Peter Burgess
New member
Crowood are not asking for photos. Andy is. Photos would be offered for use, not taken without consent.caving_fox said:
Re: debate about "photos needed for 'The Complete Caving Manual'" and the commerical use of photographs
- Thread starter Tony_B
- Start date
In my view payment comes in many forms. If the photographer feels getting his/her photo published is sufficient recompense for use of their photo then surely they are receiving the payment they have requested. The problems only come when someone passes a photo off as their own, uses it as a primary source for another format of artwork without acknowledging its origins or publishes it without the photographer's permission.
On this occasion we're talking about Andy who is a genuine sort of chap and isn't intending lifting photos from various websites without permission of the photographer, and yes, he'll get some beer money from the book (but only if we buy it).
On this occasion we're talking about Andy who is a genuine sort of chap and isn't intending lifting photos from various websites without permission of the photographer, and yes, he'll get some beer money from the book (but only if we buy it).
Tony_B
Member
fi said:
Not one word of what I have written in my many posts on this topic was intended as, or should be construed as, criticism of Andy. It seems to me that he has been forced into the unenviable position of having to come on here and plead for free photos on behalf of a mean and unscrupulous publisher who, while they will happily pay the going rate for pictures to illustrate many of their books, see cavers as gullible hobbyists who can be deluded into providing photos for nothing.
It seems they were right and I, thinking that cavers might have more sense, was wrong. Any of you who seriously believe that there is something to be gained by providing hard-won photos for free to such a publisher can go ahead and submit them, as far as I'm concerned. While I wish Andy every success with his book I won't be sending any of my pictures for consideration and neither, I suspect, will anyone who believes that creativity and effort deserve to be treated with a modicum of respect.
footleg
New member
I have to say I pretty much agree with the arguments which Tony_B has put forward on this subject. I am all in favour of non-profit projects being supported by community efforts for free (whether it be writing an article for a club journal, providing some survey data or giving permission for some photos to be used). But I do not think this book falls into this category no matter now little money is claimed it will make. In the case of this book I can see only one reason why a decision might be made to go with a glossy colour format, and that is to make it sell better. So I think that to decide to go with a colour format but not have any budget for colour photographs is a pretty blatant attempt to try an blag something for free in order to make a bit more profit for the publisher's own pockets. I would have no problem with this if the publisher was a caving club who were essentially a non-profit organisation trying to raise a bit of money for the benefit of cavers (whether by donating the profits to a caving purpose or just running the club for the benefit of the members). I am not expecting to make any real money from my caving photos, which I take for my own enjoyment. But I agree with the opinions expressed by Tony and others that giving them away for free to a cause which really comes down to making money for an individual or company does devalue my pictures. This is different to giving them to a cause which I believe benefits the caving community, as they are adding value to something I believe I benefit from. In that case I am getting something back in return (just not cash) so I am not just giving them away for free. (But this is just how I feel about my photos, and I do not have a problem with what anyone else chooses to do with theirs.)
M
MSD
Guest
Seems like a storm in a tea cup. If you don't want to provide free photos don't do it.
BTW as a professor I am forever writing articles which publishers then put in journals. I don't get paid for this. In fact I often put yet more unpaid work into the publication process by acting as a referee for other authors' work.
So...if a professor gives away their professional work for free, should other writers and photographers get annoyed about this? OK I get a salary as a professor, but my employer is not forcing me to publish articles and in practice a lot of the writing takes place in my own time.
I also write poetry and (dare I say it) some of it is quite reasonable. The day somebody pays me for publishing THAT I will eat my hat.
Mark
BTW as a professor I am forever writing articles which publishers then put in journals. I don't get paid for this. In fact I often put yet more unpaid work into the publication process by acting as a referee for other authors' work.
So...if a professor gives away their professional work for free, should other writers and photographers get annoyed about this? OK I get a salary as a professor, but my employer is not forcing me to publish articles and in practice a lot of the writing takes place in my own time.
I also write poetry and (dare I say it) some of it is quite reasonable. The day somebody pays me for publishing THAT I will eat my hat.
Mark
graham
New member
I thought that in this day and age, all academics were under pressure from their institutions to publish and to do so in as many reputable journals as they could.
