# we should all work for free



## notelliot (May 30, 2008)

i have a part-time job at a photo finishing place, and while it offers a nice discount on almost anything i need, customers don't seem to understand the concept of photography as a profession. more so, copyright.

when someone comes in to scan a watermarked image, i have to say no. not only is it a company policy, but morally i can't reproduce work while cutting out the photographer. 

"well, it's a photo of MY daughter" or something similar is what i often hear. "doesn't matter," i say "you didn't take this photo, so you don't own the rights to reproduce it or manipulate. you can purchase the rights from the photographer, or if you have already, you can provide a release form to show it." this is when people get angry, for some reason. i try to explain it from my point of view. it pays my bills. buys my groceries. it's how i survive. it's theft to reproduce an image without consent - i lose money - same as the shoe store next door would if you were to walk away with new shoes you didn't pay for. 

i find similar happenings when shooting shows or events. often, i just happen to be there with my camera and, well, i like to take photos so i do. i'm not being paid to be there, just taking photos for personal enjoyment or whatever. 
"we'd love to have a copy of those photos you took on cd!" 
"i'd love for you to pay for them!"
"why should we pay for them, they're photos of our patrons in our club! plus, we'd be giving you exposure!"
*gag* 
okay, grease me up, bend me over and aim for penetration. 

finally, recently it was brought to my attention that i should be shooting for the passion of shooting, not profit. a musician plays what he feels, a photographer should convey the same sort of thing. i feel that i do shoot because i'm passionate about photography. but i still ain't working for free. ie. my dad LOVES trees. he owns a sawmill where he produces cants for hardwood flooring and structural lumber. he loves doing it, and loves getting paid for it. he gets paid because he has costs or production to cover and salary. easy enough to understand, right? 

maybe people just choose not to understand it. what i always what to say is, "you have a camera, right? right. so you can do it yourself." but, that's a whole different can of worms. 

we should all work for free. how do you guys feel about that?


----------



## dEARlEADER (May 30, 2008)

IMO the only photographers that should work for free are wedding photographers.....  

I mean.... the equipment only costs 5 - 10 grand.... and you really only need a few years hard experience.... why bother charging the bride and groom when they are already faced with so many other expenses?

Bride and Grooms are typically easy to work and the wedding photographer usually gets a free meal anyways... so whats the point in charging?


----------



## rmh159 (May 30, 2008)

dEARlEADER said:


> IMO the only photographers that should work for free are wedding photographers.....
> 
> I mean.... the equipment only costs 5 - 10 grand.... and you really only need a few years hard experience.... why bother charging the bride and groom when they are already faced with so many other expenses?
> 
> Bride and Grooms are typically easy to work and the wedding photographer usually gets a free meal anyways... so whats the point in charging?


 
Haha ... I'm hiding in anticipation of the responses this will get from the wedding photographers on here.


----------



## dEARlEADER (May 30, 2008)

why?:???:...... you don't agree?  ^^


----------



## tedE (May 30, 2008)

I agree.


----------



## Garbz (May 30, 2008)

Maybe if they feed you every day for a week and give you some shelter until your next job where the next client can do the same thing. Oh wait they already do when they pay you 

I'm sure Michelangelo painted the Sistine Chapel for the love of art, but he wouldn't have finished it in time if he starved to death.

In fact we should all do everything for free, for the good of the people. The government can take everything and divide it amongst the people and we can all be equal. Oh wait...


----------



## JerryPH (May 30, 2008)




----------



## dEARlEADER (May 30, 2008)

JerryPH said:


>






Happy Friday  .....


----------



## JIP (May 30, 2008)

I think someone from a club asking to use your images for free to give you exposure actually alot more apropriate than you might think.  It is one thing if you have shot for a long time professionally and you don't need etr exposure then yes, sure you should turn them down and be offended that they would even ask.  I think if you are just a budding pro who has never or rarely shot for any money then it is not such a crazy thing for them to be asking you for something like this I mean why shouldn't they try it is good for you and good for them so why not you just need to figure out if it is good enough for you but by no means should you be somehow offended.  I can completely understand your issue working at a finishing place that is a completely different story and I working at Ritz had to argue with peole on a daily basis for this kind of issue.  People don't understand what they are paying for when they buy prints from  photographer.


----------



## Alex_B (May 30, 2008)

dEARlEADER said:


> IMO the only photographers that should work for free are wedding photographers.....
> 
> I mean.... the equipment only costs 5 - 10 grand.... and you really only need a few years hard experience.... why bother charging the bride and groom when they are already faced with so many other expenses?
> 
> Bride and Grooms are typically easy to work and the wedding photographer usually gets a free meal anyways... so whats the point in charging?



