Re: debate about "photos needed for 'The Complete Caving Manual'" and the commerical use of photographs
- Thread starter Tony_B
- Start date
P
phil.gregson
Guest
Lets see:
The publisher - but he is obviously a money grabbing b*****d for daring to try to make a living so he doesn't count!!
Andy - See above
Potential purchasers of the book
Those who are happy with the 'deal' on offer for their photos and would like to see them published even though they aren't paid.
The caving community for loosing a positive portrayal of our often mis-understood 'sport'.
Perhaps a more pertinent question would be: 'Who, in this particular context, gains?
Well, the answer would be no-one.
The professional photographers of caves certainly aren't going to gain by its lack of publication and would potentially loose a source of free publicity and marketing for what they do. They weren't going to get paid for this book and they still won't if it doesn't get published!!
Are you seriously suggesting that all the potential loosers should loose out any way so a very small number of individuals can make what is an already morally dubious point?
Right I'm done now - you obviously don't get it or agree so there's no point in me keep banging on about it - I'll stick to something more constructive in future.
Phil
graham
New member
phil.gregson said:
I, personally, would be delighted if the publisher made a living. I just want him, as the pivotal figure, to ensure that everybody else involved does so as well. What's so wrong about that?
phil.gregson said:
Indeed, and the same remarks apply. Has any supplier yet asked him the questions about the economics of this project that I suggested earlier?
phil.gregson said:
No worries, I'll give 'em a photocopy of the previous version. What's sauce for the goose ...
phil.gregson said:
I'm sure they will find suitable online outlets. They could always post them in this thread.
phil.gregson said:
Do you seriously think that this book will have anything like the impact of the fully professional and fully paid for films such as the "Life on Earth" prog?
phil.gregson said:
wrong!
phil.gregson said:
Ask about the previous edition ...
phil.gregson said:
You think it's morally dubious. I don't.
phil.gregson said:
As always, your prerogative.
M
MSD
Guest
Andy made a polite request for some help. If you don't want to respond, fine.
Yesterday evening I went skiing. There were a lot of youngsters (including my own children) competing in a slalom competition. To use the lift safely and efficiently, they need help getting on, but the lift staff were short-staffed. So I helped out for an hour. I did this FREE OF CHARGE, without worrying about LIABILITY, INSURANCE or any other bollocks. Everybody had a great time and I got lots of smiles and nods from kids and parents alike, which was quite enough reward.
Some people on this forum need to get a life and stop moaning, griping and worrying.
Mark
P.S. both kids got silver medals.
Yesterday evening I went skiing. There were a lot of youngsters (including my own children) competing in a slalom competition. To use the lift safely and efficiently, they need help getting on, but the lift staff were short-staffed. So I helped out for an hour. I did this FREE OF CHARGE, without worrying about LIABILITY, INSURANCE or any other bollocks. Everybody had a great time and I got lots of smiles and nods from kids and parents alike, which was quite enough reward.
Some people on this forum need to get a life and stop moaning, griping and worrying.
Mark
P.S. both kids got silver medals.
Tony_B
Member
phil.gregson said:
As I have been one of the most siren voices in this debate, I will answer this head-on. In my own case, and I can't answer for others...anyone who models for me gets at least a CD or print(s) of pics in which they appear. Many of my photo trips are done with other photographers on a 'you pose for me and then I'll pose for you ' basis. And I make it clear to my models that if I sell pics that feature them, then there is some return, either directly to them or, more often, in the form of a donation to WBCRT. This is agreed before pics are offered for sale in any environment. But I will admit that I usually ask for a signed model release (this makes the pics more saleable).
I should make it clear at this point that a pic sold through an online picture library generates a very small amount of money that barely covers the cost of film, processing and so on (and until recently film was my chosen medium underground), and that I offer a slice of any return simply to ensure that I can't be accused of exploiting anyone's good nature. I am never short of willing models and I aim to ensure that this remains the case.
To quote one example: I entered a picture shot in a cave in South Wales into a prestigious national competition, and it was short-listed, and shown in the accompanying exhibition. It was also featured in the book published in connection with the competition, although I received no financial remuneration for this (in accordance with the terms and conditions of entry; before you all jump on me I will point out that the first prize on offer was five thousand quid: compare and contrast with Crowood's 'offer'...). Nonetheless the lady who modelled for said picture received a couple of large-format prints, one of which is now framed, signed and displayed on her mother's wall. I supplied the frame and mounted the pic and although she offered to pay for this I never pursued the money. My model was thrilled to have appeared in an exhibition in the National Theatre and, as far as I can tell, everyone was happy.
