My biggest gripe as a photographer...

As a photographer, we are being robbed blind.

With the advent of digital photography, and the access to thousands upon thousands of images on the internet (not to mention - everybody who now calls themselves "a photographer" because they now have a digital camera) - individuals who have actually studied or honed their skills at the craft are being swindled blind and kicked while we are down.

This is my biggest gripe as a photographer and I have to share my story and other stories from photographers around the globe who are in the same leaky boat...


A blogrant from this site:

You want to know what a picture is worth? Ask Time, Inc. (People), Hello, and the other international publications who have now paid millions of pounds, dollars, euros, and who knows what else for the exclusive first publication rights to the Brangelina baby pics.

Now, I have absolutely no interest in the images from the celebrity standpoint--I’ve never cared for either parent as actors and really don’t care if they have one or a dozen babies. I will look at the images like I do most images, with a critical eye, and I won’t go out of my way to get my hands on the pubs with them, but that’s just me and I’m weird in that.

What does interest me about the pics is that incredibly high price. Some photographers are bitching and complaining about it--railing about the unfairness of Time, Inc. paying such sums when they make “regular” photographers take low fees. But here’s the thing--numbers like that mean that they do understand the value of images and they are willing to negotiate.

What does that mean to the average photographer? It is yet ANOTHER reason to hold the line on prices and to negotiate better deals, or walk away from the table. Use the fact that they shelled out so much money for those images as one of your negotiating tactics.

Oh, and no one ever “makes” a photographer take a crap deal; s/he chooses to do that him/herself. Always. You can always say “no.”

The second part of the story is that Time, Inc. and Hello are going after gawker.com for infringing on copyright and their exclusive publication rights. Gawker, a blog-ish site that has repeatedly stolen images and other material to fill its pages, published a small version of one of the photos, in its original context on the cover the the publication. Ooops! That’s a double infringement--the image AND the cover as a whole. And the lawyers at Time, Inc. and Hello are serious about this.

Now why would they be bothering if they weren’t aware how important their intellectual property rights were? What value they held? They know, and every creative should know the value of his/her work as well.

As I posted on one of the photo forums earlier, infringement makes for strange bedfellows--go get ‘em Time. Inc.!

and another from Wired magazine:
Thank you Jeff Howe for that delightful and insightful article.
You can read his brilliant blog followup to the article here
(and I suggest you do!)


The Rise of Crowdsourcing
1. The Professional

Remember outsourcing? Sending jobs to India and China is so 2003. The new pool of cheap labor: everyday people using their spare cycles to create content, solve problems, even do corporate R & D.

Claudia Menashe needed pictures of sick people. A project director at the National Health Museum in Washington, DC, Menashe was putting together a series of interactive kiosks devoted to potential pandemics like the avian flu. An exhibition designer had created a plan for the kiosk itself, but now Menashe was looking for images to accompany the text. Rather than hire a photographer to take shots of people suffering from the flu, Menashe decided to use preexisting images – stock photography, as it’s known in the publishing industry.

In October 2004, she ran across a stock photo collection by Mark Harmel, a freelance photographer living in Manhattan Beach, California. Harmel, whose wife is a doctor, specializes in images related to the health care industry. “Claudia wanted people sneezing, getting immunized, that sort of thing,” recalls Harmel, a slight, soft-spoken 52-year-old.
The National Health Museum has grand plans to occupy a spot on the National Mall in Washington by 2012, but for now it’s a fledgling institution with little money. “They were on a tight budget, so I charged them my nonprofit rate,” says Harmel, who works out of a cozy but crowded office in the back of the house he shares with his wife and stepson. He offered the museum a generous discount: $100 to $150 per photograph. “That’s about half of what a corporate client would pay,” he says. Menashe was interested in about four shots, so for Harmel, this could be a sale worth $600.

