Reading mode: Light Dark

Are there still Ethics and Morals these days?

Go to last post
I don't know...but I have sold prints 15 years out of cats.......actually got two orders in the same month a few years ago....that had been taken at the same show 15 or so years prior.....probably both cats had just died.....but the coincidence was remarkable.....
--
Richard Katris aka Chanan
 
when a publishing client asks for world rights all languages all editions...I could just say OK....but I don't. I ask them why they think they need that and ask if they really want to pay the difference between that and one time book rights single edition North American English Language....as the difference is likely to be double or 4x for the former, rather than the latter. When couched in those terms you are educating the client as to how to save some money.

If all your competitors are handing over world rights/all languages for the same price you are....you could have a problem...and that is basically the problem in the portrait industry. The issue is if the fee is sustainable or not at that level...and the problem is if the client views the work of all photographers as interchangeable....that becomes a problem as price becomes the determining factor in all decisions.

If you match your competitor's unsustainable business model...and you end up going out of business....well you get the picture. If the spiral continues downward....then the very concept of a career that can earn a living in photography becomes suspect....and perhaps that is where we are headed...with the exception of business where the client does not view the photographers as interchangeable...and in that case the photographer IS in control, and can dictate how they will work with the client...and it in that portion of the business that will succeed...and not the one that is based on what the other guys are delivering..... You have to stand your ground at some point...there will always be someone who will undercut you on price or "value"...ie the full res files or copyright or something....if you always capitulate to the demands of the client you will shortly be working for free.

Is it worth working for free vs. getting a new job or profession? Is that why so many people are getting out of the business? I think so....if the client's demands are not ones that allow you to make a decent living...the client is not one you want.
--
Richard Katris aka Chanan
 
time20n said:
People should push fair use laws even more, we can make copy's of TV shows, music, even photos if we own one copy, to me taking photos of kids and family's is for hire work.
Click to expand...
There is a reason copyright exists: The person who can produce the copies will garner all benefits of creation.

Copyright was unnecessary before the invention of movable type--because making copies was so darned expensive (time-consuming, difficult, requiring the rooming-and-boarding of teams of highly trained copyists).

The invention of movable type put the power to copy into the hands of publishers, and it was not long before it became obvious that the publishers very quickly created a monopoly on the very ownership of knowledge and art . It was actually a very scary situation that was easily and widely seen as the harbinger the end of science and art.

The first copyright laws were passed so that scientists (that is, "knowlege-producers") and artists would be able to earn a reasonable living through their creativity and that so the use of their products would pass into public domain.

Today, the power to copy has passed to the end user (the public domain), but the original danger has still not passed. If Tom Clancy had to continue to sell insurance to earn his living, we'd probably have no more than his first novel.

If a singer-songwriter wrote a simple song that became popular as he performed it in local pubs-- then half a dozen producers took that song, recorded it with their house musicians, promoted it, sold it as their own around the world, destroying the ability of the creator even to perform it in local pubs...how long would singer-songwriters continue to exist?

--
RDKirk
'TANSTAAFL: The only unbreakable rule in photography.'
 
RDKirk said:
.how long would singer-songwriters continue to exist?
Click to expand...
They'd exist but probably work for some multi national music conglomerate........or continue to do it just for the fun of it. Like open sourced software.

Photography won't cease to exist with out copyright protections but the business end of it would change, it would look and work differently.

--
Nick in Shanghai.
 
Nick in Shanghai said:
They'd exist but probably work for some multi national music conglomerate........or continue to do it just for the fun of it. Like open sourced software.
Click to expand...
Even the originators of open source software depend on moral copyright agreements. This would obviate even moral copyright--anyone could say "I wrote it," not just add to it.

Moreover, I think most purely creative (as opposed to utilitarian) works such as music and photography won't have very many originally creative people interested in being "open sources" for the muses of others. There may be some--I don't think Doyle would have minded fan-fiction of Sherlock Holmes, but that's an extreme minority view among such people.

--
RDKirk
'TANSTAAFL: The only unbreakable rule in photography.'
 
