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

[Tony_B]

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.

Yes, that is my argument, and I will freely admit that part of what has influenced my forthright stance on this this week is that on Tuesday I spent the day working in a photographic studio in the company of an amiable young man who wants to become a professional photographer. Since leaving college last year - with all the attendant debt - the only 'work' he has been able to find is photographing restaurants for a magazine who have yet to pay him a penny other than expenses. He's done this work (and they've published it, so it's clearly of the required standard) on the basis of some vague indication of future paid work. Sadly, of course, he has been misled. He won't ever get paid by them because when he runs out of money or just gets fed up with working for free they will find some other college-leaver to work for nothing, on the same premise. Bean-counters run publishing companies and once an issue of the magazine can be produced with a photography budget of zero that's what they'll expect in future.

Now call me old-fashioned, or a socialist, or whatever, but I grew up believing that if you work for somebody they pay you in return. The industry in which I work is mistreating people in this way and it's spreading, and if this was happening in your profession I'd expect you to object as well. And don't tell me that Crowood and the Complete Caving Manual is an entirely different matter, because it isn't. It's "there's no budget for photos" just the same, and the saddest thing about the whole issue is the number of people who I know to be talented cave photographers who have joined this discussion to say that they'll happily send their photos in for nothing because as far as they can see they're worthless. Andy has already posted a thank-you and praised the high standard of pics he's been offered, which sort of makes my point for me.

I have already pointed out that Crowood pay money for other pictures they need, because they won't get them otherwise, and yet most of you seem to be defending the idea that people who have worked hard and spent money on taking cave pictures should hand them over for no return. I wouldn't expect Crowood to offer much, but they aren't even offering a free book, fer chrissakes; they're in a win-win situation as anyone with a pic in the book will rush to buy one. And I really thought cavers, of all people, might have had more sense.

 

[spikey]

if you work for somebody they pay you in return.

Absolutely correct.

However, are you suggesting that when any one of these photos was taken they were taken with a view to make money from them at some future juncture? This is certainly not the case for me, and I suspect the majority of the other cavers who take a camera underground with them.

As we speak the only people making money (albeit indirectly) from them, are the sites which currently host them. Should they all be taken down on the basis of your argument?

Maybe Crowood should approach such luminary underground photographers as Gavin Newman, Tony Fordham etc. I wonder if the book would be published if they only had access to the work of these people???

I think not.

It's a niche product for a niche market, and as such needs to be done at as low a cost as possible, and whilst this may affect the somewhat mercenary sensibilities of some, it's the only way it's going to happen.

I don't think Crowood's directors will be buying their yachts on the proceeds.

 

[cap n chris]

It's a niche product for a niche market, and as such needs to be done at as low a cost as possible

Correct. Since cavers, generally, are so tight that diamonds form in their assholes, they will only be shelling out, at most, 3 pence for the book (grudgingly and with numerous gratuitous sighs and last minute coin caressing) which, of necessity, mustn't cost more than 1 penny to make; thereby meaning that the photos must be sourced for nowt in order to keep the enterprise so shamelessly lucrative .

 

[graham]

And they'd make even more money if they weren't paying Andy either.

Is that the case? Bet it isn't!

Now if the writer is being paid and the publishers are being paid and the printers are being paid and the distributors are being paid and the booksellers are being paid ...

... why the hell aren't the photographers?

if it ain't going to happen unless these poor schmucks do their work for free then I suggest it simply isn't an economic prospect and it shouldn't happen at all.

I agree with Tony and if that makes me a socialist as well, then it's a label I shall wear with pride. Any "new economic model" as suggested by Nick seems to mean that some people earn from their labours and some people get trampled in the rush. If that's not what you mean, Nick, then you haven't been very clear.

 

[graham]

.. 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?

Chris look at this link for a brief summary.

 

[spikey]

if it ain't going to happen unless these poor schmucks do their work for free then I suggest it simply isn't an economic prospect and it shouldn't happen at all.

From someone who accused another poster of missing the point, I think the same could be directed back at you here Graham. (Certainly of my last post).

I would point you back to some of the earlier posts, where (assuming he is teling the truth), Andy laid out the economics of his side of the deal, which should explain why the photographers are not getting paid.

I agree entirely that if someone works for someone else, then recompense should be forthcoming, but I still fail entirely to see where the value is derived from some amateur pictures, which are in the main, already in the public domain. The pictures were not taken under the employ of Crowood, and I would argue, not with the intent of making money.

Why is it people are so money orientated with something like this ? A simple request to borrow some snapshots, for a publication run of probably less than 100.

We'll have to agree to disagree.....

 

[graham]

You want to give your work away for free to Andy that is your prerogative. However, don't expect me to agree.