As far as paying landowners is concerned, hmm well that is another matter. If they charge a fee to cavers to cross their land or whatever then, as far as I can tell, that is the extent of their involvement. No doubt if they get wise to the fact that photographers are 'profiting' (note use of quotation marks) from such access then they can amend the terms and conditions accordingly.
Tony_B
Member
MSD said:
This is completely and utterly irrelevant to the debate we're engaged in. In the same situation I, and no doubt everyone else reading this, would have done the same. What the f**k has this got to do with a publisher blagging photos for nothing, for a commercially-published book?
P
phil.gregson
Guest
Actually this is the international mining symbol for:
'Look down here - its obviously really interesting or they wouldn't have tried to stop me!'
Phil
Andy Sparrow
Active member
graham said:
This is currently the only in-print UK based caving manual with the exception of Chris Howes 'Caving' which is intended for children. I am not aware of any similar books in preparation. Caving 'manuals' were published fairly regularly back in the 60s and 70s but not so today for whatever reason. I would suggest that if the next generation of new cavers were the first unable to buy a book of this type that would constitute a 'loss'.
My contract with the publisher is freely available for any interested parties to read.
And that is my final word in this thread.
graham
New member
JB said:
Jules
Why are you apparently so angry about this? If you wish to be directly involved in the project then all I am suggesting is that you ask Andy for all the details of it in the ways that I suggested earlier. Then you will be fully able to make an informed decision as to whether you wish your work to be used in this way.
As to the absolutely no substance, did you read Tony's account of the way his young photographer mate was being strung along? My nephew is also a struggling young professional photographer and I have heard similar stories of exploitation.
M
MSD
Guest
Tony_B said:
No it's exactly the same thing. For an hour I did something for free which is actually somebody else's paid job. If you followed the same logic as your attitude about photographs, the other staff there would have protested about me helping, and the other parents there would have come up to me and said "excuse me, I hope you're getting paid for this". According your your arguments (and of a few other people in this debate) I was being exploited by the lift company.
What I was doing in my post was taking the situation you describe and placing it in another context. By your own admission, a nonsense was created. Of course you or any other decent person would have helped out. But the underlying issue is IDENTICAL to the very issue you are so hot under the collar about.
Mark
spikey
New member
Doesn't everyone think it's about time to stop bickering and firing cheap shots at each other about this??
It's obvious there is a wide difference of opinion, not neccessarily to the fact that Andy has requested photos, but to the unlying theme of exploitation.
Those who wish to supply Andy with photos should do so, and those which don't, concede that, as Graham so eloquently put, it is their perrogative.
If Andy wishes to use any of my photos, he is welcome to do so. I don't feel exploited, but do feel that given the nature of the manual (aimed more at beginners / novices), as I am no longer caving myself, I would like to do something which just may help to introduce more people to the sport which I enjoyed so much for 20-odd years.
It's obvious there is a wide difference of opinion, not neccessarily to the fact that Andy has requested photos, but to the unlying theme of exploitation.
Those who wish to supply Andy with photos should do so, and those which don't, concede that, as Graham so eloquently put, it is their perrogative.
If Andy wishes to use any of my photos, he is welcome to do so. I don't feel exploited, but do feel that given the nature of the manual (aimed more at beginners / novices), as I am no longer caving myself, I would like to do something which just may help to introduce more people to the sport which I enjoyed so much for 20-odd years.
Bob Smith
Member
ditzy said:ok heres a better one.
as we all know this is the international mining symbol for dont go down there its dangerouse! :doubt:
Actually as an ex-miner I can inform you that symbol means "it's a bit sketchy down there, we can go down there but for christ sake don't let the H&SE man anywhere near it!"
Tony_B
Member
MSD said:
I didn't really want to extend this, but since you have challenged my claim of it being irrelevant, here's what will happen next time your kids are in a slalom competition. The lift company will realise that if they don't provide enough staff parents help out for nothing. So they'll provide one or two experienced people to make sure the lift runs OK (and to save themselves some money), and the parents will do the rest to make sure their kids are alright and have a great time. In a year or two the scenario will have changed, because by now the parents will be well used to the set-up, the lift company won't need to send any staff, and any parent who objects to being seen as unpaid labour, and questions why the parents are doing for nothing what the lift company used to pay people to do, will be shouted down as a mean-spirited killjoy in the way that I have been on this thread. The lift company's profits will be improved, though, so that'll be alright.