RDKirk said:
RDKirk said:
won't have very many originally creative people interested in being "open sources" for the muses of others.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Plenty of creative people work for a 'buy out'. Many photographers do especially when producing movie posters for instance. I've worked for some. I wouldn't be surprised if some big corp multinational companies work on a limited 'buy out' with creatives.

If you don't make much money on fees I can understand the issues and the need to sell prints and trinkets, but if that is your market and that market is disorganised and unsophisticated with regard to copyrights/usage in both supplier and customer then if you want to compete you will at some point have to make a compromise or two or be prepared to turn down work.

Supply and demand.

--
Nick in Shanghai.
 
Simple math.

Assume I need to be paid $40,000 to support my family and therefore the photography business needs to bring in around $90,000 a year to pay me, taxes, rent, insurance, advertising, etc.

If there are 50 weeks a year to work and a session takes 5 hours with shoot/edit/sale/assembly and I need 3 hours a day for running the business part of it, I can do 5 sessions a week working alone.

That's 250 sessions a year, so I need to average $360 per session. It doesn't matter if they get prints or files.

I can do this the old way - $50 session fee and $80 8x10s, $150 11x14s, framing, $250 canvas wraps, etc. You as the customer can buy as much or as little as you want. You only buy the poses you like. You pay and go home to enjoy your images. Before the sale the images only get a cursury edit. Full edits only happen on the 4 or 5 poses that get bought for prints

New Method A: The session fee is $350 and the disk of all the images shot is $10. You get all the images, good and bad, and go home with a disk. If all you want is to see them on your computer or digi pic frame you're done. If you want prints now you have to find a place, go there or upload, order, pay for prints and shipping, wait, then enjoy them. Why would a client pay the same for less product (prints?) They still don't want the 'bad' images so they're not actually getting any more images in this way. Without the cost of prints they'll expect to pay less. Does the photog fully edit every image since they get every image? That takes more time, and time is money

New Method B: Session fee is $250, a print is $5. Easily they'll buy 10 images at that price. But they'll likley buy 15 so now you have to edit images for $5 each and print them too. It's called working for peanuts

New Method C: Session fee of $150 perhaps, and each hi res fully edited file is $50. They should buy 4 as they'd have bought 4 prints in the old days. But will people buy multiple files at $50 each? My experience is they won't unless they're a business. People want the files - for free or close to it. What's a file worth? Try and sell hi res files to brides. 400 images for $2000? Nope. $400? Perhaps. So a file is worth $1 because that's all they'll pay for it.

An 8x10 is worth $80 because that's what they'll pay for it. You choice on how you do it, but the old method works, has worked and continues to work. If it's not working for you, then YOU are doing something wrong. Pricing, presentation, sales ability, your belief in yourself/images/product, etc.
--
If I knew how to take a good picture I'd do it every time.
 
The biggest problem is the Walmart effect, the "bad money" effect--when the market overwhelmingly decides that the obviously inferior product is "good enough" and prefers inferiority based on price alone.

This is what's happening in stock. We see it also in photojournalism--even in literary electronic journalism--where "I-Reports" from some guy on the street with a phone camera share top-line exposure on CNN with their veteran correspondents. At some point, we'll see CNN abandon expensive house correspondents and depend totally on free "I-Reports."

--
RDKirk
'TANSTAAFL: The only unbreakable rule in photography.'
 
the business end would be come un-sustainable w/o copyright... You say the business end is changing and we have to adjust to the market. I say if the market degrades to zero, it isn't a market that will sustain a professional....adjusting to that market would kill the professionals in the field leaving only amateurs who do not price their work based upon cost and who drag down the income potential of the field.

Compete with enough stilled amateurs who don't have to earn a dime because they are retired from a different field who are just looking to occupy their retirement time "doing something they love", and who charge fees that are not commensurate with their real expenses can kill the profession.

Unless your prices are realistic and you can sustain yourself from that income level (work 20% of time earn 20% of your income etc.) , you are likely underpricing and hurting the ability of those who are trying to earn an income as a profession.