In that regard the refereeing process is a professional obligation which is paid for not so much in cash as in enhanced reputation and payment in kind when you get your work refereed.
In that regard the refereeing process is a professional obligation which is paid for not so much in cash as in enhanced reputation and payment in kind when you get your work refereed.
cap n chris
Well-known member
MSD said:
Jolly good!
Not quite up to salesworthy quality yet, though, methinks.
spikey
New member
You know what - if someone considers my amatuer, taken for a bit of fun photos are worthy of inclusion in a published niche-market book, then this recognition in itself is more than enough payment for me.
Whilst I appreciate that everything has a value, intrinsic or otherwise, I am not so mercenary as to demand a fee for every little thing.
If you walked past a free open air concert in the park, would you complain, or not listen, as the artists were most likely providing their services without charge, but for the enjoyment of others????
Whilst I appreciate that everything has a value, intrinsic or otherwise, I am not so mercenary as to demand a fee for every little thing.
If you walked past a free open air concert in the park, would you complain, or not listen, as the artists were most likely providing their services without charge, but for the enjoyment of others????
graham
New member
It is quite remarkable how many folks have missed the point of this debate.
It is not that there is anything wrong with people, if they so choose, freely sharing the fruits of their efforts with others.
It is passing those fruits to others who will then make a profit out of them for themselves that people are objecting to.
It is not that there is anything wrong with people, if they so choose, freely sharing the fruits of their efforts with others.
It is passing those fruits to others who will then make a profit out of them for themselves that people are objecting to.
spikey
New member
The pictures had no value prior to this debate - mine infact were slides in a box in the attic. It is also quite unlikely that they (my photos) will have any value after this debate as I doubt they're worthy of publishing anyway.
Most people's pictures are up there in the public domain for anyone to see anyway - all you have to do is google "caving" and you'll get there.
Most are published on Flickr or imageshack. Do you think that flickr is a charity, and not making money? (They don't make money directly from the photos I know, but if it wasn't for the photos they would not exist.
Exactly how much profit do you reckon is going to be made from this publication - In my opinion, the MD will be lucky to fill his car from the proceeds
Most people's pictures are up there in the public domain for anyone to see anyway - all you have to do is google "caving" and you'll get there.
Most are published on Flickr or imageshack. Do you think that flickr is a charity, and not making money? (They don't make money directly from the photos I know, but if it wasn't for the photos they would not exist.
Exactly how much profit do you reckon is going to be made from this publication - In my opinion, the MD will be lucky to fill his car from the proceeds
nickwilliams
Well-known member
graham said:
It's an easy shot to say that people are missing the point, Graham, and I'd hesitate to accuse you of the same thing. I think it would be more accurate to say that there is a polarisation of opinion between those who seem to believe that the only way that the value of their photographs can be recognised is for them to personally receive payment for their use, and others whose view of value is somewhat more widely drawn, and would include the pleasure seeing their work in print, or a wider benefit to the caving community.
I have already argued that the cost of production of the photographs is irrelevant to their financial value. The logical extension of that argument is that the profits of the publishing company are also irrelevant if you don't value your photographs in monetary terms.
It seems to me that this argument tells one just as much about the envy of the people who want payment for their pictures as it does about the greed of the publisher.
Nick.
underground
Active member
What do you mean 'the envy of the people who want payment for their pictures'?nickwilliams said:
What about people who'd care to start making a living from their photographs? So maybe they are just a bunch of photographs in the attic, or on a website for enthusiasts, but really good ones all the same, and the individual wants to use them at some point - but can't due to work/life pressures. What does this argument say about them, should all their material be secret until they 'make it'?
M
MSD
Guest
graham said:
So....what you are saying Graham, is that it isn't the money that's important. QED
nickwilliams
Well-known member
OK, so perhaps that wasn't a very good choice of words. I'm simply pointing out that the desire of the photographer to make money from their pictures is no different to the desire of the publisher to make money from their books. Both are different sides of the same coin (almost literally).
