I've seen national parks use photos provided for free and don't think that's right.

I stay far away from organizations that want photos of people and want me to provide a release. If they want photos of events with people, they need to either have a generic release as part of admission, or provide a person to work with me during the day to gather releases. Photo releases can turn into a personal liability, so I don't waive this requirement. Furthermore I provide images with the specific disclaimer that the client is responsible for obtaining necessary releases. I don't advise them on legal aspects of releases.

As a professional photographer, I'm paid to provide the images and abide by ethical standards. If what they want is a few photos for Instagram or Facebook, they probably don't need me. Those social media channels emphasize high volume, frequent posts, and a minimal shelf life.

There is a big difference between free and for reasonable value. Sometimes I provide photos as part of establishing a relationship that will provide future value such as access. I don't mind providing a few photos of an event I plan to attend anyway, but if there is a schedule and a time commitment, I'm more likely to want to charge for the effort. I'll donate a photo from my archive to a good cause, but if I have to go out and make a group of phots it's different. If they expect quality work, it includes a lot of things - backup gear, maybe special gear, editing, culling, and resizing for their output.

Don't be a chump. Lots of people want free photos. Think about how you will feel if you get sued, gear is damaged, or the weather is bad for the event. If you decide to move forward, make sure there is a clear understanding of the scope of work, the desired output (uploading 10-15 edited photos to Dropbox vs. giving them a thumb drive), and what your expectations are from them (support, credits, photo rights, releases, etc.).

 

[Larry S.]

I do sell images and also give away images. Here's my thought process:

An occasional image to an organization I already support is fine for free. But I limit the number of organizations to a very small number - typically 2-3 or that order of magnitude.

I've seen organizations with very large budgets try to operate with free photos. Some of these organizations have multi-million dollar budgets that are used to pay for marketing, printing, design and other services. If they can pay for those services, they can pay for photography. I've seen national parks use photos provided for free and don't think that's right.

I stay far away from organizations that want photos of people and want me to provide a release. If they want photos of events with people, they need to either have a generic release as part of admission, or provide a person to work with me during the day to gather releases. Photo releases can turn into a personal liability, so I don't waive this requirement. Furthermore I provide images with the specific disclaimer that the client is responsible for obtaining necessary releases. I don't advise them on legal aspects of releases.

As a professional photographer, I'm paid to provide the images and abide by ethical standards. If what they want is a few photos for Instagram or Facebook, they probably don't need me. Those social media channels emphasize high volume, frequent posts, and a minimal shelf life.

There is a big difference between free and for reasonable value. Sometimes I provide photos as part of establishing a relationship that will provide future value such as access. I don't mind providing a few photos of an event I plan to attend anyway, but if there is a schedule and a time commitment, I'm more likely to want to charge for the effort. I'll donate a photo from my archive to a good cause, but if I have to go out and make a group of phots it's different. If they expect quality work, it includes a lot of things - backup gear, maybe special gear, editing, culling, and resizing for their output.

Don't be a chump. Lots of people want free photos. Think about how you will feel if you get sued, gear is damaged, or the weather is bad for the event. If you decide to move forward, make sure there is a clear understanding of the scope of work, the desired output (uploading 10-15 edited photos to Dropbox vs. giving them a thumb drive), and what your expectations are from them (support, credits, photo rights, releases, etc.).

I certainly agree with your thoughts regarding institution, organizations and entities that can afford to pay but just want free “stuff”. It’s systemic throughout industry today to work and produce on the “cheap’.

That is not what I’m talking about. I will supply an image to a local writer that needs a “bug” or critter pix for an article. I rarely photograph people which brings up the question of “Street Photography” and the legalities involved. I didn’t get a “release” from the praying mantis in my friends column but try walking through the French Quarter in Nawlin’s with a camera. They start screaming at you and get confrontational.

 

[EricBowles]

I certainly agree with your thoughts regarding institution, organizations and entities that can afford to pay but just want free “stuff”. It’s systemic throughout industry today to work and produce on the “cheap’.