Almost European humour


----------



## Dioboleque (May 30, 2008)

I don't know anything about anything, but I will say that I could be one of those people who would say "why can't I, it's mine" about the whole scanning the photos thing. imho, it seems rediculous for any photo studio or photographer to withhold rights to prints which someone paid money for, which are of themselves, family, or personal events. I'm totally ignorant on how it works but I see lots of peeps discussing it on here. Do photographers or studios really expect people to find them YEARS after the fact? That seems unreasonable if it is the case. When it comes to photos an individual has commissioned I would think the rights to those photos would lie with the person who commissioned them and PAID for them. And is it disclosed to people at the time of purchase that they have no right to do with their prints as they please? If this had ever happened to me, I probably would have been mad, but I probably would have just bought a scanner and did it myself.


----------



## dEARlEADER (May 30, 2008)

Dioboleque said:


> I don't know anything about anything, but I will say that I could be one of those people who would say "why can't I, it's mine" about the whole scanning the photos thing. imho, it seems rediculous for any photo studio or photographer to withhold rights to prints which someone paid money for, which are of themselves, family, or personal events. I'm totally ignorant on how it works but I see lots of peeps discussing it on here. Do photographers or studios really expect people to find them YEARS after the fact? That seems unreasonable if it is the case. When it comes to photos an individual has commissioned I would think the rights to those photos would lie with the person who commissioned them and PAID for them. And is it disclosed to people at the time of purchase that they have no right to do with their prints as they please? If this had ever happened to me, I probably would have been mad, but I probably would have just bought a scanner and did it myself.



LMAO......... Quick... place your back against mine and we will SLOWLY walk out of this room... if anything moves... shoot it!!!


----------



## saltface (May 30, 2008)

Alex_B said:


> Almost European humour



Really? Sarcasm is a European thing? 

(That makes sense why Latin America doesn't understand irony, it's too expensive to import).

I myself am currently stuck in the hard place of not knowing who owns my wedding photos. I paid an arm and a leg for the cd, but there's no license included.


----------



## MarcusM (May 30, 2008)

saltface said:


> Really? Sarcasm is a European thing?
> 
> (That makes sense why Latin America doesn't understand irony, it's too expensive to import).



I get that you're trying to be sarcastic, but what is this in reference to?


----------



## Socrates (May 30, 2008)

Dioboleque said:


> I don't know anything about anything, but I will say that I could be one of those people who would say "why can't I, it's mine" about the whole scanning the photos thing. imho, it seems rediculous for any photo studio or photographer to withhold rights to prints which someone paid money for, which are of themselves, family, or personal events. I'm totally ignorant on how it works but I see lots of peeps discussing it on here. Do photographers or studios really expect people to find them YEARS after the fact? That seems unreasonable if it is the case. When it comes to photos an individual has commissioned I would think the rights to those photos would lie with the person who commissioned them and PAID for them. And is it disclosed to people at the time of purchase that they have no right to do with their prints as they please? If this had ever happened to me, I probably would have been mad, but I probably would have just bought a scanner and did it myself.



FWIW, I tried to get repros of my wedding shots from the original (very high-priced) photographer and I was told that they only keep negatives for five years because of deterioration.


----------



## dEARlEADER (May 30, 2008)

MarcusM said:


> I get that you're trying to be sarcastic, but what is this in reference to?




Are you asking this sarcastically??


----------



## table1349 (May 30, 2008)

Alex_B said:


> Almost European humour


 
Minus the naked or mostly naked bodies, silly uniforms, excessively loud voices, 10 year behind the times props and prat falls and the obvioulsy more open attitutde about many things. 

God I miss living in Germany and european television.  Here were to busy with silly stuff like Sex in the City and CSI.  There they have gameshows where the contestants strip if they loose, and the thought that if it is life it can be shown on television.


----------



## MarcusM (May 30, 2008)

dEARlEADER said:


> Are you asking this sarcastically??



Nope - I got the joke, I just didn't think it was funny but that could be because I don't know what he is referring to.


----------



## saltface (May 30, 2008)

MarcusM said:


> I get that you're trying to be sarcastic, but what is this in reference to?



Actually I was being completely serious. It seems they don't catch sarcastic humor at all.

...I dunno. Just ignore me...


----------



## mrodgers (May 30, 2008)

Dioboleque said:


> I don't know anything about anything, but I will say that I could be one of those people who would say "why can't I, it's mine" about the whole scanning the photos thing. imho, it seems rediculous for any photo studio or photographer to withhold rights to prints which someone paid money for, which are of themselves, family, or personal events. I'm totally ignorant on how it works but I see lots of peeps discussing it on here. Do photographers or studios really expect people to find them YEARS after the fact? That seems unreasonable if it is the case. When it comes to photos an individual has commissioned I would think the rights to those photos would lie with the person who commissioned them and PAID for them.


