Re: debate about "photos needed for 'The Complete Caving Manual'" and the commerical use of photographs

[menacer]

some of our cave photographers do make at least part of their living from the sale of their work. Is it morally right for the amateurs amongst the rest of us to undercut them?

Call me immoral, but i'd have no more of a problem about providing a pic free of charge than i would say
taking a newbie caving through the club instead of sending them to a proffessional.
Supply and demand, IF income drops of for the professional cave photographers, is it not time to find a different job...maybe publishing??...

 

[cap n chris]

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.

This accurately echoes my own feelings.

 

[Rob]

I see what your saying Tony, and i think i agree to the idea, but in practise i'll just loose out.

Forgive me Rob, but I may be missing your point here: if you decline to provide your hard-won pictures to a money-grabbing publisher who wants them for nothing, how are you losing out?

Because i won't ge the:
1) fame(!)
2) people to look at and enjoy my pics (which is the main reason i take them)
3) a bit of dosh for charity if i'm lucky.
that i would have otherwise.

If people want to actually make money out of cave photos, they should separate themselves from the rest of us and produce photos that not only look good but are actually designed for non-cavers. Then they should actively search out publishers that are willing to pay money, write their own magazine articles, go on specific trips at specific times, do the leg work. There is money out there if you've got the talent and energy, regardless of the free image market. But you've got to see it as a job and rather than reduce the competition, stay ahead of it.

 

[nickwilliams]

Ah, but Nick, some of our cave photographers do make at least part of their living from the sale of their work. Is it morally right for the amateurs amongst the rest of us to undercut them?

The point is that morals do not come into it - there are greater forces at work which intellectual property rights holders have to recognise and try to work with rather than against. Just because you are the world's best cave photographer does not give you a divine right to an income - your pictures are still only worth what other people are prepared to pay for them. Just occasionally, special circumstances will mean that there is money to be made, in which case good luck, but don't whinge about the fact that for the rest of the time the value is apparently nothing - society does not owe you a living!

Nick.

 

[martinr]

the book only sells about 80 copies a year

I hadnt appreciated this when I made my earlier comment. Sorry.

 

[Tony_B]

So many people seem to be missing the essential point here. Read my original reply to Andy's request, where I pointed out all of the other things Crowood don't get for nothing because if they asked they would be told where to go. Photographs are a key ingredient of a book such as this and, as we all know, are extremely difficult to do well. Crowood have a very limited range of options when it comes to obtaining photographs for a caving book because there are so few of us shooting them, and the idea that they might set a budget of FA for those photographs is, frankly, outrageous.

I am astonished that so many people have joined this debate in defence of a company that is simply seeking to exploit the goodwill of talented individuals. Andy has attempted to argue the economic point of view but, as someone who works in publishing and has had a book published, I simply don't accept those figures. If the sums involved were as he described Crowood wouldn't bother to publish this book and they certainly wouldn't be going to full-colour for the reprint. I suspect they have spun Andy their hard-luck story as a way of depressing his author's fee and of making him come on this forum and pass on their unreasonable request for them.   

Even those of us who do cave photography as fun - and I include myself in this because I have full-time employment as a photographer that pays my mortgage - should expect that some of the considerable expense incurred in doing it be recouped when a commercial organisation wants to benefit from those images.

 

[nickwilliams]

Even those of us who do cave photography as fun - and I include myself in this because I have full-time employment as a photographer that pays my mortgage - should expect that some of the considerable expense incurred in doing it be recouped when a commercial organisation wants to benefit from those images.

For the purposes of this discussion, whether you are amateur or professional, if you are selling your photographs then you are a commercial photographer. You are probably not the only person who has incurred 'considerable expense' to obtain those photographs - what about the people who dug the cave open in the first place or the access body on whose existence your access to the cave may rely? Are you going to pass a proportion of your income on to them, and if not, how do you justify not doing so?

It's your choice to incur 'considerable expense' in your pursuit of fun. You have no greater right to an expectation of recovering those expenses than I have to recover the expenses I have incurred as a cave digger over the years - and if you think differently then I am afraid you are kidding yourself.

Nick.

 

[Peter Burgess]

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.

Thank you, Andy, for explaining in simple terms the basic economics that, for me, make it pretty obvious why you posted your request in the first place. Good luck.