Put it another way. Tony's argument is that people should not give their photographs away for free because it devalues the work of people who want to get paid for selling their photographs. He presents his argument in a form which makes it clear that he believes his position as a poor struggling artist is morally superior to the money grabbing publisher. I'm arguing that this is bollocks - the two are morally equivalent, and while Tony has every right to expect to be paid for his work if that is what he wants, the publisher has an equal right to avoid payment if he can legally do so. Neither side has any moral superiority over the other, and Tony certainly doesn't have any basis on which to lecture others who may wish to give their pictures away for free. He's perfectly entitled to his opinion, of course, but that doesn't make his argument superior to anyone else's.
The mistake is to think of the value of the photograph in terms of what it cost to produce, or how much it costs to reproduce or, in fact as a photograph at all. The value of the photograph rests entirely in its uniqueness and its consequent desirability to other people. In other words, it rests in the innovation and skill of the photographer. Much of that value is based on the reputation of the photographer and in order to maintain that reputation they must continue to innovate and produce works which people actually want. 'Innovation', among other things, means they must distinguish themselves from others doing similar things in the market place.
Society recognises the value of innovation for normal businesses by buying their products - or not as the case maybe. Artists, on the other hand, are given special status by virtue of the legal construct of copyright which provides them with protection, for a limited period, against other people using technology (i.e. the various means by which an artwork can be duplicated) as a means of avoiding paying the artist the true value of their innovation. However, that value is still set by the desirability of the artist's product, and as Rob has argued most cogently above, if the artists wishes to maximise that value, they have to be prepared to work for it.
I am not arguing that copyright is a bad thing, or that Tony should not sell his pictures if he is able to, or that cave photographs should have no value, I am arguing that copyright places responsibilities on the copyright holder just as it provides them with rights, and that to argue that an artist has any moral right beyond that provided by copyright is entirely specious. Furthermore, copyright holders have to recognise the changing realities of the media in which they work. Their obligation, in return for the benefit that society gives them by granting them copyright, is to innovate and keep ahead of the market if they want to make money.
Nick.
Put it another way. Tony's argument is that people should not give their photographs away for free because it devalues the work of people who want to get paid for selling their photographs. He presents his argument in a form which makes it clear that he believes his position as a poor struggling artist is morally superior to the money grabbing publisher. I'm arguing that this is bollocks - the two are morally equivalent, and while Tony has every right to expect to be paid for his work if that is what he wants, the publisher has an equal right to avoid payment if he can legally do so. Neither side has any moral superiority over the other, and Tony certainly doesn't have any basis on which to lecture others who may wish to give their pictures away for free. He's perfectly entitled to his opinion, of course, but that doesn't make his argument superior to anyone else's.
The mistake is to think of the value of the photograph in terms of what it cost to produce, or how much it costs to reproduce or, in fact as a photograph at all. The value of the photograph rests entirely in its uniqueness and its consequent desirability to other people. In other words, it rests in the innovation and skill of the photographer. Much of that value is based on the reputation of the photographer and in order to maintain that reputation they must continue to innovate and produce works which people actually want. 'Innovation', among other things, means they must distinguish themselves from others doing similar things in the market place.
Society recognises the value of innovation for normal businesses by buying their products - or not as the case maybe. Artists, on the other hand, are given special status by virtue of the legal construct of copyright which provides them with protection, for a limited period, against other people using technology (i.e. the various means by which an artwork can be duplicated) as a means of avoiding paying the artist the true value of their innovation. However, that value is still set by the desirability of the artist's product, and as Rob has argued most cogently above, if the artists wishes to maximise that value, they have to be prepared to work for it.
I am not arguing that copyright is a bad thing, or that Tony should not sell his pictures if he is able to, or that cave photographs should have no value, I am arguing that copyright places responsibilities on the copyright holder just as it provides them with rights, and that to argue that an artist has any moral right beyond that provided by copyright is entirely specious. Furthermore, copyright holders have to recognise the changing realities of the media in which they work. Their obligation, in return for the benefit that society gives them by granting them copyright, is to innovate and keep ahead of the market if they want to make money.
Nick.
cap n chris
Well-known member
.. begs the question:
Once the book is published, who holds the copyright to the various photographs within it? The author, the publisher or the original photographers?
If a picture is a beaut, can the photographer get it reproduced, enlarged and framed and sell it at a premium off the back of the book's publicity?