Yup, I agree and have stated that in other threads since I've been here.

You go to a photographer and want your picture taken. You pay money and the photographer takes your picture. What do you get for that money? Absolutely nothing. You have just paid someone to allow them to take your photo and that is all.

Now they want you to pay for prints, at 400 times what it actually costs to have them printed. That is judged on the fact that you would probably pay $20 for an 8x10 print and it only cost $2 for the actual print.

It would be like going to a car dealer and paying for a car. But, before you can actually drive it, you have to pay for each of the miles you want to drive before you leave with it.

Somehow all this copyright stuff messed things up. If you pay for a product, you should recieve that product and be able to do anything you want for that product. As it is now, you pay and you recieve nothing. Then if you actually want a product, you pay again.



> And is it disclosed to people at the time of purchase that they have no right to do with their prints as they please?


No, not exactly as you state it here. But there will be something that you sign that states the photographer holds exclusive rights to the images.


Oh, and about the wedding photographer stuff that is being discussed.... Whether it is sarcasm or not, screw the photographer. He is charging you an arm and a leg for his wedding photography, I say charge him for the food as well as for being able to listen to the music that you have hired. There he is charging you out the a$$ and he gets free food. "Oh, thank you for making me bankrupt for the start of my marriage, here, have some wonderful food that I've paid for as well..."


----------



## dEARlEADER (May 30, 2008)

mrodgers said:


> Yup, I agree and have stated that in other threads since I've been here.
> 
> You go to a photographer and want your picture taken. You pay money and the photographer takes your picture. What do you get for that money? Absolutely nothing. You have just paid someone to allow them to take your photo and that is all.
> 
> ...



You hit the nail right on the head..... I agree with this post in general... except for the first six paragraphs....:lmao:


----------



## tempra (May 30, 2008)

mrodgers said:


> It would be like going to a car dealer and paying for a car. But, before you can actually drive it, you have to pay for each of the miles you want to drive before you leave with it.



Not quite, you can use it for as long as you want, but you can't legally make a copy of it as it falls under the copyright law




mrodgers said:


> Oh, and about the wedding photographer stuff that is being discussed.... Whether it is sarcasm or not, screw the photographer. He is charging you an arm and a leg for his wedding photography, I say charge him for the food as well as for being able to listen to the music that you have hired. There he is charging you out the a$$ and he gets free food. "Oh, thank you for making me bankrupt for the start of my marriage, here, have some wonderful food that I've paid for as well..."



Paying an arm and a leg for a wedding photog is choice - you don't have to. In fact you don't have to get married - saves a hell of a lot of cash. The choice is yours really.

People pay $5k for a dress that they will wear once, and baulk at half of that price for things they will use forever - I know where I'd put my money - and it wouldn't be in either of them!


----------



## tempra (May 30, 2008)

mrodgers said:


> Now they want you to pay for prints, at 400 times what it actually costs to have them printed. That is judged on the fact that you would probably pay $20 for an 8x10 print and it only cost $2 for the actual print.



...erm, want to borrow a calculator?


----------



## (Ghastly) Krueger (May 30, 2008)

In may case, I got a couple of CDs with full res pictures. I can do whatever I want with them.

It all depends on what both parties agree when signing a contract.


----------



## Overread (May 30, 2008)

JIP said:


> People don't understand what they are paying for when they buy prints from photographer.


 
I wonder who's fault that is?
The customer - well they are ignorant that is a given fact in most cases
The photographer - 2 groups here:
1) Wants to be able to not only get the funds from taking the shot but also from printing the shot - rather than have walmart do it

2) Ignorant of the ignorance of his customers

Personally I think it is the responsibility of the photographer to make sure that the customer knows exactly what they are buying when they ask for a shoot - to do otherwise in my eyes is deceit


----------



## MarcusM (May 30, 2008)

mrodgers said:


> Yup, I agree and have stated that in other threads since I've been here.
> 
> You go to a photographer and want your picture taken. You pay money and the photographer takes your picture. What do you get for that money? Absolutely nothing. You have just paid someone to allow them to take your photo and that is all.



Not all the time. It all depends on the photographer/studio. Some have package deals which include the price for sitting and prints that are included. You just need to read the details on the ad, brochure or agreement for the package. 



> Now they want you to pay for prints, at 400 times what it actually costs to have them printed. That is judged on the fact that you would probably pay $20 for an 8x10 print and it only cost $2 for the actual print.





> Oh, and about the wedding photographer stuff that is being discussed.... Whether it is sarcasm or not, screw the photographer. He is charging you an arm and a leg for his wedding photography, I say charge him for the food as well as for being able to listen to the music that you have hired. There he is charging you out the a$$ and he gets free food. "Oh, thank you for making me bankrupt for the start of my marriage, here, have some wonderful food that I've paid for as well..."