That is not what I’m talking about. I will supply an image to a local writer that needs a “bug” or critter pix for an article. I rarely photograph people which brings up the question of “Street Photography” and the legalities involved. I didn’t get a “release” from the praying mantis in my friends column but try walking through the French Quarter in Nawlin’s with a camera. They start screaming at you and get confrontational.

LOL - In that specific situation, I'd probably provide a photo to a friend.

Newspapers and magazines typically pay writers for articles. Usually they include photos - from public domain or elsewhere. Now critters can be a bit greedy about their cut, and all bets are off now that your mantis is famous.

 

[Mal Paso]

I certainly agree with your thoughts regarding institution, organizations and entities that can afford to pay but just want free “stuff”. It’s systemic throughout industry today to work and produce on the “cheap’.

That is not what I’m talking about. I will supply an image to a local writer that needs a “bug” or critter pix for an article. I rarely photograph people which brings up the question of “Street Photography” and the legalities involved. I didn’t get a “release” from the praying mantis in my friends column but try walking through the French Quarter in Nawlin’s with a camera. They start screaming at you and get confrontational.

I did a seminar with a well known US street photographer and if I take a picture of a person in a US public place I can publish the photo without anyone's permission. That is not the case in some other countries like France.

 

[Larry S.]

I did a seminar with a well known US street photographer and if I take a picture of a person in a US public place I can publish the photo without anyone's permission. That is not the case in some other countries like France.

Thanks for clarifying this issue. I always thought adults in public places did not need a signed release but wasn’t sure…

 

[DougC]

Donating to a worthy cause or organization is fine but IMHO, if someone wants to profit from your work, you should profit from it as well.

 

[Archibald]

I did a seminar with a well known US street photographer and if I take a picture of a person in a US public place I can publish the photo without anyone's permission. That is not the case in some other countries like France.

In Canada (and I think the US too) news organizations can publish photos of persons taken in public, but most other purposes require a model release.

 

[Archibald]

Pro photographers have whined for decades about poor pay and competition from amateurs. It is nothing new. There are some professions like artist and musician that draw people because those jobs are very enjoyable. Therefore there is oversupply of workers in those professions. Besides that, those jobs can be learned by amateurs and part-timers, and some of those can get very good. Those people can compete with the pros.

Everybody knows this, so if you are eyeing a job as a photographer, realize that your work will be enjoyable but your income will be sparse (unless you are VERY good).

I know someone who has a degree in tuba performance. He decided for a profession as a manager because it pays well, and plays tuba in his spare time. Another guy loves mathematics (apparently also an oversupply discipline) but works as a lawyer.

Many of us do photography just as a hobby, but get pretty good at it. We might put out product that is pro quality. Yet it is not the same as being a pro. If a customer wants to ensure that a job is done properly, they need to hire a pro, because pros know they have to deliver, and can deliver.

Providing photos free to others on an ad-hoc basis is different and is fine IMO.

 

[EricBowles]

I did a seminar with a well known US street photographer and if I take a picture of a person in a US public place I can publish the photo without anyone's permission. That is not the case in some other countries like France.

That's correct, but does not cover Commercial Use. An image is perfectly fine as art or personal use and has virtually no limitations. If you take the same image and use it to promote a product, program, or sale of a print, it falls into commercial use requires a release from anyone who is identifiable. There is a lot of gray area and situation based interpretation of copyright rules - and they vary by country.

As it relates to providing photos, marketing materials and web sites that promote an organization are commercial uses. So the organization usually needs a release if the person's face is shown in an image. Getting that release later is challenging. As a result, many organizations simply supply a volunteer or group of volunteers as "models" with a signed release in order to get photos. This does not apply to journalism or "reportage" which do not require a release unless used in a commercial manner.

 

[xxx]

Many amateurs are desperate to have their photos seen. There are even forums where people will pay a fee to show their pics for that validation.

I used to promote fights and there were always photographers would would shoot the entire event for free just for a ring-side seat and to be part of the show. It's hard for a pro to compete with that.

 

[PhilcTx]

“Crowdsourcing”? Never heard that term before relating to photography. ,Thanks for the education Doug….