Sure you can sell lots of work and get it published by not charging for it....does that make your work as good as the pro who gets paid for its usage? No...just means the buyer is willing to possibly make quality sacrifices in order to pay a cheaper price. If you get the wedding because you charge 20% of what the average pro in your area does....does that make you level with the pros in terms of your ability? No...just means you found a client willing to use price as their prime criterion.

I agree....some amateurs are as good or better than lots of pros...but if they under-price themselves they are hurting the entire profession.

It is my view again...the print IS the product still....if you sell them a file and they then manipulate it...and then make a print ...psychologically to the client...who made the image? To them likely they did...so in time they are going to figure they really don't need to hire anyone at all....and the market goes away.... The very nature of handing over the file (an incomplete product) allows all sorts of problems with the client's perception of what they have paid for in the photography... If they do not like the file because they have a bad monitor...who they gonna blame? You guessed it...the photographer...because they have a $2000 new computer that the computer salesperson told them is the best.....again...they have learned another reason to "not need a pro at all"..."because they can do as well". Do you think this is a good way to build a business and client base? I don't.

I supply web files for the clients to "share"...and use on their web sites....they cut off my name...collage the images to make a pretty composite that may incorporate my images and others...all now uncredited...they have created "their" work...so what happened to me and my input and credit, and copyright....

You have to have a contract that spells out rights, limitations, and usages...and then lam-blast them gently, and NICELY..but firmly.....when they don't comply...and hope they learn and don't repeat it. If they annoy you enough and continue to misuse your work... stop doing work for them at all....

I know....you can't possibly have a disagreement with your client and keep them... NO...you have to stand up for your own rights and not be afraid to lose the work you shouldn't want...you have to learn to say NO to some clients if you want to have a successful business that can stand the test of time.

Your first duty is NOT to the client...it is to your family and yourself to earn enough to support them or yourself. If your client doesn't get that....then they are not really a potential client at all.
--
Richard Katris aka Chanan
 
Kiz said:
Well, yes, of course if she leaves the name of the person off they get no publicity. Of course she should have found out his or her name and posted that at well. I just see that as some kind of simple mistake with a good intent, rather than some sign of moral or ethical degeneration.

And yes, intent does make a difference. In your car hits kid scenario it would make a huge difference if you hit the kid accidentally or was running him down for the sheer pleasure of it, and the law would take that into consideration. Same with this case. If it was done as a malicious act or deliberate theft maybe yell in that thread and start a new one but seriously, a simple act of ignorance, done with a good intent, really only deserves a polite heads up. That poor woman will probably run from every "pro" photographer she sees from now on.
Click to expand...
Leaving a name out may or may not have been intentional. To photographers who are aware of copyrights, like here, its bad to omit credit. to the general public, a camera is a camera, in a medical lab, a tube is a tube to an untrained eye. The OP was making a kind remark in my opinion.
--

28 years as a freelancer,(news,magazine, wedding photography) camera equip. over the years: Practica MLT, Canon A1, Minolta 9xi, 7xi, Dimage Z1,Fuji 5200,Canon S2,Pentax K100D,Olympus 380,Canon SX 10 ( http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v104/Buckl/ )
http://issuu.com/Lbuck
 
Richard Katris said:
the business end would be come un-sustainable w/o copyright... You say the business end is changing and we have to adjust to the market. I say if the market degrades to zero, it isn't a market that will sustain a professional....
Click to expand...
Only when you have something that is easily repeatable. If your images have a style, look or a quality, that intangible, your eye, something that sets them beyond and above the average professional or hobbyist then you will succeed and under the terms you dictate. There are always discerning customers that want better than average and will pay for it.

If you don't have those skills and the customer base you will not be in the position to dictate to the market..................it will dictate to you.
Richard Katris said:
Sure you can sell lots of work and get it published by not charging for it....does that make your work as good as the pro who gets paid for its usage? No...just means the buyer is willing to possibly make quality sacrifices in order to pay a cheaper price.
Click to expand...
Charging for something and not charging makes no difference in the final product.

I could charge you for a Kia or I could give you a Rolls Royce but it doesn't make the Kia a higher quality car just because I charged you for it.
Richard Katris said:
It is my view again...the print IS the product still....
Click to expand...
The product is the product. File or print. If neither one is any good you won't get clients, doesn't matter how much gear you have or how fast your computer is. If your images stink they stink.