Let me just preface this by stating I am not a professional so by no means am I trying to convey that I know what it takes to be a pro - but I have been a photographer for many years and I know what it takes to start working your way up to even thinking about trying to become a pro.

You seem to have absolutely no concept of the actual amount of work that goes into photography. I have seen your continuous rants on the forums about how photographers screw everyone out of their money. If I'm not mistaken, you said you have a p&s camera. Once you move into the realm of SLRs, everything changes. It has taken me years to acquire the limited amount of equipment I currently have - one 4-year old DSLR, two average quality lenses, one external flash, one tripod and other small miscellaneous accessories. Not to mention the countless hours of reading, researching, actual shooting for experience/learning, it has taken me to be able to produce the results I want to be able to produce.

Why do you think there is a markup on prints? Besides, from your own figures $20 is 10 times $2, not 400. How much post processing have you done? It can take a considerable amount of time to fine-tune the photograph depending on the intended outcome.

I guess I don't understand why you would come on to a photography forum and constantly complain about the prices photographers charge. Just don't buy them then. Take your photos with your P&S camera and see how they compare.


----------



## Judge Sharpe (May 30, 2008)

The question of who ownes the rights to a photograph should be settled before the first pixel is - I don't know- exposed? If it were a book that you bought, you have certain rights to copy portions for "fair use." You can use those for your self, for educational purposes, but you can not copy the whole thing and sell it or even give it to a friend. You can read it aloud to your baby, but not on the radio. Music is another problem. You can buy and listen to any record (that shows my age) and make a copy for you own use- you can not use it in a commercial way or share copies recordings. Even the use of a radio broadcast as background music with out a license is "illegal."
So what do you pay for when you pay to have a picture made? 
The expertise of the photographer number one- the use of his time talent and equipment number two, the care he takes in producing the image be it from film or digital, number three, and finally the image itself. I feel that once you have paid for the image, it is yours and you are licenced to fair use of it. That does not mean making 100 copies for your friends and family. Or selling the image because Brittney Paris is in there as a guest. 
After a time copyrights run out and it is fair game for what ever you want to do. 
If the owner of the copyright goes out of business, you should be able to make the copies you need - want- without a problem. If he destroys the image, then in all fairness he should allow you to make the copies needed. 
The photographer, wedding or not, should remember that he is a professional, and he should act that way and treat his customers as such. He is after all selling a service and the quickest way to fail is to act like a smuck. 
After a few years, how often do you look at that $1000.00 wedding album anyway?
As for shooting at events, you should clear it with who ever is putting on the event, especially if you are expecting to make money from it. You are a licencee of the producer and should follow his rules. Have an understanding up front, like agreeing to sell pictures to him at a discount for the privilege of shooting in his venue. Otherwise you are liable to find your self outside with your camera around you neck and nothing to shoot. 
Judge Sharpe


----------



## Overread (May 30, 2008)

> copyrights run out


 
I think copyright (from the moment the shutter is pressed) lasted till death+70 years after. So you will long be dead before your family photo is free grabs (least in the UK that is the law).
Further copywrite is the property of the creator (photographer) until he signs over the rights.


----------



## usayit (May 30, 2008)

Folks.. its simple...

If you want the rights to negatives and or full res originals, you simply find a photographer providing that service and choose them.  Be prepared to pay for it though.... 
* this is similar to purchasing the source code to a software product.  It costs some serious capital but the ownership allows complete access and rights.

If you don't want to spend that type of cash, you have to agree to the terms set forth by photographer.  Meaning they are selling time and services.  Often the time already includes a set of prints and album for the bride and groom.  Extra prints are sold extra.
* This is like purchasing a single license to a software application.  You have the right to use it for a single computer as per the terms agreed upon.  No rights allowed for modification or duplication.

Anything beyond the terms agreed on is considered a violation and duplicates of those photos is considered STEALING... PERIOD NO IF's ANDs or BUTs.    If you can't agree to the conditions of the photographer simply move on.  If you proceed to duplicate/steal just because you don't agree with the conditions, then you are just plain stupid for signing them and stealing just like any common lowly thief.

it is black and white...  I can't even believe this is a debate on a photography forum. 


Purchasing negatives and time is exactly what my wife and I did during our wedding.  i own the negatives after processing.  It was an agreement between the photographer and us.  Some photographers will even work in a time expiration in which the originals will be turned over to you after a certain number of years OR if the photographer is closing shop.