Once the book is published, who holds the copyright to the various photographs within it? The author, the publisher or the original photographers?
If a picture is a beaut, can the photographer get it reproduced, enlarged and framed and sell it at a premium off the back of the book's publicity?
graham
New member
Nick, it wasn't a good choice of words, no. It has nothing to do with envy. It is all to do with context. The same photographer would be likely to freely allow the Wessex, say, to use a photograph in something like the Swildon's book and be paid with nothing more than an acknowledgement. The book has been produced by cavers for cavers and profits, if any, will be fed back into caving. This is quite different to the Crowood situation where a commercial operation should be prepared to pay a commercial price. As we have heard, the same publisher apparently does exactly that in a different milieu.
Quite right MSD it isn't about money as such it's about a payment relevant to the context.
Quite right MSD it isn't about money as such it's about a payment relevant to the context.
P
phil.gregson
Guest
I wouldn't have wanted my first post on here to be leaping in to a contentious subject but here goes anyway:
I do find this argument somewhat bizzare and naive. Whilst I understand, and sympathise, with those who are trying to make a living from something that others are willing to do for free (I've been in that situation myself) it is, I'm afraid one of the inevitable problems of artistic persuit.
Ultimately the market will find its own value and people will pay what they think is the appropriate 'value' for something they want. If your photographic endevour has sufficient value then someone will pay for it, regardless of what ever else is out there. The biggest barrier to that - the biggest lowerer (if that's a word) of value - is not some publisher trying to make a living (I'll come to that later) but the fact that we all have cameras and think (sometimes incorrectly - myself included) that we can take a good picture ourselves. If Mr Photographer comes to me and says:
'I have a fantastic photo of', say, 'Layby Pot. Would you like to buy it?' I would most likely say, as would you all:
'Thank you good Sir for your kind offer of furnishing me with that most desirable of photographic reproductions of a fine speleological site in return for recompence, in the form of a mere few of our great English Pounds, but I'll just pop down and do it myself thanks!' (In reality we probably wouldn't 'cos its down Stoney Dale and therefore inherently squalid - but thats another argument).
Now, the point here is that no one would then say that I am a bad person (not for that reason anyway) for depriving Mr Photographer of his living by doing it myself for 'free' Now before you all start saying:
'But Phil, old chap, that's not the same thing at all'
Well, you're right - but not entirely.
1) The fact that I can get photos of Caves for free (doing it myself) doesn't mean that I won't pay for it as well - I have the work of professional cave photographers on the wall of my living room (paid for, I hasten to add). Photography being available for little or nothing does not mean that all photography becomes worth nothing. In fact I would suggest that the more Cave photography there is about, at whatever standard, then the greater the awareness and therefore percieved value of the best.
2) In the example above I did not get my photo for 'nothing' - I invested a lot of time effort, equipment and skill (OK - not much of that) to get my free picture of Layby Pot. That is why none of you would slate me for it - Although the cave is a 'free' resource (and if it wasn't we'd try to go and photgraph one that was) both me and Mr Photographer have 'added value' to it by our endevours and both have profited in different ways - Mr Photographer by making money (except in this case) and me by not spending the money and other more etherial things like satisfaction etc. Would anyone suggest that we have imorally profited from the provider of that free resource (the landowner) - no I thought not! Now - and here's the leap - Mr Publisher is doing nothing different he is getting a resource for free (and wouldn't we all if we could) and adding value to it by publishing the photos, which takes time, money and skill that we don't have. When he sells the book he is then profiting from the value he has added.
3) The whole profiting thing! Well, this shouldn't even be an argument. Most of us go to work and earn money, provided by other people, for turning some sort of resource (again provided by others) into something else to pass onto someone else at a profit (I know its something of a generalisation but even service industries profit people - we don't slag off firemen, nurses, etc. for 'profiting' from people). That is life. That is how most of us survive. That is all the publisher is doing - GET A GRIP!! In fact others ARE profiting in some sense from this - part of the 'added value' is the production value of the book enhancing peoples photos, the free publicity for the photographer (The increased awareness of the work of ALL cave photographers - Free marketing you sponging B*****ds
), the satisfaction of seeing work in print etc. etc. This has added much greater value to many photographs than they would have sat in a drawer (or hard drive) at home. Now, if you think your work carries greater value than that then don't enter into the bargain in the first place but don't - and this is important - DON'T criticise those for whom it is a good deal and a greater 'profit' than they would gain by not providing the pictures - Its that simple.