Crowd-sourcing plays a major role in the drastic price and licensing royalty collapse now common in the stock photo/video industry.

Stock photo/video agencies use crowd-sourcing to attract large numbers of photographers/videographers from around the world to submit their work. The agencies promise easy "residual incomes, etc" for photographers/videographers to submit photos/videos by the hundreds of millions. Supply has grossly outstripped demand and prices and paid royalties have collapsed in many cases down to pennies to license an image or video for commercial or editorial use.

 

[Winston Churchill (Sir)]

You will find that 95% of institutions who wants your work for free, will gladly pay for other services they require.

Being a full time pro photographer is a dying trade. Fact. Not only because photos have lost their value due to newbies shooting for free, but also because of technology. it's called EVOLUTION.

That doesn't mean one isn't entitled to earn a living, and expect to be paid for work done. You usually can't trade photos for a mortgage bond repayment or gas.

 

[peachfront]

In Canada (and I think the US too) news organizations can publish photos of persons taken in public, but most other purposes require a model release.

Yes, this is true in the US. You have to have a model release or editors won't buy it UNLESS you have a news story or it's a celebrity/public figure in the image. The right to privacy of ordinary individuals normally trumps your right to sell the photo.

The street photographer who gave different advice was probably not a lawyer. Also, he may have been primarily an artist selling in galleries rather than looking to sell his work to publications.

 

[Mal Paso]

Yes, this is true in the US. You have to have a model release or editors won't buy it UNLESS you have a news story or it's a celebrity/public figure in the image. The right to privacy of ordinary individuals normally trumps your right to sell the photo.

The street photographer who gave different advice was probably not a lawyer. Also, he may have been primarily an artist selling in galleries rather than looking to sell his work to publications.

I don't know of any editors that pay enough to make me go to the trouble of getting a release.

The photographer in question was the contentious sort willing to assert his rights. You have no rights unless you assert them. The world is full of people who want to Create Rent and Tax your honest work.

Besides if you give your work away, no lawyer will touch you, no money.

 

[Larry S.]

Many of us do photography just as a hobby, but get pretty good at it. We might put out product that is pro quality. Yet it is not the same as being a pro. If a customer wants to ensure that a job is done properly, they need to hire a pro, because pros know they have to deliver, and can deliver.

Providing photos free to others on an ad-hoc basis is different and is fine IMO.

We’ve wandered a little of the subject but an interesting point has been brought up by Archibald…. “Hire a Pro”..? What’s a pro? …
There are an over-abundance of wannabes in many endeavors. And in most cases you get some sort of evaluation or interview before hiring….
If you are a musician I want you to audition for me…before I hire you.. (this is something I know about!)
If you are an architect I want to see what you designed….before I hire you.
If I’m the President or General Manager of sports team I want to see you perform….before you make the team
If you are celebrated chef I will watch you prepare a meal and eat it …….before I hire you for my Michelin rated restaurant

If you are a professional photographer I might hire for my granddaughter’s wedding I want more than a fancy business card and a website that may or “may not” have testimonials from satisfied newlyweds with images that may or may not be authentic. With the proliferation of higher quality camera phones and quality gear in the hands of amateurs the true pros are suffering financially. I get that. But then you get what you have or have not researched….. and paid for, or tried to get by cheaply…

 

[peachfront]

I don't know of any editors that pay enough to make me go to the trouble of getting a release.

The photographer in question was the contentious sort willing to assert his rights. You have no rights unless you assert them. The world is full of people who want to Create Rent and Tax your honest work.

Besides if you give your work away, no lawyer will touch you, no money.

It's absolutely no trouble at all to get somebody who wants to be interviewed about their cause to sign a photo release. It's really doesn't even come up that often with wildlife photography. Say you need a release because a bird bander was included in the photograph. You're going to want to know how to spell their name anyway, so where is the trouble in taking five seconds more to get their signature on the release? People who want to be photographed understand. People who don't want to be photographed shouldn't be photographed.

I don't know quite what to say about the guy who was "the contentious sort willing to assert his rights." You have no rights to profit from a stranger's image. If that was his claim, he's just wrong. Assuming the image contains an identifiable person, you have fewer rights to use the image if you don't get the model release.