----------



## dEARlEADER (May 30, 2008)

ahem.... I stole this thread for some light friday satirical humour...... if you all want to be serious I suggest you skip on over to the beginners section to shred noob's, or find yourself a "photographers rights" thread to chew on.....


----------



## usayit (May 30, 2008)

Sarcasm or just trolling?

If joking... then the fault is in the delivery.


----------



## dEARlEADER (May 30, 2008)

usayit said:


> Sarcasm or just trolling?
> 
> If joking... then the fault is in the delivery.




naaah.... not trolling..... I'm normally a productive contributing member to the forum.... IT'S FRIDAY.....


----------



## Overread (May 30, 2008)

I believe this thread should now be stickied to show that humour and sarcasm don't work on the INTERNET 

and also to campaign for sarcasm smilie - he not exist yet


----------



## dEARlEADER (May 30, 2008)

Overread said:


> I believe this thread should now be stickied to show that humour and sarcasm don't work on the INTERNET
> 
> and also to campaign for sarcasm smilie - he not exist yet



whaddoya mean? I've been laughing all day....


----------



## usayit (May 30, 2008)

dEARlEADER said:


> naaah.... not trolling..... I'm normally a productive contributing member to the forum.... IT'S FRIDAY.....



Lol.. Fridays are my Mondays.... but yeh... the issue is delivery.


----------



## dEARlEADER (May 30, 2008)

usayit said:


> Lol.. Fridays are my Mondays.... but yeh... the issue is delivery.




.... Tough crowd....


----------



## notelliot (May 30, 2008)

i shouldn't have passed out during the bulk of this discussion.


----------



## passerby (May 30, 2008)

notelliot said:


> i find similar happenings when shooting shows or events. often, i just happen to be there with my camera and, well, i like to take photos so i do. i'm not being paid to be there, just taking photos for personal enjoyment or whatever.
> "we'd love to have a copy of those photos you took on cd!"
> "i'd love for you to pay for them!"


 
I believe the whole conversation was longer than this but here you sum it up briefly what it was. To me it was harsh answer. You are there to find customers, you are a salesman here trying to sell your products, good or bad, you were/are there to introduce your expertice. In this situation the customers or potential customers are kings, respect them and make them feel at home so to speak.



> okay, grease me up, bend me over and aim for penetration.


 
Inappropriate language of expression in mannerful walk of life.



> finally, recently it was brought to my attention that i should be shooting for the passion of shooting, not profit.


 
I do. I enjoy shooting - I reach the climx when I believe I achieve result with anyone of my work. Outside applause is not part of my satisfaction.



> a musician plays what he feels, a photographer should convey the same sort of thing. i feel that i do shoot because i'm passionate about photography. but i still ain't working for free.


 
Neither do I. There are many photographers around the globes who earns the money purely from photography, you are as good as any of them. It takes times and sacrifices. Yet once it's over and you look back in time - you will see all those lost time was worthy in every minutes of it. 

Human are created with the state of haste in it.


----------



## dEARlEADER (May 30, 2008)

passerby said:


> I believe the whole conversation was longer than this but here you sum it up briefly what it was. To me it was harsh answer. You are there to find customers, you are a salesman here trying to sell your products, good or bad, you were/are there to introduce your expertice. In this situation the customers or potential customers are kings, respect them and make them feel at home so to speak.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




huh?... this thread is getting stranger by the minute


----------



## JIP (May 30, 2008)

Dioboleque said:


> *I don't know anything about anything*, but I will say that I could be one of those people who would say "why can't I, it's mine" about the whole scanning the photos thing. imho, it seems rediculous for any photo studio or photographer to withhold rights to prints which someone paid money for, which are of themselves, family, or personal events. I'm totally ignorant on how it works but I see lots of peeps discussing it on here. Do photographers or studios really expect people to find them YEARS after the fact? That seems unreasonable if it is the case. When it comes to photos an individual has commissioned I would think the rights to those photos would lie with the person who commissioned them and PAID for them. And is it disclosed to people at the time of purchase that they have no right to do with their prints as they please? If this had ever happened to me, I probably would have been mad, but I probably would have just bought a scanner and did it myself.


 
You should have stopped at the first sentence you would have sounded better.  Here's the deal and I do think we are straying a little from the original discussion but when someone hires a photographer they sign a CONTRACT which where I come from is a binding legal document that you should fully understand before you sign.  If you have a problem with the terms of a photographer's contract you should just find another that fits what you want better.


----------



## Emerana (May 31, 2008)

I do work for free...and I take business from professional photographers because now when my friends want their kids 6 month photos (or what ever) they come to me. I even did a head shot for a friend (quotes he got were $600+. He is going to give me tickets to come to his shows.

But I own my camera and I can do whatever I want with it.


