One of the downsides of earning a living from photography is the steady trickle of begging emails and phone calls. The detail varies but the gist is the same - these people (the vast majority of whom, incidentally, are salaried) claim to have little or no budget, but offer the prospect of publicity beyond the photographer's wildest dreams. To paraphrase Harlan Ellison, go tell that to someone who's just fallen off the turnip wagon...
Anyhoo, I had to chuckle when fellow photographer Dan Barham posted one such email from one of the world's biggest airlines on his blog recently. The cheek, eh?
And then the same email, from the same airline, turned up in my inbox this morning. Here's an exerpt (with names removed to protect the innocent / prevent a lawsuit - delete whichever suits your mood):
'Dear Seb Rogers,
The staff of XXX XXX, the luxury magazine of XXX XXX, is in the process of planning our Spring 2008 “Sporting Life” issue, focusing on many high-end products and articles related to health, sports, fitness, and wellness.
One of the articles we are working on is a photographic feature story -- a visual compilation -- of some of the best places on earth to experience a particular sport shot by some of the best photographers in the world. Examples include spectacular settings for sports such as fly-fishing, hiking, kayaking, rock climbing, scuba diving, golf, biking, and surfing.
We are interested in showcasing ONE of your favorite images of biking, preferably at a location within a couple hours of a destination XXX XXX serves. Several well-known photographers will be participating in this effort.'
And so on, in a similar vein. Only this time, presumably because of the number of photographers refusing to prostrate themselves at the prospect of (gasp!) a byline in an in-flight magazine, the airline in question has spelt out their non-payment policy in very clear terms:
'To clarify, we are interested in publicizing ONE of your favorite images and featuring information on you, including your website, books, and other projects you're working on. This is an expose of top sports photographers. And because of the size and scope of this feature, and because it exposes your work, website and book project to potentially more than three million readers of XXX XXX first and business class, we are unable to pay for or in any way purchase an image from you. This effort would be for publicity purposes only, and we will understand (but will be disappointed) if it is not something you are interested in.'
They are, of course, going to be disappointed. But, since they'd been pretty cheeky to me, I couldn't resist the opportunity to be a bit cheeky back. Here's my reply:
'Dear XXX,
Thank you for your email and your interest in my work.
I would be delighted to license one of my images for use in XXX XXX; however I note that you are unwilling to pay and so, on this occasion, I will have to decline. The vast majority of my clients don't fly First or Business, so I can see no value in the publicity and, unfortunately, a warm fuzzy glow doesn't help pay the mortgage.
I am, I have to say, disappointed (but not surprised) that XXX XXX feels the need to poach 'free' use from photographers in this way. Perhaps you could shave costs even further by persuading the magazine's printers that their credit on the masthead is sufficient payment?
Just a thought.
Kind regards
Seb'
I take some comfort from the fact that they're clearly struggling to find enough photographers to fill the pages (I'm not kidding myself that I was anywhere near the top of their list). But the depressing thought is that they probably will, one way or another, manage to fill enough pages to make their feature a viable prospect. And not one of the contributing photographers will get any benefit from it.
"How many Singletrack contributors have gone on to forge successful full-time careers as photographers?"
Dan Barham (danbarham.com) and Rob Hamilton-Smith (rhsimages.co.uk) are making good cracks at it.
Posted by: Nick | January 21, 2008 at 09:46 AM
Hi Nick,
That's true, except that (playing devil's advocate here, and in no way reflecting on Rob and Dan's work, which I hold in the highest regard) neither is, as far as I'm aware, earning what could be called a full-time living from photography. And that's kinda part of my wider point.
Let's say that the global market for photographic images has expanded by 10% over the past decade (that figure may or may not be close to accurate, but it doesn't really matter). In the same period the global production of photographic images has expanded by (for the sake of argument) 10,000%.
Now of course not all of the dSLR-wielding hordes harbour fantasies of becoming pros. But most people like seeing their work in print, and it's easier than ever to have a crack. Plus the law of averages tells us that, amongst those hordes, there'll be some genuine talent like the Robs and Dans of this world. And they probably really do want to earn a living from their work.
Here's the problem: the market hasn't expanded anywhere close enough to cope with all this over-supply. And that's a large part of why Dan and Rob, despite their undoubted ability, aren't up there with the Sterling Lorences and Scott Markewitzes of this world. There just ain't room.
So what, you might say, it's just market forces at work, get over it. Well, yeah, up to a point. But individuals can do their part to prevent a bad situation getting worse (see also climate change) by making informed choices, like not giving their pictures away for free.
I believe we've come full circle :)
Posted by: Seb Rogers | January 22, 2008 at 04:27 PM
"As for 'exposure', it looks like Mark and I will have to agree to differ on that one. How many Singletrack contributors have gone on to forge successful full-time careers as photographers?"
Why do you equate exposure with the making of a career? Some people just like to share their photographs with as many people as possible and a page in ST does just that.
A lot of us take photographs for reasons besides making money. I like seeing my shots in print, for all the world to see. I'd rather see them printed for no financial return than them stay on my PC just because I demanded a fee the magazine won't pay.
Posted by: Richard Starkie | August 13, 2008 at 11:46 PM
Hi Richard,
I don't. That's the point. There are plenty of bike snappers whose names now appear regularly in print who aren't anywhere close to making a living from it. Same size pie, too many people chasing a piece of it.
Most photographers, most of the time, take photographs for reasons besides making money. And that's a Very Good Thing. What's changed over the past five years or so is that more bona fide amateurs are getting published... where previously those spaces would've gone to a pro. From a pro's perspective, that's a Bad Thing.
As someone who relies on my photography to pay the mortgage, I don't have to like this state of affairs, even if there's not much I can do about it.
You seem aggrieved that I take issue with commercial organisations (by which I mean anything from a magazine publisher to a large US airline ;-)) exploiting amateur photographers' willingness to exchange their images for a picture credit. It's not a personal criticism, simply my view of the current state of the industry. You don't have to agree with it :)
Posted by: Seb Rogers | August 14, 2008 at 08:34 AM
Got one today from a magazine claiming to be a charity. No mention of the charity on their website, but a lot of sell to advertisers about their high income readership, in 35 countries.
Denied.
Posted by: Nick | March 25, 2009 at 04:53 PM
Ah yes. The old charity gig (gag?).
Thing is, charities have to pay their staff. And for printing. And distribution. And all that stuff.
So why do they expect photographers to donate their work? Because enough of them are flattered by the attention / excited at the prospect of being published to fall for it. And that makes it worth asking.
The only suitable answer is a polite 'thanks, but no thanks'. If I wanted to donate to charity I'd do so at a time and in a manner (and, for that matter, to a cause) of my choosing.
Rant ends...
Posted by: Seb Rogers | March 25, 2009 at 07:21 PM
David,
If you can't imagine a painter being asked to produce a piece for free then you are not using your imagination correctly. This practice is not unique to photography,it just happens that photography is the area in which you have an interest. To keep it mountain biking and thus easy to comprehend, ask Jo Burt if he has ever been asked to cough up for nowt. I'll wager that he has.
Posted by: Geoff Waugh | April 14, 2009 at 11:52 AM