Giving away your pics.

ding76uk

ding76uk

Messages
4,096
Name
Carl
Edit My Images
Yes
I know there have been a few heated debates on here recently, and I admit i have been on who has been in the thick of it.

Heated conversations on here are no good for getting my point across. So instead I have gone away and written a blog post about my personal stance on the whole thing, and trying to explain some of the pitfalls of what can easily seem like a "good deal"

Hopefully some of you will get something out of it. Obviously add comments as you see fit, and also if you really want to feel free to follow my blog.

Enjoy

http://carlspringphoto.wordpress.com/2010/04/21/if-youre-good-at-something-never-do-it-for-free/
 
A very interesting read and some good points made, I personally wouldnt disagree with anything you have written, but am quite sure others will.
 
A good read :thumbs:

I think it comes across better than it did in the last topic on this that all got a bit heated :D.

Chris

Edit: (Although I have to admit I'm a little disappointed, I was hoping to find WWIII in this thread :lol:)
 
I don't see a problem with your argument, it seems a very reasoned approach.
 
A well crafted and well written article. I think it was well balanced, recognizing that there will be people who willingly want to do work for free as well as highlighting there will be people all too willing to capitalize on an individuals work and give little credit in return.
 
Carl, excellently thought out article, and it's good to see a post that considers both sides of the story...it takes two to make photos free;
- A photographer willing to give them away
- A picture buyer who doesn't see value.

It's heartening that your greek buyer saw value in the photo and agreed to deal with you. It's much better than others saying "well, we can get it elsewhere". That simply represents a compromise for them. If more people tried to get a deal then buyers would eventually realise that they DO have to pay for quality.

As the old saying goes, "If you pay peanuts, you'll get monkeys".

Great article :thumbs:
 
I totally agree with what is in the artical. I often do IT work for free for freinds and family anyone else pays, thats what I make a living doing, there are a few freinds and family who insist on paying me but I always refuse I can't charge people have known since I was born especially when I offer to do it.

I am a weekend warrior when it comes to car detailing, mainly to fund new products I will do 4 maybe 5 cars a year for pleasure and it pays for the stuff I need to keep mine and my families cars clean for the year. If I ever offer to do someones car I never ask for money but if they ask me to do their car then they pay.

Photography? I'm not sure where it will go at the moment I am happy for any opertunity to push myself and try somthing different but I won't be exploited in anyway, I have realised that with IT the paying job never comes do somthing for someone who works at XYZ and one day XYZ will phone offering work, yeah right.
 
Good article and certainly something to consider in the future, thanks ;)
 
A well-written, well-balanced article. Congratulations. I missed the heated discussion thread, but feel that your points are well made and honest.

Daniel.
 
Cannot agree as it can sometimes be confused with a meanness of spirit.

Brings to mind the adage "Hear all and say nowt, take all and pay nowt and if thy does owt for nowt thy does it for theself"

Cheers Col
 
As this section of the forum is Talk Business, I view it from a business perspective and say that the principle of what you say Carl, is spot on. Some people are trying to make a living from being a photographer and whether they are photographing bands, schools, weddings, fashion models or miniature soldiers, the kind hearted soul who comes along and does it for a pint and a sandwich is undermining that market.

The quid pro quo scenario, whereby a photographer offers a model (or band) time and expertise in return for their time and expertise and where both stand to gain, is a fair and necessary way for people in both camps to gain experience. That said, any ambitious photographer or model would be wanting to move on from the TF circuit before too long.

The photography business is exactly that, a business. For people to succeed in it, they need to get paid!
 
remember than you can get products rather than money. Recaro wanted an image for one of their ads in a mag, they did not want to pay but I got a top of the range car seat in exhange for a picture that had already been featured in a magazine and was not earning anything. I used to do the same with pipercross they would give me filters which I would then sell on and make money that way. I was happy & client was happy.
 
Reasonably well written, very one sided and I totally disagree but then we are all entitled to our opinions!
 
Hey ho, I hope the nation now values your efforts.
 
POAH said:
remember than you can get products rather than money.
Click to expand...

Have also done that, got more in product that I would have charged, so both parties happy.

a1ex2001 said:
Reasonably well written, very one sided and I totally disagree but then we are all entitled to our opinions!
Click to expand...

Not trying to start a war, but as I said, if you disagree please comment. How could I improve the writing style? What is your opinion on the subject?
 
A well written article and as other people have said some valid points.