*I want to add that my friends come to me not because I am free. The majority of my friends are upper-middle class and are willing to pay for great photos of their children. They come to me cause I am better then the professionals they go to.


----------



## craig (May 31, 2008)

Cool! Why don't you under cut every photographer in town. 

Love & Bass


----------



## Emerana (May 31, 2008)

I have just as much right to photograph as they do


----------



## craig (May 31, 2008)

Yes you do. I do not understand what you are trying to say.

Love & Bass


----------



## Socrates (May 31, 2008)

craig said:


> Yes you do. I do not understand what you are trying to say.
> 
> Love & Bass



Read the title for the thread.


----------



## craig (May 31, 2008)

Not like free or low priced photography cuts into my business, but it does have a negative impact on the industry in general. That point can not be reiterated enough. It may be a concept that people in the retail end of photography will never understand. Which is fine by me. I (as always) had to but in.

Love & Bass


----------



## Senor Hound (May 31, 2008)

craig said:


> Cool! Why don't you under cut every photographer in town.



She has the right to do whatever she wants.  Its called capitalism.  The market (in this case for the service of photography) ALWAYS finds a way to stabilize.  If people are able to offer lower prices, then they should.  Supply and demand will always win out over "ethics and morals".  You can either go with the flow, or die fighting the current.

Or you could form a local photographer's union...  You shouldn't have much problem with outsourcing.



craig said:


> Not like free or low priced photography cuts into my business, but it does have a negative impact on the industry in general. That point can not be reiterated enough.



I disagree with this, also.  Just because it lowers the prices does not mean it has a negative impact on the industry.  After a cycle of surplus supply, many of the bottom feeders will be forced out, and in the end it will have a positive effect on the quality of product.  It just means you'll have to step up your game due to increased competition for a while.  Then it will stabilize.


----------



## craig (May 31, 2008)

With all due respect it sounds like you know nothing of the field of photography. Of course photographers can do what they want. I guess my question to this forum is at what point do we take pride in our work and realize nothing is free? At what point do we realize that there are photographers that work hard just like everyone else? At what point do we stop being selfish and understand that giving away your work could be hurting others?

How many cops, electricians or engineers do you see giving away their work? Photography is a profit deal for me. I refuse to sit back and let toy photographers trample on an industry that has basically sustained me my whole life. 

Love & Bass


----------



## Senor Hound (Jun 1, 2008)

craig said:


> With all due respect it sounds like you know nothing of the field of photography. Of course photographers can do what they want. I guess my question to this forum is at what point do we take pride in our work and realize nothing is free? At what point do we realize that there are photographers that work hard just like everyone else? At what point do we stop being selfish and understand that giving away your work could be hurting others?



With all due respect, it sounds like you know NOTHING about capitalism if you seriously think one person in an industry should look out for the others.  You need to realize this is a dog-eat dog world.  But feel free to wait around for people to have a sudden change of heart.  And if you think your clients are loyal, you can forget it.  I guarantee you that when you quote a price to do a shoot, and someone else quotes a price that's only 2/3rds of that, they'll try the other guy out, even if you have given them good shots in the past.  THERE IS NO LOYALTY IN BUSINESS.  And those who stay loyal, get crushed.



craig said:


> I refuse to sit back and let toy photographers trample on an industry that has basically sustained me my whole life.



I find it funny you think you have a choice in the issue.  The industry is changing and within a few years you won't be able to charge the same prices you have in the past.  Many more people are interested in it, and will pursue professional photography as a job.  And it doesn't matter if they're "toy photographers" or not.  The point is they're going to take away from some of your business and there's NOTHING you can do about it.  Its happened to other jobs in the past, and now its photography's turn.  Getting upset at your colleagues isn't going to change this.

BTW, many electricians and engineering firms will do some pro-bono work to establish a clientèle.  The truth of the matter is photography is a hobby some people can make a career out of.  Rarely do people NEED a photograph like they NEED electricity.  Try comparing photography to something more similar, like being a musician or artist.  You don't hear professional artists complaining when amateurs give away paintings, nor do you hear professional musicians complain when a house band does a gig for free.  Perhaps you could take a lesson.


----------



## craig (Jun 1, 2008)

You seem to be speaking about the retail end of the business. On the commercial/editorial side my clients constantly remind me of the sub par work they have had in the past. If I can get one person do a good job it will have a positive effect on me and the industry. It certainly is a dog eat dog world, but I refuse to accept that. I will school young photographers on their work and I will try and unite a divided community. I have heard that sad story about a changing industry for years. I still have yet to see it. Retail photographers are the ones shooting themselves in the foot. I am here to say that if you call yourself a photographer you better start charging a rate that reflects your skills. People are willing spend thousands of dollars a year on photography and they need those photos sometimes worse then electricity. Question is who is man enough to take it.