The level is the level. If you find that you are competing with inferior product there is a reason. Marketing or ability.

--
Nick in Shanghai.
 
the market that is discerning enough to tell the difference between quality and not is shrinking. The difference between what they can do themselves...and the average that they perceive is the norm from a "professional" (at least to them)...is also shrinking.

IF the expression is king...and to most clients I think it is....then the parent who can concentrate and take 500 photos of their little darling playing soccer will get more satisfying results than any pro trying to cover all the kids on both teams in the game. Sure the pro's shots are better and more of them are much better...but if the parent gets one shot that is acceptable to them.....they aren't going to buy the pro's work.

Currently this applies to news agencies who are soliciting camera phone photos in lieu of sending out a reporter and photographer, to wedding couples who view the wedding photos as just a record of the event and not one that they particularly care about the quality of the photos...and yes to portrait clients who can take 5000 photos with their PS camera to get one good one...It affects advertising buyers who are using microstock, and book publishers who just need photos and have no idea that the quality of one image is superior to another. Price has gone down to a level of what is "good enough".

You are quite correct...you have to be very good....and have a salable niche market/skill set to survive today...and if you are that good you can dictate what you will sell and it will not scare the clients away...any more than your price which is probably much higher than what they could get a bid for from some amateur who just wants to pay for a lens or two......so I feel it is in your interest to maintain more control of the imagery and the final renditions of it if you have that advantage already, rather than relinquish it to the hopefully less talented client to bring down to the level of what they could have produced themselves without your help....in order to retain the market we still have as professionals. Hence my argument to try not to sell files outright as a business model.. There are always going to be exceptions where that may be the product that is desired, but that is no reason to reformulate an entirely new working business model for all your clients, most of whom ...if you are good enough will be perfectly happy getting prints still if that is what you tell them you sell.

The only way a client gets to know who is worth paying for, and who is not is if they use the services of a photographer often. Most people just don't....if they don't, then they are not likely to know who is worth paying for..and who is not. Once stung a few fimes with work that is not worth paying for...and they will just stop using "professional photographers" at all. Therein lies the problem with lesser competition, their bad work drives potential clients out of the market altogether.

Branding, and reputation are paramount in getting new clients....service is in keeping old ones. For many in photography their clients are not repeat ones....they are one time things...weddings.....senior photos etc.. I have clients in my database that I have shot for 20--50 times, some starting 20-30 years ago. One in particular, 34 years ago, who often reminds me that I used to charge a quarter...referencing the very first time I went out to experiment in my field in a venue where no "for profit" work was allowed....a National Guard Armory...so I charged just 25 cents for postage that first time to test the waters and build a portfolio....the next week it was for a much much higher fee... My long term clients know why to come to me, and have confidence in my ability to deliver.....my new clients come to me for the first time either from word of mouth...but as much as that, from my branding and my signature that they have seen for as long as most of them have even thought of needing my niche services.

But my point is that you are right, service and quality matter and do insulate you from both the competition and to some degree the perceived changes in what the market asks for...and if you have that leverage that you should use it in ways that will improve your visibility and your stature in your market...not bury it in the anonymity of giving it all away.

To each their own....it is just what works for me.
--
Richard Katris aka Chanan
 
Richard Katris said:
. Hence my argument to try not to sell files outright as a business model..
Click to expand...
Different business model....... different needs.

If your business model does not fit within the requirements of it's market. You can either change the needs of market or your business model to fit within it.

If clients want files you'll have a hard time selling them prints especially if you are offering them nothing special...........reverse it and it's the same depending on the client and business model.
Richard Katris said:
Once stung a few fimes with work that is not worth paying for...and they will just stop using "professional photographers" at all. Therein lies the problem with lesser competition, their bad work drives potential clients out of the market altogether.
Click to expand...
If you buy a particular brand of car, it's rubbish and breaks down constantly do you stop buying cars altogether ?
No............you become more discerning.
Richard Katris said:
But my point is that you are right, service and quality matter and do insulate you from both the competition and to some degree the perceived changes in what the market asks for...and if you have that leverage that you should use it in ways that will improve your visibility and your stature in your market...not bury it in the anonymity of giving it all away.
Click to expand...
I'm not giving it away. I charge accordingly. Those that are giving it away would probably have a hard time charging appropriately for it anyway. And if they are giving it away, if that's what they want to do, who am I to insist they stop.