As you have said you could quite easily get carried away at the thought of your picture/s getting into print and forget that yes they do have a budget for it and why shouldn't you get paid sometimes.
 
i havent read it all just abit

but so far i agree :) i work ffor free and will do in some occasions too - namely when i dont want the pressure :)
 
Thanks for the positive comments guys. I just wanted to see if pros agreed that I had the right balance of the point from a Pro's perspective as well as from the Am/Hobbyist.

I am getting good feedback overall, and am glad people of all levels can see that whilst i am not against the odd freebie for a good cause, it is too easy for peoples good will to be taken advantage of.
 
It is exactly how a pro views the problem.

What it dosen't ask is what if I am rich enough and don't need to charge?

Photography is a hobby as well as a profession, pro 'togs need to work with all members of the photography fraternity not make it elitist.

I don't understand why there is a need to try and force every shooter to charge for taking photos.

It is an argument that cannot be remedied, simply because anyone can take photographs.

Does a pro joiner go on B&Q's forum and tell everone to buy at a builders merchant and ring the joiner to do the project?
 
Carl, I see some hypocrisy in the post! You make a point of shooting bands which is fair enough :) but what is your opinion on the band charging a togger trying to gain experience for taking / using the shots he takes? the band has/ could have an image :thinking:

What about architecture shots or logos on buildings etc? ... Is that not a similar thing i.e. someone has paid a lot of money for design / creation etc. yet along comes a photographer and takes an arty shot of a Tulip outside McDonald's ;) or what about street photography with a shot of the BT tower in the background?

I dont actually disagree with the sentiment I just question the thinking? Why is it wrong for someone to ask to use an image for free :thinking: Photographers do it all the time .... Except they rarely, if ever ask :) A logo, building etc is an image to be captured, but it's still someone else's work and if it's used in a photo to make money where does it all end up :shrug:
 
Splog said:
what is your opinion on the band charging a togger trying to gain experience for taking / using the shots he takes? the band has/ could have an image :thinking:
Click to expand...

I think personally that is a situation that would be pointless to the band. What you describe is how hiring a model works, i.e they are hired for the photographers benefit not the models. Sure the band could charge, but the transaction would be for the photographers to take photos of them, so therefore it would not be a photo shoot that would not benefit the band as they are in fact being employed as models.


Splog said:
What about architecture shots or logos on buildings etc? ... Is that not a similar thing i.e. someone has paid a lot of money for design / creation etc. yet along comes a photographer and takes an arty shot of a Tulip outside McDonald's ;) or what about street photography with a shot of the BT tower in the background?
Click to expand...

That point would lead to anyone ever being able to take a photograph outside without making to payment to someone, I really don't see that as valid argument personally.


Splog said:
I dont actually disagree with the sentiment I just question the thinking? Why is it wrong for someone to ask to use an image for free :thinking: Photographers do it all the time .... Except they rarely, if ever ask :) A logo, building etc is an image to be captured, but it's still someone else's work and if it's used in a photo to make money where does it all end up :shrug:
Click to expand...

An image and an object are very different things. An object is something that is there to serve a purpose. It may be architecturally interesting, but that is not it's main purpose. Also if someone wanted to use a building (not photograph it, but use it for it's purpose) for financial gain, do you really think the owner of the building would not make a charge to the person or company. To me it is the same thing.

Thanks for taking the time to read the post though, and as I said I don't expect everyone to agree, it is nice to hear others opinions both positive and negative.
 
I do some bits and bobs for free at the minute, not 'big' things just local, few sports, friends etc etc...

...my theory is to sell my self at the minute, work for free/travelling costs.

I get my pictures I need to build up my portfolio.
My name spread about for producing 'hopefully' good pictures.
Helping the local community.
Hopefully leading to small payment once my works reaches a certain level ('in my head')

This is my hobby, I love it, if I can make a bit of money from something I love its a bonus.

The amount of time I put into my photography would be the same, with or without payment, for my self or for someone else.

I have a decent full time job which I earn my wage from.
 
ding76uk said:
I think personally that is a situation that would be pointless to the band. What you describe is how hiring a model works, i.e they are hired for the photographers benefit not the models. Sure the band could charge, but the transaction would be for the photographers to take photos of them, so therefore it would not be a photo shoot that would not benefit the band as they are in fact being employed as models.

:shrug: What's that all mean then? I walk into a pub and say "great band" can i take some pics? and they say "sure, if you give me £20" ...



That point would lead to anyone ever being able to take a photograph outside without making to payment to someone, I really don't see that as valid argument personally.