I'd just like to stress that this is not a criticism of anyone - I can see all sides of this - just an attempt to give it some perspective.
Right now that's over I'll post about Caving in future.
Phil
I do find this argument somewhat bizzare and naive. Whilst I understand, and sympathise, with those who are trying to make a living from something that others are willing to do for free (I've been in that situation myself) it is, I'm afraid one of the inevitable problems of artistic persuit.
Ultimately the market will find its own value and people will pay what they think is the appropriate 'value' for something they want. If your photographic endevour has sufficient value then someone will pay for it, regardless of what ever else is out there. The biggest barrier to that - the biggest lowerer (if that's a word) of value - is not some publisher trying to make a living (I'll come to that later) but the fact that we all have cameras and think (sometimes incorrectly - myself included) that we can take a good picture ourselves. If Mr Photographer comes to me and says:
'I have a fantastic photo of', say, 'Layby Pot. Would you like to buy it?' I would most likely say, as would you all:
'Thank you good Sir for your kind offer of furnishing me with that most desirable of photographic reproductions of a fine speleological site in return for recompence, in the form of a mere few of our great English Pounds, but I'll just pop down and do it myself thanks!' (In reality we probably wouldn't 'cos its down Stoney Dale and therefore inherently squalid - but thats another argument).
Now, the point here is that no one would then say that I am a bad person (not for that reason anyway) for depriving Mr Photographer of his living by doing it myself for 'free' Now before you all start saying:
'But Phil, old chap, that's not the same thing at all'
Well, you're right - but not entirely.
1) The fact that I can get photos of Caves for free (doing it myself) doesn't mean that I won't pay for it as well - I have the work of professional cave photographers on the wall of my living room (paid for, I hasten to add). Photography being available for little or nothing does not mean that all photography becomes worth nothing. In fact I would suggest that the more Cave photography there is about, at whatever standard, then the greater the awareness and therefore percieved value of the best.
2) In the example above I did not get my photo for 'nothing' - I invested a lot of time effort, equipment and skill (OK - not much of that) to get my free picture of Layby Pot. That is why none of you would slate me for it - Although the cave is a 'free' resource (and if it wasn't we'd try to go and photgraph one that was) both me and Mr Photographer have 'added value' to it by our endevours and both have profited in different ways - Mr Photographer by making money (except in this case) and me by not spending the money and other more etherial things like satisfaction etc. Would anyone suggest that we have imorally profited from the provider of that free resource (the landowner) - no I thought not! Now - and here's the leap - Mr Publisher is doing nothing different he is getting a resource for free (and wouldn't we all if we could) and adding value to it by publishing the photos, which takes time, money and skill that we don't have. When he sells the book he is then profiting from the value he has added.
3) The whole profiting thing! Well, this shouldn't even be an argument. Most of us go to work and earn money, provided by other people, for turning some sort of resource (again provided by others) into something else to pass onto someone else at a profit (I know its something of a generalisation but even service industries profit people - we don't slag off firemen, nurses, etc. for 'profiting' from people). That is life. That is how most of us survive. That is all the publisher is doing - GET A GRIP!! In fact others ARE profiting in some sense from this - part of the 'added value' is the production value of the book enhancing peoples photos, the free publicity for the photographer (The increased awareness of the work of ALL cave photographers - Free marketing you sponging B*****ds
), the satisfaction of seeing work in print etc. etc. This has added much greater value to many photographs than they would have sat in a drawer (or hard drive) at home. Now, if you think your work carries greater value than that then don't enter into the bargain in the first place but don't - and this is important - DON'T criticise those for whom it is a good deal and a greater 'profit' than they would gain by not providing the pictures - Its that simple.I'd just like to stress that this is not a criticism of anyone - I can see all sides of this - just an attempt to give it some perspective.
Right now that's over I'll post about Caving in future.
Phil
cap n chris
Well-known member
phil.gregson said:
er, you're new to this forum, aren't you, Phil?