After several weeks of back-and-forth, Menashe emailed Harmel to say that, regretfully, the deal was off. “I discovered a stock photo site called iStockphoto,” she wrote, “which has images at very affordable prices.” That was an understatement. The same day, Menashe licensed 56 pictures through iStockphoto – for about $1 each.

iStockphoto, which grew out of a free image-sharing exchange used by a group of graphic designers, had undercut Harmel by more than 99 percent. How? By creating a marketplace for the work of amateur photographers – homemakers, students, engineers, dancers. There are now about 22,000 contributors to the site, which charges between $1 and $5 per basic image. (Very large, high-resolution pictures can cost up to $40.) Unlike professionals, iStockers don’t need to clear $130,000 a year from their photos just to break even; an extra $130 does just fine. “I negotiate my rate all the time,” Harmel says. “But how can I compete with a dollar?”
He can’t, of course. For Harmel, the harsh economics lesson was clear: The product Harmel offers is no longer scarce. Professional-grade cameras now cost less than $1,000. With a computer and a copy of Photoshop, even entry-level enthusiasts can create photographs rivaling those by professionals like Harmel. Add the Internet and powerful search technology, and sharing these images with the world becomes simple.

At first, the stock industry aligned itself against iStockphoto and other so-called microstock agencies like ShutterStock and Dreamstime. Then, in February, Getty Images, the largest agency by far with more than 30 percent of the global market, purchased iStockphoto for $50 million. “If someone’s going to cannibalize your business, better it be one of your other businesses,” says Getty CEO Jonathan Klein. iStockphoto’s revenue is growing by about 14 percent a month and the service is on track to license about 10 million images in 2006 – several times what Getty’s more expensive stock agencies will sell. iStockphoto’s clients now include bulk photo purchasers like IBM and United Way, as well as the small design firms once forced to go to big stock houses. “I was using Corbis and Getty, and the image fees came out of my design fees, which kept my margin low,” notes one UK designer in an email to the company.

“iStockphoto’s micro-payment system has allowed me to increase my profit margin.” Welcome to the age of the crowd. Just as distributed computing projects like UC Berkeley’s SETI@home have tapped the unused processing power of millions of individual computers, so distributed labor networks are using the Internet to exploit the spare processing power of millions of human brains. The open source software movement proved that a network of passionate, geeky volunteers could write code just as well as the highly paid developers at Microsoft or Sun Microsystems. Wikipedia showed that the model could be used to create a sprawling and surprisingly comprehensive online encyclopedia. And companies like eBay and MySpace have built profitable businesses that couldn’t exist without the contributions of users.

All these companies grew up in the Internet age and were designed to take advantage of the networked world. But now the productive potential of millions of plugged-in enthusiasts is attracting the attention of old-line businesses, too. For the last decade or so, companies have been looking overseas, to India or China, for cheap labor. But now it doesn’t matter where the laborers are – they might be down the block, they might be in Indonesia – as long as they are connected to the network.

Technological advances in everything from product design software to digital video cameras are breaking down the cost barriers that once separated amateurs from professionals. Hobbyists, part-timers, and dabblers suddenly have a market for their efforts, as smart companies in industries as disparate as pharmaceuticals and television discover ways to tap the latent talent of the crowd. The labor isn’t always free, but it costs a lot less than paying traditional employees. It’s not outsourcing; it’s crowdsourcing.

It took a while for Harmel to recognize what was happening. “When the National Health Museum called, I’d never heard of iStockphoto,” he says. “But now, I see it as the first hole in the dike.” In 2000, Harmel made roughly $69,000 from a portfolio of 100 stock photographs, a tidy addition to what he earned from commissioned work. Last year his stock business generated less money – $59,000 – from more than 1,000 photos. That’s quite a bit more work for less money.

Harmel isn’t the only photographer feeling the pinch. Last summer, there was a flurry of complaints on the Stock Artists Alliance online forum. “People were noticing a significant decline in returns on their stock portfolios,” Harmel says. “I can’t point to iStockphoto and say it’s the culprit, but it has definitely put downward pressure on prices.” As a result, he has decided to shift the focus of his business to assignment work. “I just don’t see much of a future for professional stock photography,” he says.

I have even more painful stories from the front - those come next...