Your thoughts are your own. I respect that. I still and always believe that I can help other photographers and have a positive effect on the industry one thought and one person at a time. I have been doing it for years and I am not about to stop now. Who knows as time goes I may even have a positive effect on you Senor Hound.

Love & Bass


----------



## Senor Hound (Jun 1, 2008)

craig said:


> You seem to be speaking about the retail end of the business. On the commercial/editorial side my clients constantly remind me of the sub par work they have had in the past. If I can get one person do a good job it will have a positive effect on me and the industry. It certainly is a dog eat dog world, but I refuse to accept that. I will school young photographers on their work and I will try and unite a divided community. I have heard that sad story about a changing industry for years. I still have yet to see it. Retail photographers are the ones shooting themselves in the foot. I am here to say that if you call yourself a photographer you better start charging a rate that reflects your skills. People are willing spend thousands of dollars a year on photography and they need those photos sometimes worse then electricity. Question is who is man enough to take it.
> 
> Your thoughts are your own. I respect that. I still and always believe that I can help other photographers and have a positive effect on the industry one thought and one person at a time. I have been doing it for years and I am not about to stop now. Who knows as time goes I may even have a positive effect on you Senor Hound.
> 
> Love & Bass




I doubt it.  My dad owns his own business and I've worked for too many small companies to ever think positively of them.  This is why I'd never be self-employed;  I don't have the cutthroat mentality it takes to win.  I'm a softie, and I'd end up going bankrupt in a week.

And sorry if I was rude.  I re-read my post and it was way too harsh.  But you already replied, and there wasn't much I could do about it.  Best of luck to you in your future endeavors, cause I have a feeling you professional photographers will need it.  But the proof is in the pudding like you said, and the great ones have nothing to worry about.


----------



## MarcusM (Jun 1, 2008)

Senor Hound said:


> THERE IS NO LOYALTY IN BUSINESS.



I had to reply to this...this statement is completely inaccurate IMO. I myself and I believe a lot of others are willing to pay a little more to support businesses that have shown themselves to be honest, provide a superior, quality product, interested in a win-win relationship with their customers/clientele, give back to the community, practice environmental stewardship, etc., etc.

So yes, there is loyalty in business. Customers will not always go to the cheapest source. If they can find that business that they trust and the product serves them well, sometimes it is not worth the effort to try to get a cheaper deal.


----------



## MarcusM (Jun 1, 2008)

Senor Hound said:


> I've worked for too many small companies to ever think positively of them.



Wow...I would choose to work for a small company over a large corporation any day.

I work for a great small company right now, and my wife works for a corporation that is too big for it's own good - different departments in different states (and countries for that matter) and no one knows what the hell is going on.

One of the major problems with the U.S. (and the world) is large corporations that consume everything in sight with absolutely no regard to their community and environment.


----------



## Senor Hound (Jun 1, 2008)

MarcusM said:


> Wow...I would choose to work for a small company over a large corporation any day.
> 
> I work for a great small company right now, and my wife works for a corporation that is too big for it's own good - different departments in different states (and countries for that matter) and no one knows what the hell is going on.
> 
> One of the major problems with the U.S. (and the world) is large corporations that consume everything in sight with absolutely no regard to their community and environment.



The only reason I said small company is because its the only places where I can actually see the owner at work.  I've seen bosses not give their employees insurance or vacations yet go spend two weeks in Europe.  I've seen my dad hire people as a favor, only to have to fire them because they never showed up or did anything.  

And IMO, There's little to no difference between a small company and a large one, other than the amount of leverage they have.  Many small companies would love to dominate the market or outsource their labor if it was possible or feasible.  Its a sad fact of life that people are primarily interested in themselves.  I have yet to see an owner of a business who started his enterprise because he wanted to stimulate the economy or create new jobs.  He does it for him, and in the end, that's the only one who matters.

I'm sorry, but I'm horribly jaded to the whole corporate world.  As I said before, it takes a very cold heart to run a profitable, successful business IMO.



MarcusM said:


> I had to reply to this...this statement is completely inaccurate IMO. I myself and I believe a lot of others are willing to pay a little more to support businesses that have shown themselves to be honest, provide a superior, quality product, interested in a win-win relationship with their customers/clientele, give back to the community, practice environmental stewardship, etc., etc.
> 
> So yes, there is loyalty in business. Customers will not always go to the cheapest source. If they can find that business that they trust and the product serves them well, sometimes it is not worth the effort to try to get a cheaper deal.



BTW, they will always go to the one with the highest value (satisfaction/cost).  But I will admit customer service plays in to this.  But if someone else is as charismatic as you, does just as good of a job, and only charges half, then you'll PROBABLY be out of luck.  Luckily satisfaction is difficult to measure.  And in industries where it isn't (gasoline, groceries, etc.) people are a lot more likely to buy based on cost.