How much value would this project have without any photos?

Why should only some of those contributing to giving it that value get any return from it?

In my book that counts as exploitation pure and simple. 

 

[JB]

Ultimately it's best to let the market decide. Andy has spent time writing a book and seeking out and negotiating with a publisher who will pay him a bit of money for it as long as he can secure some free photos. Some people are happy to provide those photos for no financial recompense but are happy with a photo credit. Andy and his photographers are happy, as presumably is the publisher, as are the readers of the book (otherwise they wouldn't have bought it). I think this is what is described as a 'win, win' situation!

Tony, Graham and friends - if you want to spend time writing a better cave textbook with better photos and negotiating successfully with publishers for additional payment for your (better) photographs then all power to your elbow! People will probably buy it and presumably you'd all be happy too. Until that happens, stop whinging!

PS - I don't even like Andy Sparrow!

Jules.

 

[spikey]

However, don't expect me to agree.

I don't think anyone was asking for anyone else agreement or permission either directly or by implication.

You're absolutely correct that the project would have limited value without photos. It would have none at all if was not published due to a reticence by the caving community, and that would be a shame in an area where there is precious little in terms of literature anyway.

Why should only some of those contributing to giving it that value get any return from it?

As Andy has pointed out, he is not exactly going to make his fortune from this book - it seems to be a labour of love for him, and as I stated a few posts ago, I doubt the publishers will make a fortune either.

 

[graham]

OK

A challenge. Before you give any of your material to Andy, ask to see a copy of his contract with Crowood, including all the figures. Then decide if you still want to help support his business.

You don't have to tell the rest of us, I don't expect to be given commercially sensitive information.

Failing that, ask him whether the photos in the original edition were obtained gratis or were paid for. If the latter, ask him why the situation has changed this time around.

 

[Elaine]

PS - I don't even like Andy Sparrow!

I do - he's ok    :kiss2:

Now if the writer is being paid and the publishers are being paid and the printers are being paid and the distributors are being paid and the booksellers are being paid ...

... why the hell aren't the photographers?

I would have thought the amount paid to Andy included the money for the photos and any other things Andy needs to include. It is probably a case of take it or leave it. I am pleased that he 'takes it' as it means a book available to us that is good value and informative. Anyway, if the photographs were worth the same as the writing then there would be a whole ?40 in royalties a year to share out amongst the photographers. 80p each!

With the invention of very good and relatively cheap digital cameras a lot of people can take very good photos now. Bad news for those who try to make a living from it. I can understand that too.

 

[graham]

Elaine, you are lovely but possibly financially naive.

I'll bet a pound to a pinch of shit that no commercial publisher, Crowood included, would republish a book that would bring in such a tiny return on its investment.

Again, I do not expect anyone to give me commercially sensitive information on an open forum, but I do believe that anyone who wishes to contribute their efforts to this has an absolute right to ask what, exactly, they are getting involved in.

 

[Elaine]

I expect you are absolutely right there Graham. It would explain why I am broke whilst so many other people seem to be able to afford to drive around in 4 wheel drive thingies!

 

[graham]

Never mind, dear, at least you won't have to pay Ken Livingstone ?100 per day to drive through London.

Which means you may be able to save up enough to buy a copy of Andy's book if it actually reaches the print stage.

 

[ditzy 24//7]

My poorly 4x4 didnt cost much, and came free with pre rudted bits 

 

[graham]

Ditzy, my dear. I very much doubt that photo will be of use to Mr Sparrow.

 

[ditzy 24//7]

this ones in a mine!

 

[graham]

 

[ditzy 24//7]

ok heres a better one.

as we all know this is the international mining symbol for dont go down there its dangerouse! :doubt:

 

[phil.gregson]

So........

Those of you who think that it is imoral and exploitative for your photography to be used without you being paid. i.e. that someone else should make money from your endevour (despite the fact that I have already explained that they are making money from the 'value' added as much as from the pictures) I ask you this question:

Do you pay the people who appear in your photos? Do you pay the people who come on the photography trips and hold flashes, carry gear etc? Do you pay the people who's land the cave is on and who's resource you are profiting from? (and I don't mean ?1 or ?2!!)  I'm presuming the answer is yes as surely otherwise you are imorally profiting from others!

As I said before, the people who provide the photos for this project are not getting nothing - they are probably getting more value from them in this way than with them sat in a drawer or hard drive somewhere.  Assuming the pictures are sourced, then I'm afraid the market has found their value - not good news for professional photographers but despite your elevated moral position I don't recall any of us signing up to say that photographers are owed a living.  I'm not unsympathetic but that, I'm afraid, is the reality and I strongly suspect that if you had your way we would be one caving book less.

Phil