Peter Burgess
New member
graham said:
And thus provide a free platform for any really good photographers to get themselves known.
Re: debate about "photos needed for 'The Complete Caving Manual'" and the commerical use of photographs
- Thread starter Tony_B
- Start date
And thus provide a free platform for any really good photographers to get themselves known.
Wolfart
New member
Last year i had the privalage of designing the Hidden Earth T Shirt, 
Panic set in and what swine set me up for that,anyhow I was told that I could copy the picture of the poster which was by R Shone . I made a point to find him at Hidden Earth and thanked him and he was ok about it, I think it turned out allright. :-\
I would never copy a photo without someones permission to sell a piece of artwork unless it was my own photo which I have used on very few occassions
Panic set in and what swine set me up for that,anyhow I was told that I could copy the picture of the poster which was by R Shone . I made a point to find him at Hidden Earth and thanked him and he was ok about it, I think it turned out allright. :-\I would never copy a photo without someones permission to sell a piece of artwork unless it was my own photo which I have used on very few occassions
Peter Burgess
New member
It's a matter of supply and demand. If you are a really good photographer, but not yet recognised as such, then once you have placed your work under public scrutiny, you are in a position to say, "you like my photos, you pay for them". If you have never had the opportunity to show how good you are, nobody is going to ask you. To be able to put on your CV that your photos were used in an excellent and widely distributed caving book is a good first step.Tony_B said:
It's all very well using emotive words like 'mugs' and 'money-grabbing', but the bottom line is that you can be absolutely brilliant at what you do but if you are not known, then its hard work to get yourself into the limelight. With the internet this is becoming much easier, and not just in the area of photography. Good authors and musicians now have more chance than ever before of getting their work recognised. Unfortunately it is also much easier for others to take that work and not pay for it, which is why you do have a point. But as I said before, there is no black and white on this issue. People will do what they want, whether you like it or not. Swim with the tide and look for the opportunities, or struggle and get nowhere.
Tony_B
Member
Peter Burgess said:
By which time, publishers will be sure of the fact that they can get pictures for free if they go about it the right way. And that will be seen as their value.
Crowood aren't offering The Complete Caving Manual as a marketing opportunity for struggling cave photographers to showcase their work, there's no money on offer here for anyone, established or otherwise. So don't send them photos.
A note to aspiring cave photographers tempted by Crowood's offer: a by-line in a caving book isn't going to have publishers beating a path to your door waving wads of cash for their next project, however good your pictures are. If your images are good enough then try submitting them to an online picture library such as alamy.com. That way if publishers use your work you get paid for it.
Peter Burgess
New member
Tony_B said:
Of course they're not. But that doesn't stop anyone using it as such if they want to try. This forum isn't primarily designed for me (and others) to advertise for nothing books they have written. But it doesn't mean that I'm not going to take advantage of the forum for that purpose, as long as I don't abuse the opportunity it gives me.
Who says the potential photographers are 'struggling' anyway? They might just be testing the waters, or just glad of the opportunity for a little fame. And why not, I say.
So the publisher of a forthcoming book has offered cave photographers the opportunity to have their photos in the book, for which the photographers will receive no payment. Why stop there? Why not ask members of the forum to write a chapter each, again for no payment? Then you could ask the clubs to meet the printing costs. Meanwhile the publishers are laughing all the way to the bank...
(Sorry Andy, this is not intened as a criticism of you, and whatever happens I will buy a copy of the book and so will my club.)
(Sorry Andy, this is not intened as a criticism of you, and whatever happens I will buy a copy of the book and so will my club.)
Peter Burgess
New member
No, Martin. Andy's original post below:
The publisher has offered no budget for photographs, so Andy is asking for help in providing some. I think your scenario is a teeny bit far fetched! The issue is that the publishers have a bit of a cheek doing this, but as I see it, if they won't budge, Andy has no alternative. In which case, why not use the opportunity such as it is, to get your photo into a good book?
Tony's case (I think) is that by refusing to provide photos for nothing, we can force the publisher to relent and pay up. I suspect this is a bit like farmers asking Tesco to pay the going rate for the milk that they buy. Nice if they did (for the dairy farmers) but not much prospect of them doing so in the near future.
Andy Sparrow said:
The publisher has offered no budget for photographs, so Andy is asking for help in providing some. I think your scenario is a teeny bit far fetched! The issue is that the publishers have a bit of a cheek doing this, but as I see it, if they won't budge, Andy has no alternative. In which case, why not use the opportunity such as it is, to get your photo into a good book?
Tony's case (I think) is that by refusing to provide photos for nothing, we can force the publisher to relent and pay up. I suspect this is a bit like farmers asking Tesco to pay the going rate for the milk that they buy. Nice if they did (for the dairy farmers) but not much prospect of them doing so in the near future.
Peter Burgess
New member
I suppose it depends on whether Andy thinks they are practical, realistic, or affordable. If they don't pass that test, then they are not alternatives.
Peter Burgess
New member
That's the nub of it then. Andy isn't supposed to make money by writing a book. Why not?
Peter Burgess
New member
I suppose if he chose to take the photos himself, you would expect him to pay those who helped him, or posed as models in the shots? Or just maybe cavers would be happy to get a portrait of themselves into the book for nothing? Where does it all stop?
Andy Sparrow
Active member
I actually make a grand total of about ?80 a year from the book.
This is because the book only sells about 80 copies a year. I don't know what the production costs are but let's guess, for the sake of argument, ?4. They pay me a quid, sell at ?10 and are left with ?5 a book. So they make ?400 a year from the book - not exactly a fortune and not surprising they are so tight on their budget. The book needs 50 photos and if they pay ?20 a pic they have lost their first two years profit. When the new edition comes out I wont actually get a penny for about 5 years - this is because they don't pay me a fee - just royalties in advance.