----------



## craig (Jun 1, 2008)

Senor Hound said:


> I doubt it.  My dad owns his own business and I've worked for too many small companies to ever think positively of them.  This is why I'd never be self-employed;  I don't have the cutthroat mentality it takes to win.  I'm a softie, and I'd end up going bankrupt in a week.
> 
> And sorry if I was rude.  I re-read my post and it was way too harsh.  But you already replied, and there wasn't much I could do about it.  Best of luck to you in your future endeavors, cause I have a feeling you professional photographers will need it.  But the proof is in the pudding like you said, and the great ones have nothing to worry about.



Thanks! You were not rude or harsh. This a discussion forum. We throw out our viewpoints and hope someone listens. Your thoughts are insightful. We just disagree. That is what this forum is all about.

)'(


----------



## Mike_E (Jun 1, 2008)

notelliot said:


> i have a part-time job at a photo finishing place, and while it offers a nice discount on almost anything i need, customers don't seem to understand the concept of photography as a profession. more so, copyright.
> 
> when someone comes in to scan a watermarked image, i have to say no. not only is it a company policy, but morally i can't reproduce work while cutting out the photographer.
> 
> "well, it's a photo of MY daughter" or something similar is what i often hear. "doesn't matter," i say "you didn't take this photo, so you don't own the rights to reproduce it or manipulate. you can purchase the rights from the photographer, or if you have already, you can provide a release form to show it." this is when people get angry, for some reason. i try to explain it from my point of view. it pays my bills. buys my groceries. it's how i survive. it's theft to reproduce an image without consent - i lose money - same as the shoe store next door would if you were to walk away with new shoes you didn't pay for.



Back to the original, NotElliot, if you think just a minute the reaction is most likely a mixture of frustration and embarrassment.  People don't behave too well when feeling either much less when experiencing a combination of both.

Try starting with something like "You know a lot of photographers forget to tell their clients about the copywrite laws but if they catch us printing one of their photos do you think that they would hesitate to sue us right out of business?  Noo, and me right out of a job?  Noo!"  

"So look, here's what you need to do..."  and from here you can  instruct them and then sell them whichever item you like because now they owe you right?

This presuposes that they were not in fact trying to get the photos done knowing exactly what they were doing.   And even if they were, they still  have to act like they didn't.


----------



## Emerana (Jun 1, 2008)

I am not a toy photographer...I am new.  Even you were new at one point...unless you were born a photo god.  I went into photography because of the sub-par photos I was getting from professionals.  They would hype a low-pressure, relaxed photosession with room for delays (we are talking kids here!) and I would still leave soaked in sweat with no pictures that captured who my kids really are.  So I bought a good camera but actually found a passion for the art and science and found that I am fairly decent.  It has become part of who I am,  I love it. 

So what would you have me do?  Hang up a shingle and start charging rates as to not undercut your prices?  I have been shooting for 5 whle months, I am not comfortable with that.  Just shoot my own kids until I feel I have gotten enough education to have a business?  Or maybe insist people show my a receipt from a real photorapher before I allow them a session?

I happen to love doing children's portraits and people like my work.  Iam not really into making a business of it at this point in my life.  I think there is nothing morally or ethically wrong with doing art for free...and if my subjects get something out of the end deal, awesome, we both win.


----------



## maytay20 (Jun 1, 2008)

tempra said:


> Not quite, you can use it for as long as you want, but you can't legally make a copy of it as it falls under the copyright law
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
I have to agree here.  They do CHOOSE to pay a wedding photographer and get married.  It is not something that is forced.  And they can always find a photographer that is less or maybe try and find some random person buy them all of the equipment they will need, train them and see how much money they actually save.  One thing I know there was a recent story on the radio on how many women say no to a marriage proposal because the rock in the ring is too small??  What happened to making that decision based on the person and the love you have for them??   And remember all of the equipment, back up equipment, training , books any other misc supplies that photographer has invested in to be a good photographer. Oh and it is right in my contract that I don't expect to be fed at a wedding, but why should I not eat if they are offering it??  In fact the wedding I did yesterday did not feed me and I thought nothing of it.  As far as charging for the music that is a little far, we do not get to dance or enjoy the music in ANY way.  And any money a person spends on photography is a choice, the same with the rest of the wedding expenses.  If they didn't want to put the money towards that they don't have to.  I chose to put the money my hubby would have spent on a wedding ring on my 30D and now I make money off it does this mean we are many less married???  No we signed the same paper everyone else did regardless if the spent $20 or 5K on their wedding.  That is just my 2 cents on the subject.


----------