The more bad photography that is given away the better it is for those that create better images and are charging for it..

Jumpy cheap looking cell phone crap video journalism looks like what it is. Commercial advertising looks like it does and it doesn't look like some backyard, out of focus, poorly lit and composed wedding snap either.............but if someone wants to buy that because it's cheap and use it as advertising, so be it.

--
Nick in Shanghai.
 
PenguinPhotoCo said:
What has happened to ethics and morals?

I know they're still teaching kids in school not to claim other's work as their own, and to give credit to their sources in reports.

I've seen it happen in other forums, and now it's happening here. The posting of images that the poster didn't create and they're not giving credit to the person(s) that did the creation of the image.

It's no wonder that professional photography is becoming less profitable. Even those that claim to be in the field don't seem recognize that you should get credit for your creations, and should control (to whatever extent possible) where and how your images are shown and used.

If you don't get credit and have no control then you'll have no income as what you produce lacks any value.

In another thread I was lambasted for calling a spade a spade. It's just I have a ethics and when I see something that is wrong, I speak up. Call it morals or perhaps a conscience if you wish.

I have one. Do you?
Click to expand...
You picked a fight in another thread that challenged an innocuous image post. There were no victims to protect and your ad nausea comments did not help your credibility.

Having said that, in many "valid" cases of infringement, some members of today's society take on the "If I can't be found guilty in a court of law, then I can do whatever pleases me." mode of behavior.

Many people are no longer concerned about the interests of or negligent harm they may cause others. They are only worried about if it is legal and could they be found liable?

In the case you were embattled in in the other thread, your commentary made it appear as though your ego took supreme reign of your typing hand and you kept digging a deeper and deeper hole for yourself.

I recommend that you back off of this thing and try and re-think what you have gotten yourself into with some very impractical reasoning.

There might even be a coincidental benefit for the photographic enterprise (if their name were to be attributed to the images) that took the original pictures in the way of some free advertising exposure without any potential downside for the enterprise.

Go slow with your responses here in the forum. Sometimes some careful forethought can save some credibility.

Dan
PenguinPhotoCo said:
--
Click to expand...
--

Will I learn from life's lessons or will I lose my faith in the goodness life's promise had to offer?
 
Pro's don't always know what the couple want in photos, they surely don't spend the time needed to know the couples that good, I done my brothers and sisters kid weddings and knew pretty much what they wanted.

And what I didn't know I told them, if they want any taken let me know and I'll take them, went out of my way to insure I got all the group shots they wanted, for me it was all about them as it's was their day.

I do wildlife and weddings are not my thing for sure, but they and family was very happy with the photos, I give them the org and fixed ones burned to a DVD. And burned about 10 DVD's with just fixed ones for them to give out, and of course give them full copy rights to them all.

My point is pro's don't always know what people want, what they think is great may not be great to other people, some people love walmart's cheap studio shoots like grand parents, may want photos but don't want to spend to much to get them, as cost start adding up, once they start handing out prints.
--
My psig photos at photosig http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=169695
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

OldNoob007
I wish Adorama would not use USPS.. Here's Why
Replies
2
Views
7K
NAwlins Contrarian
N
Z
A WIDE-RANGING REVIEW OF TOPAZ LABS - WARNING LONG POST
2
Replies
28
Views
61K
Ernie Misner
Ernie Misner
Chrisinhouston
R6 MKII back at CPS for the 3rd time with same issue!
Replies
3
Views
5K
R2D2
R2D2
A
A little anecdote 😅 and a question about the EVF:
Replies
8
Views
58K
alpshiker
A
fuji_phil_e
Possible ebay scam, item sent to buyer
Replies
9
Views
3K
fuji_phil_e
fuji_phil_e

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top