It's not an argument! It's the point I was making :shrug: (read the post I agreed with the sentiment of your post)



An image and an object are very different things. An object is something that is there to serve a purpose. It may be architecturally interesting, but that is not it's main purpose. Also if someone wanted to use a building (not photograph it, but use it for it's purpose) for financial gain, do you really think the owner of the building would not make a charge to the person or company. To me it is the same thing.

It's not about using a building! ... It's about using it's image :thinking: You seem to object to someone using an image created in camera and published in hyperspace, a book, web site or wherever :shrug: but an image created in concrete is somehow different .. :thinking:

Thanks for taking the time to read the post though, and as I said I don't expect everyone to agree, it is nice to hear others opinions both positive and negative.

Thanks for not reading my post ... I didn't disagree ... merely playing Devils advocate on the subject :D
Click to expand...

FWIW... I do agree that photographers have every right to charge for their work, but they should not feel guilty in any way for giving it away for free .. should they so choose, it is after all their work :)
 
With regards to the image of a building, what I am saying is, a building loses nothing by not being paid to be photographed, as that is not the way a building makes income. Income is generated by the purpose of the building, church / office / whatever. Whereas a photo has only one worth, that of it as an image.

As for the band asking for money to shoot them. That is there prerogative to do so, but I think takers for that opportunity would be low.

I did read your post, which had both positive and negative elements towards my blog post, which I took on board when I spoke of both positive and negative comments. Sorry if it caused offence. Also I think you mistook my use of the word argument, I meant it in the same way as a vaild point, not tying to argue with anyone.
 
don't understand why this is such a heated debate.

people can give away their pictures if they want or they can ask for something in return wither money or product.
 
Ive never really understood this argument. Is it not the same as say a band giving out free cds to gain exposure? No one has a problem with that.
 
I disagree with your blog post right from the title. "If you're good at something never do it for free."

I design and write computer programs as well as do server and network admin for the company I work for as my full time employment. I'm good at it. I have no qualms about configuring and fixing computers for friends and family. For free. I know it is a paid service a lot of companies and individuals offer, other people can charge if they want to, I'm not going to. So by fixing people's computers for free I'm taking work away from IT support companies. No-one seems to complain about it though, unlike people giving away photographs for free.

My main hobby is motorsport, competing and organising, plus some marshalling. The way I think is what makes me good at my job, a way of logically stripping a problem down to its core elements so they can be solved. It also makes me good at solving other problems, so I do all the mechanics on my race car and help people with theirs if they need it (I have zero mechanical training). At one event one of the other competitors in my class had a problem with the electrics on his car he couldn't solve. The home-made wiring was rubbish, there were all sorts of problems with it and it wouldn't run. I managed to figure out what wire was supposed to do what, re-wire it so he had ignition and a working starter and got the car running again. He went on to win the class, beating me. I didn't ask for or expect anything in return, although he did lend me his new car last year to compete in an event as mine is not running at the moment - what goes around comes around.

Anyway, to get to photography :p, when I'm not competing, organising or marshalling I'm likely to be at events with my camera. I give CDs to friends if I have taken good pictures of them competing. I have no desire to make money from my photographs, I take them for my pleasure so I don't offer them for sale.

I would not be happy if someone used my photos without asking, but that is not the same as me giving it away for free. I would be really unhappy to be told I should not give my work away - it's mine, it is my choice what I do with it.
 
Mark if you read the post, you would see I also do photos for friends and photography for free. I am a teacher by profession and also help friends kids with extra tuition and stuff. Friends are not the problem.

I could do with a network storage solution building for my 3 computers in my house, I could also do with another computer, how you fixed? Actually my brakes are squeaky, you mind doing them as well? You do it for fun with cars, so no payment, sorry. I won't hold my breath of you doing it.

Friends and family is not this issue, if you read the post I am not against free work, but when it is used for COMMERCIAL GAIN is where I have a problem. E.g. You built a complete home system for someone, and they then sold your work for a nice tidy profit, how would you feel then?
 
Splog said:
but what is your opinion on the band charging a togger trying to gain experience for taking / using the shots he takes? the band has/ could have an image :thinking:
Click to expand...
The band gets images out of it at the end. It's the same principle as doing tfp/tfcd shoots with a model.

Splog said:
logos on buildings etc?
Click to expand...
If you look at any of the stock websites, if the images are being used for any purpose other than editorial, logos must be removed from the images. Trademarked designs (iPhones, PSPs, etc.) are also protected and rejected by many stock image libraries for commercial use.

So, you wouldn't be profiting from somebody else's design work.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top