 

[graham]

I know professional* photographers who spend a significant amount of time hunting down websites that have misappropriated their work and either getting them to cough up or getting them to remove the offending articles. They do this in order to maintain the value of their product.





*here defined as someone who makes a significant part of their income that way, not someone who sells the odd shot they would have taken for personal enjoyment anyway.

 

[Peter Burgess]

I'd do the same. Theft is not the same as competition though.

 

[Tony_B]

I've now looked up Crowood's website, and as it happens a significant proportion of their catalogue is comprised of motoring books. This is the field in which I work, so I can offer an informed perspective. Most, if not all, of their car books have been written by professional motoring journalists - many of them people I work with on a regular basis. While this is as precarious a living as professional photography, I can tell you that none of these people will spend their time and effort writing books that don't pay. Motoring books take a lot of research and a labour of love doesn't pay the bills.

I can also tell you that none of the publishers and picture libraries from which they will have sourced the pictures for those books will have given them away for the 'satisfaction' of seeing them in print. They charge PROPER MONEY for those pictures and I know this for a fact because many of my own pics are syndicated through the picture libary that is part of the company I work for.

And before you all start claiming that there is a bigger market for motoring books than caving ones, take a look at their catalogue: most of these books are on single models, sometimes of niche marques, and certainly don't sell in vast numbers.

 

[nickwilliams]

Theft is not the same as competition though.

And, no matter how many times people say it is, copyright infringement is NOT theft. That's not to say it's legal (or that I endorse it in any way) but copyright infringement is not the same as stealing physical items so if you try to solve the problem of copyright infringement by equating it with theft (as the music industry has been doing for years) then you aren't going to resolve the problem.

Nick.

 

[Peter Burgess]

Theft is not the same as competition though.

And, no matter how many times people say it is, copyright infringement is NOT theft. That's not to say it's legal (or that I endorse it in any way) but copyright infringement is not the same as stealing physical items so if you try to solve the problem of copyright infringement by equating it with theft (as the music industry has been doing for years) then you aren't going to resolve the problem.

Nick.

OK I was using the word in it's popular sense, not it's legal one. If someone makes monetary gain from copyright infringement, it is potentially denying someone an income, depending on circumstances. I also uderstand the difference betweem copyright infringement and downright plagiarism, before anyone makes the point.

 

[Tony_B]

It's your choice to incur 'considerable expense' in your pursuit of fun. You have no greater right to an expectation of recovering those expenses than I have to recover the expenses I have incurred as a cave digger over the years - and if you think differently then I am afraid you are kidding yourself.

I have no expectation of recovering those expenses, and never have. I reiterate: I take cave photographs for fun. But when a publisher wants pictures to illustrate a book, he should expect to pay for them. Just as he pays an author for his work, and pays other suppliers for repro, printing, binding, distribution and, in this case, car pictures for many of his other books.

 

[AMW]

I agree with Tony if the book is a commercial venture then payment for photographs would be correct, the CDG manual is not in this area as it is produced by the CDG as a constitutional requirement. Profit is not the aim as the CDG are paying the costs to produce it, and any (profit) ploughed back into the CDG.

Andrew.

 

[graham]

Theft is not the same as competition though.

And, no matter how many times people say it is, copyright infringement is NOT theft. That's not to say it's legal (or that I endorse it in any way) but copyright infringement is not the same as stealing physical items so if you try to solve the problem of copyright infringement by equating it with theft (as the music industry has been doing for years) then you aren't going to resolve the problem.

Nick.

It's not murder either. Probably the closest legal term is "obtaining a pecuniary advantage". This is covered by the 1968 Theft  Act! A good resume is given here.

 

[Cave_Troll]

If andy is not being ripped off and is getting a couple of quid per book, the most i'd expect for a photo would be a couple of pence per book per photo

 

[Peter Burgess]

Another way to think of this is would cavers be prepared to pay more for the book to cover remuneration to photographers? How much extra might that have been? Another ?5 per copy?

 

[nickwilliams]

I have no expectation of recovering those expenses, and never have.

In which case, the costs of producing the photos are a complete irrelevance to any discussion about their value.

Nick.

 

[caving_fox]

Scenario - instead of Crowood obtaining these photos for a small publication, what if The Daily Rant, ran a national article on caving and their journalists just broused flicker or these forums and used your photos. Would that be acceptible?

How is that different from Crowood?

the Urbex forum 28dayslater sends an invoice to any paper that uses their photos.