Seb Rogers: mountain bike photography

Another bite at the Apple (TM)

Regular readers might have noticed that I'm fairly keen on photographers retaining copyright in the images they take. It's yours automatically by law and there are good reasons not to give it away. And here's a case in point.

I was contacted by Apple recently about an image of downhill and freeride legend Andrew Shandro of mine that they'd found on my portfolio site. It was taken a few years ago for an editorial shoot. They were looking for some new imagery to use on their site and in-store and decided that this particular shot would fit the bill perfectly. Was it available for use, they wanted to know?

Within a short space of time we'd agreed a price (no, I'm not being paid in iMacs). I even managed to track down Shandro at the Sea Otter and he, always the consummate pro, agreed to sign a retrospective model release so that Apple could use the image. A model release indicates that the subject of a photo consents for that image to be used commercially. It's not necessary for editorial use and, in the UK, isn't always needed for commercial use but it's good practice to have one available. In fact, Apple indicated they wouldn't be able to proceed without one.

Do I need to point out that I would never have been able to make this sale if I'd sold all rights to this image at the time of the original shoot? No? Thought not.

Anyhoo, here's the first use of the pic in question. It may well pop up again in various Apple-related scenarios over the next couple of years.

The guys at Apple, incidentally, were a pleasure to deal with - utterly professional from beginning to end. Like most photographers these days, I've become used to fielding queries that are variations on the 'we really like this picture but don't have a budget' theme. It's nice to be reminded there are still businesses out there that genuinely value photography.

Digital magazines and video: a brave new publishing world?

The odd thing about the current crop of video-enabled dSLRs is that they were, to some extent, the result of big news agencies looking for a way to add value to their online content. 'We've got a photographer there already, so what if they could press a button and shoot video too?' was the line of thought and, at face value, it made sense.

If you look around, though, it hasn't amounted to an awful lot. Print media companies' web content is still predominantly stills-based. Anyone who's shot (and edited) video beyond Youtube standard will have some inkling of the reason why that's so: time. Or rather, money. Or perhaps more accurately, both. Production budgets aren't any bigger than they used to be, much online content is given away free and so the only way video is going to happen is if it's squeezed into existing working days. 

Anyone else see the problem with that?

Then today, I came across this blog post, featuring a glossy promo video all about the new iPad edition of Martha Stewart's mag. With the mag's high production values, large budget and affluent target market, they've pushed the boat out to make the most of the opportunities afforded by publishing a mag on a large handheld digital thingumy. Wide, wide panoramic stills can now be published, and scrolled by the viewer. Images can be animated. Boxouts don't need to fit on the page, they just need a scroll bar. Video links can be incorporated. And so on. It's all very clever.

The possibilities are certainly intriguing. Imagine a bike test, for example, where you can view not just a still action shot of the bike in question but a video clip of it being ridden. 

And yet... I'm still not entirely convinced. Unless the budget is there to make the extra whizz-bang features work properly, the risk is that the pressure to capture video and stills by one photographer (for example) will impact on the stills and relegate the video to little more than a gimmick. And I'm not sure readers will stick around very long for gimmicks.

The thing is, I'd really like to be proved wrong. There's scope for making digital mag editions interactive in a way that's genuinely useful, and that's to be welcomed. If the difference between print and digital editions is compelling enough to pull in a whole new (paying) audience, we could see a reverse in the decline of mag circulation figures. Will it happen? I think it depends partly on the willingness of print publishing to find a bit of extra cash down the back of the sofa...

Pro photographers earn less than the UK average wage

Earlier this year the British Photographic Council commissioned a survey of professional photographers in the UK. It makes for some interesting reading. 

You can download the full survey results here, but if you don't have time to wade through it all these are some of the salient points:

- photographers who retain copyright in their images earn, on average, 33% more than those who relinquish copyright to their clients

- the average (mean) freelance annual profit is £18,821

- only the top 19% of freelance photographers claimed an annual profit of £30,000 or more*

Regular readers will understand when I say, on the copyright issue, 'told you so'. But the profit figures should give everyone pause for thought. The average profit is below the UK's average wage. More importantly, in my view, it's wildly at odds with the perceived image of photography as a glamourous, financially rewarding profession.

Too many clients perceive photography as something that anyone can do, leaving photographers struggling to 'justify' their fees. When high quality images are treated as commodities rather than part of a brand's inherent value, is it any surprise that many photographers literally struggle to make ends meet?

The trickle of emails into my inbox wanting advice about becoming a pro has slowed over the past 18 months or so, perhaps because of the effects of the credit crunch. That's probably a good thing. To anyone thinking of making the leap at the moment, my advice would be simple: don't. You'll probably make more money flipping burgers.

* The survey treats staff salaries and freelance profits as equivalents. It's worth pointing out that that's not quite the case. Whilst some tax breaks are available on, for example, the purchase of new equipment, it's rarely 100% and the purchase still has to be funded directly from profits. In other words, a freelancer's salary is taken from their profit after deductions have been made for capital purchases. So the salary available from that £18.8k profit figure is even lower...

Got five minutes?

Read this. Pithy, insightful... and very funny.

The meaning of 'professional'

//It's been a while since I wrote a rant. Here's one to redress the balance. Warning: grumpy content follows...//

What is it that a professional photographer does? It's a question that's worth asking (particularly if you're a pro yourself), because all the signs are that many clients aren't particularly sure. If you take the narrow definition of a professional photographer as being someone who earns their living taking photos, you're missing the point. And you won't be alone.