 

[Mal Paso]

Yes, of course get a model release if you are doing editorial work but there's no money in it as far as I can tell. Money was thin when I was young and is worse today. The only real money I've found is in advertising and marketing. The agencies and companies I worked for supplied the models and got the releases, mostly.

If I was to include someone in a photo now it would fall under art/news.

Lastly if the photographer I mentioned got sued he would likely make the most of it and extend his fame. It sounded like he was well connected to lawyers.

 

[PhilcTx]

The distinction between commercial and editorial usage/licensing and releases always seems confusing. Note that the context of image/video use is important in the distinction.

Shutterstock and Alamy (stock agencies) has some of the better explanations of the differences and has this to say about editorial and the need or not for releases:

"Editorial is the opposite of commercial in that editorial content cannot be used to sell, promote, or monetize a business, product or service. It can contain logos, business names and recognizable people without model releases."

Shutterstock Contributor Support

support.submit.shutterstock.com

Model and property releases explained: Alamy customer help and FAQs

Property and model releases explained in this downloadable guide from Alamy. The facts, risks and grey areas you need to be aware of when you're using stock images and videos.

www.alamy.com

 

[Johan Schmidt]

Unless you are using the free images as a short term strategy to get into a more formal paying relationship with clubs, magazines etc., you have to realise that once you've taught clients that your images are free, it is almost impossible to get them to pay for images later on. But it is your image, you can do whatever you want with it.

Most photographers are willing to help other creators or charities with images in exchange e.g. time posing as model, but not if the recipients of the free images are using them to generate income. How many people would read / buy wildlife publications without images?

 

[Johan Schmidt]

I'll disagree with you on this one point. While it may happen every once-in-a-while, it is rare.

What I see, and have seen, is the tendency of the consumer to be content with the product that costs the least. I know several local "professional photographers" whose biggest qualification is that they own a camera. Their work is inconsistent, and many times, marginal at best. But they have a network of "friends" who give them good word-of-mouth advertising based upon how cheaply they hire out for, and they mostly take mundane family snapshots.

Cheap clients will refer you to their cheap friends - in my experience these are often the hardest clients to work with

 

[Johan Schmidt]

I do sell images and also give away images. Here's my thought process:

An occasional image to an organization I already support is fine for free. But I limit the number of organizations to a very small number - typically 2-3 or that order of magnitude.

I've seen organizations with very large budgets try to operate with free photos. Some of these organizations have multi-million dollar budgets that are used to pay for marketing, printing, design and other services. If they can pay for those services, they can pay for photography. I've seen national parks use photos provided for free and don't think that's right.

I stay far away from organizations that want photos of people and want me to provide a release. If they want photos of events with people, they need to either have a generic release as part of admission, or provide a person to work with me during the day to gather releases. Photo releases can turn into a personal liability, so I don't waive this requirement. Furthermore I provide images with the specific disclaimer that the client is responsible for obtaining necessary releases. I don't advise them on legal aspects of releases.

As a professional photographer, I'm paid to provide the images and abide by ethical standards. If what they want is a few photos for Instagram or Facebook, they probably don't need me. Those social media channels emphasize high volume, frequent posts, and a minimal shelf life.

There is a big difference between free and for reasonable value. Sometimes I provide photos as part of establishing a relationship that will provide future value such as access. I don't mind providing a few photos of an event I plan to attend anyway, but if there is a schedule and a time commitment, I'm more likely to want to charge for the effort. I'll donate a photo from my archive to a good cause, but if I have to go out and make a group of phots it's different. If they expect quality work, it includes a lot of things - backup gear, maybe special gear, editing, culling, and resizing for their output.

Don't be a chump. Lots of people want free photos. Think about how you will feel if you get sued, gear is damaged, or the weather is bad for the event. If you decide to move forward, make sure there is a clear understanding of the scope of work, the desired output (uploading 10-15 edited photos to Dropbox vs. giving them a thumb drive), and what your expectations are from them (support, credits, photo rights, releases, etc.).