Remember, guys, that for the last few years this has been the only in-print caving manual in the UK and the economics of publishing make it just barely worthwhile. It would be a sad day if there was no book of this kind available for the next generation of cavers. Maybe we should just be glad that Crowood are prepared to produce a new edition of such a low earner and give it the support it needs.
This is because the book only sells about 80 copies a year. I don't know what the production costs are but let's guess, for the sake of argument, ?4. They pay me a quid, sell at ?10 and are left with ?5 a book. So they make ?400 a year from the book - not exactly a fortune and not surprising they are so tight on their budget. The book needs 50 photos and if they pay ?20 a pic they have lost their first two years profit. When the new edition comes out I wont actually get a penny for about 5 years - this is because they don't pay me a fee - just royalties in advance.
Remember, guys, that for the last few years this has been the only in-print caving manual in the UK and the economics of publishing make it just barely worthwhile. It would be a sad day if there was no book of this kind available for the next generation of cavers. Maybe we should just be glad that Crowood are prepared to produce a new edition of such a low earner and give it the support it needs.
Duncan Price
Active member
AMW said:
Ditto "A Glimmering in Darkness" - whilst a large part of the illustrations were used from the author's collection, specific photographers whose work could be attributed got free copies. That's all I've ever asked for when my work has been used, sadly with mixed success. Fortunately I (just) make a living from my day job. I would suggest that anyone who contributes to said publication gets a free copy likewise.
nickwilliams
Well-known member
People who spout off about the value of intellectual property need to recognise that there is no law of physics which says that an author or a photographer (or, indeed, a musician, artist or whatever) will receive payment for their artistic endeavours. Once you realise this and accept that copyright is merely a legal construct, it becomes much easier to understand that an author's right to reward from their work is a bargain which requires obligations on both sides to be fulfilled. The people making use of the work are obliged to pay a fair price for it, and the artist is obliged to produce a work of value.
This then becomes a simple argument about what constitutes a fair price, and as with any goods, the value of an artist's or writer's work is no more or no less than someone is prepared to pay for it. This introduces the law of supply and demand into the equation, and in a world where so many people would love to be an 'artist' and make cash from their hobbies, and technology provides a means to make the costs of delivery essentially negligible, it becomes inevitable that the value of an individual 'artwork' will be very low, so unless very large numbers are sold, the income to the artist is also going to be low.
Having spent a significant part of my life working as a production engineer, I have come to recognise that it is far better to make a living by finding a way of delivering a very large number of products to the market at a price which is so low that it is not worth anyone else trying to copy it than to price the product high in the expectation that the unique features of the product can be protected by legal means. Copyright infringement is just another challenge for producers and, as the recorded music industry has found to its cost, failure to recognise the need to adapt your business model to the changing realities of your market place can have only one long term result.
Almost all of us consume more than we produce, and so (leaving aside the environmental arguments for the moment) the greater 'good' of society as a whole is in general served better by more and cheaper goods than by restricting the use of intellectual property and thereby 'artificially' maintaining product prices. Only when the use of intellectual property becomes abused to such an extent that it has an impact on innovation will the balance shift the other way. There are plenty of examples where this has happened (pharmaceuticals being the most oft-quoted example) but I would respectfully suggest that, in the case of photographs of caves in particular, we are a very long way from that point!
Nick
This then becomes a simple argument about what constitutes a fair price, and as with any goods, the value of an artist's or writer's work is no more or no less than someone is prepared to pay for it. This introduces the law of supply and demand into the equation, and in a world where so many people would love to be an 'artist' and make cash from their hobbies, and technology provides a means to make the costs of delivery essentially negligible, it becomes inevitable that the value of an individual 'artwork' will be very low, so unless very large numbers are sold, the income to the artist is also going to be low.
Having spent a significant part of my life working as a production engineer, I have come to recognise that it is far better to make a living by finding a way of delivering a very large number of products to the market at a price which is so low that it is not worth anyone else trying to copy it than to price the product high in the expectation that the unique features of the product can be protected by legal means. Copyright infringement is just another challenge for producers and, as the recorded music industry has found to its cost, failure to recognise the need to adapt your business model to the changing realities of your market place can have only one long term result.
Almost all of us consume more than we produce, and so (leaving aside the environmental arguments for the moment) the greater 'good' of society as a whole is in general served better by more and cheaper goods than by restricting the use of intellectual property and thereby 'artificially' maintaining product prices. Only when the use of intellectual property becomes abused to such an extent that it has an impact on innovation will the balance shift the other way. There are plenty of examples where this has happened (pharmaceuticals being the most oft-quoted example) but I would respectfully suggest that, in the case of photographs of caves in particular, we are a very long way from that point!
Nick
Cave_Troll
Active member
I beleive that there is a general case that this has happend in photography as a whole.
I've read several articles by pro photographers saying that the rise of the digital camera as a method to easily produce a pretty good pic, and the internet to easily market them, has severely damaged the stock photo market.
I don't see that anyone is ever realistically going to buy my pics. While i love them and want people to see them, i don't see that they have real commercial value that i'm going to loose if i selectivley give a few away.
I've read several articles by pro photographers saying that the rise of the digital camera as a method to easily produce a pretty good pic, and the internet to easily market them, has severely damaged the stock photo market.
I don't see that anyone is ever realistically going to buy my pics. While i love them and want people to see them, i don't see that they have real commercial value that i'm going to loose if i selectivley give a few away.