By way of an example, I'm going to describe a situation I found myself in earlier in the year. A potential client (working for a local government agency) who knew of my work approached me for some information on pricing. The agency in question was tasked with promoting cycling in the region and needed to source a variety of imagery for their website, trailhead information boards and printed leaflets. I provided some ballpark figures... and that's when the fun started.

Because my quote exceeded a certain threshold, agency protocol was to pull in at least three detailed quotes. Fine, no problem with that, although by that stage I was already figuring on not getting the job since I don't generally win out on price.

The tender forms - there were two, one for library images and one for commissioned shoots - duly arrived by email. Right up near the top of the forms was a pair of check boxes, one for 'amateur' and the other for 'professional'. And I realised right there and then that I'd lost the job.

The remainder of the forms were no better, demonstrating to my eyes a complete lack of understanding of the value of photography beyond a commodity that was to be sourced at the lowest possible price. The clincher, for me, was the requirement to supply examples of my work 'at 300dpi' on CD for evaluation. Excuse me?

I filled in the forms anyway for the sake of finishing what I'd started, politely declined the request to supply hi res files and wrote the whole thing off.

The entire approach is so depressingly wrong-headed, it's hard to know where to start. But I can think of no other scenario where a potential client would even consider sourcing a product or service from an enthusiast, rather than a professional. After all, there's still money changing hands. It beggars belief that a government agency would risk public liability - let alone the public perception of its websites and publications - for the sake of saving a few pounds.

I regard my job as providing the highest possible images to meet the client's brief, within an agreed timescale and to an agreed budget. Fifteen years' experience as a full time photographer gives me the technical know-how to cope with anything the situation throws at me; the contacts to supply bikes, riders and kit; a mental black book list of locations for all eventualities; and last but certainly not least, proper third party liability insurance. With the greatest of respect, how many enthusiasts can say the same? 

I do what I do because I get enormous satisfaction from the end result, but I never forget that being professional means a great deal more than receiving a cheque at the end of the job.

//Rant ends...//

Ordnance Survey cover: Crawley and Horsham

I've had a few map covers over the years, but this one crept up on me unawares. Nice to get a surprise from time to time... 

Last time I looked (and with the greatest of respect to the residents of the two places in question), neither Crawley nor Horsham looked this good. Nope, that's Mr Burt of Mint Sauce infamy, on a late summer's evening, enjoying the expansive view over the Sussex Weald from one of my favourite spots just below Devil's Dyke.

Originally shot in landscape format, the same shot also graces a double page spread in Footprint Guides' new Adventure Britain book, along with several more of my pics.

So? So it's another lesson in copyright, licensing and maximising revenue. I got paid once for taking the original image as part of a commissioned shoot... and then once more for the map cover... and then again for the book dps. Retaining both copyright and the right to re-sell (they're not necessarily the same thing) is a Good Thing.

Top ten ways to piss off a photographer

i came across this blog posting on 10 ways to piss off a photographer and it made me chuckle, so I thought I'd share it. Not sure if you have to be a working snapper to really appreciate it, but it's worth reading for some of the real-life anecdotes alone (personal favourite:photo editor to Pullitzer winner David Hume Kennerly: 'Oh, it's three a.m. there? That's weird, it's only noon here').

By way of balance, here's the flip-side: 13 ways to piss off a photo editor. Aspiring pros take note - beneath the humour there's some sound advice here. i get asked a fair bit how to get a toe in the door and this is a pretty good list of what not to do. Ignore at your peril.

Daily Wail nicks pics

In a brilliant display of high-handed thievery, the Daily Wail (sic)* has pinched a documentary film-maker's photos from a Twitter page, published them without a credit and then claimed that it was okay to do so because they were 'in the public domain'. Full story here - thanks to Mike Davis for the heads-up.

Which begs the obvious question: if someone were to lift content from the Mail's own site and *cough* 're-purpose' it elsewhere, would the Mail's lawyers take the same view? I think we should be told.

* so-called because of its editorial 'we're doomed' stance on, well, just about everything. The sky's falling on our heads, etc.

Democracy in action

A while ago Honda ran some ads with the strap 'isn't it nice when things just work?' For a change I'm feeling that way about British democracy this morning. Yes, really.

Yesterday I spent an hour or so emailing every single Liberal Democrat MP (there are quite a few) to explain my concerns about clause 43 in the proposed Digital Economy Bill. It was essential to get the Lib Dems on board, the Conservatives having already come out strongly against clause 43 and the Labour government seemingly implacable in the face of concerted pressure to drop an ill thought-out and badly worded piece of draft legislation. I'm certain I wasn't the only one filling parliamentary inboxes yesterday lunchtime.

A couple of hours later I received this ever so slightly cryptic response from Lembit Opik: 'I agree and it's been fixed'.

Now call me a cynic, but when an MP says it's been fixed I have to wonder... fixed to his (or her) satisfaction... or really fixed?

But he was right. Clause 43 is no more. Democracy in action...

It's not over yet, but the immediate prospect of photographers losing their own (intellectual) property through poorly thought out legislation has receded. That should be enough to brighten anyone's morning.

Digital Economy Bill turns into public farce

The British government's Digital Economy Bill continues its stuttering progress into the statute books. Meanwhile, the government has been caught stealing the BBC's copyright, only for the Tories to gleefully do exactly the same. An image of the character Gene Hunt from 80s BBC series Ashes to Ashes was used by the Labour party... without seeking permission from the copyright owner, in this case the BBC. Seeing an opportunity to make political hay, the Conservative party used exactly the same image... without permission. And just to add to the irony the BBC - which supports the principle of orphaned works in the DEB - is furious with both parties.

These are the people currently making decisions about intellectual property law that will affect us all. Scary, huh?

More here.

Permission to use photo not pictured...