I agree 100%. In Australia, Getty charge the following for sports images with VERY specific usage rights

I do sell images and also give away images. Here's my thought process:

An occasional image to an organization I already support is fine for free. But I limit the number of organizations to a very small number - typically 2-3 or that order of magnitude.

I've seen organizations with very large budgets try to operate with free photos. Some of these organizations have multi-million dollar budgets that are used to pay for marketing, printing, design and other services. If they can pay for those services, they can pay for photography. I've seen national parks use photos provided for free and don't think that's right.

I stay far away from organizations that want photos of people and want me to provide a release. If they want photos of events with people, they need to either have a generic release as part of admission, or provide a person to work with me during the day to gather releases. Photo releases can turn into a personal liability, so I don't waive this requirement. Furthermore I provide images with the specific disclaimer that the client is responsible for obtaining necessary releases. I don't advise them on legal aspects of releases.

As a professional photographer, I'm paid to provide the images and abide by ethical standards. If what they want is a few photos for Instagram or Facebook, they probably don't need me. Those social media channels emphasize high volume, frequent posts, and a minimal shelf life.

There is a big difference between free and for reasonable value. Sometimes I provide photos as part of establishing a relationship that will provide future value such as access. I don't mind providing a few photos of an event I plan to attend anyway, but if there is a schedule and a time commitment, I'm more likely to want to charge for the effort. I'll donate a photo from my archive to a good cause, but if I have to go out and make a group of phots it's different. If they expect quality work, it includes a lot of things - backup gear, maybe special gear, editing, culling, and resizing for their output.

Don't be a chump. Lots of people want free photos. Think about how you will feel if you get sued, gear is damaged, or the weather is bad for the event. If you decide to move forward, make sure there is a clear understanding of the scope of work, the desired output (uploading 10-15 edited photos to Dropbox vs. giving them a thumb drive), and what your expectations are from them (support, credits, photo rights, releases, etc.).

 

[Johan Schmidt]

Pro photographers have whined for decades about poor pay and competition from amateurs. It is nothing new. There are some professions like artist and musician that draw people because those jobs are very enjoyable. Therefore there is oversupply of workers in those professions. Besides that, those jobs can be learned by amateurs and part-timers, and some of those can get very good. Those people can compete with the pros.

Everybody knows this, so if you are eyeing a job as a photographer, realize that your work will be enjoyable but your income will be sparse (unless you are VERY good).

I know someone who has a degree in tuba performance. He decided for a profession as a manager because it pays well, and plays tuba in his spare time. Another guy loves mathematics (apparently also an oversupply discipline) but works as a lawyer.

Many of us do photography just as a hobby, but get pretty good at it. We might put out product that is pro quality. Yet it is not the same as being a pro. If a customer wants to ensure that a job is done properly, they need to hire a pro, because pros know they have to deliver, and can deliver.

Providing photos free to others on an ad-hoc basis is different and is fine IMO.

So many photographers present themselves unprofessionally by arriving in sloppy clothing, bad personal grooming etc. for the 'creative' look. What if your dentist or lawyer dressed like that?
Sure the quality of the image is the final goal, but these 'soft factors' make a huge difference in perception with clients.

 

[Whiskeyman]

Cheap clients will refer you to their cheap friends - in my experience these are often the hardest clients to work with

Yep! Almost to a tee!

 

[peachfront]

You all make good points but I have the impression the photographs in question are mostly being donated to help support a struggling writer, and since I was once a struggling writer, let's not discourage this photographer.

 

[Larry S.]

You all make good points but I have the impression the photographs in question are mostly being donated to help support a struggling writer, and since I was once a struggling writer, let's not discourage this photographer.

Since I started this thread I assure you and others that I will never be discouraged by anyone, regardless of their loud whining. The struggling wildlife writer I support with images helps her make deadlines, get paid, make rent, and put food on the table. I’m good with that. Maybe the “whiner” should grow grapes and open a “winery” …. I respect the skills brought to the table by professionals that earn a living through photography. I admire these folks. Many are in these forums and have been generous with their knowledge. But don’t call me out for what I do for others…. that would be ignored.…