Hughie
Active member
graham said:
Respectfully suggest that unless he can produce something far better than your average amateur, armed with readily available inexpensive digital gear, then perhaps he should review his career options.
We have on our living room wall a rather superb picture taken by an amateur photographer of a caver (both forum contributors) - it (to our minds, anyway) sums up Mendip caving in one go.
It was posted on the forum. In the public domain. IIRC permission was sought to print it, IIRC permission was granted. The photographer was even kind enough to send us a high res version for which we were most grateful. Printed up a beaut!
P
phil.gregson
Guest
Bloody hell, I meant to stop getting involved in this!
There is one very important difference that Tony and Graham keep missing - whether you like it or not there are issues of supply and demand here.
You ask why the type setters, the printers, the editor and the writer etc. aren't asked to work for nothing - its because they are skills and skills that are not easy to come by, the writing included (Although I'm sure that some smart-arse will tell me that writing it is easy and they coud have done it - well, go on then!). Photography however is not a skill in demand. There are a lot of non-professional photographers producing extremely high quality work. Some, it must be said, producing higher quality work than some individuals who aspire, or profess, to being professional. On top of this there are poor photographers who every now-and-again produce excellent work by mistake - digital photography has meant that we can all take thousands of pictures instead of tens and the incidence of accidental good ones is therefore considerably higher. Many of these photographers place no monetary value on their work what so ever - they'd do it anyway. Therefore if somone offers them a bit of publicity this is reward enough to them - they have, in their eyes, profited. There is a demand and they have met it for a price they are happy with. In many circumstances people do not have to pay professional photographers any more because they don't have to - I agree its sad for the industry but it is a good and liberating thing for the rest of us to have a chance to get our work out there. The very best will still make a living and I would suggest that this process is raising the bar not lowering it as regards quality.
So, how dare you suggest that the rest of us should abandon something we enjoy just so that those of you who have decided that thats how you want to make a living can have a free run at it. What you are in fact doing is trying to promote a cartel to artificially raise the price of photography to a level that suits you.
Graham, I've no doubt that if you say your nephew is a good photographer then he is - unfortunately so are many other people and apart from a very skilled, lucky or shrewed few there is not enough work to go round. Its a sad reality but that's how it is. You would be doing your nephew a greater favour if, instead of bleating on here about how those of us who take pictures for nothing are spoiling his chosen career, (That HE chose, I presume - I, for one, certainly don't remember signing up to allocating him that career and agreeing that he was then owed a living) you advised him to take up a job for which there was suficient demand to allow him to earn a good living.
For really the last time (maybe)
Phil
There is one very important difference that Tony and Graham keep missing - whether you like it or not there are issues of supply and demand here.
You ask why the type setters, the printers, the editor and the writer etc. aren't asked to work for nothing - its because they are skills and skills that are not easy to come by, the writing included (Although I'm sure that some smart-arse will tell me that writing it is easy and they coud have done it - well, go on then!). Photography however is not a skill in demand. There are a lot of non-professional photographers producing extremely high quality work. Some, it must be said, producing higher quality work than some individuals who aspire, or profess, to being professional. On top of this there are poor photographers who every now-and-again produce excellent work by mistake - digital photography has meant that we can all take thousands of pictures instead of tens and the incidence of accidental good ones is therefore considerably higher. Many of these photographers place no monetary value on their work what so ever - they'd do it anyway. Therefore if somone offers them a bit of publicity this is reward enough to them - they have, in their eyes, profited. There is a demand and they have met it for a price they are happy with. In many circumstances people do not have to pay professional photographers any more because they don't have to - I agree its sad for the industry but it is a good and liberating thing for the rest of us to have a chance to get our work out there. The very best will still make a living and I would suggest that this process is raising the bar not lowering it as regards quality.
So, how dare you suggest that the rest of us should abandon something we enjoy just so that those of you who have decided that thats how you want to make a living can have a free run at it. What you are in fact doing is trying to promote a cartel to artificially raise the price of photography to a level that suits you.
Graham, I've no doubt that if you say your nephew is a good photographer then he is - unfortunately so are many other people and apart from a very skilled, lucky or shrewed few there is not enough work to go round. Its a sad reality but that's how it is. You would be doing your nephew a greater favour if, instead of bleating on here about how those of us who take pictures for nothing are spoiling his chosen career, (That HE chose, I presume - I, for one, certainly don't remember signing up to allocating him that career and agreeing that he was then owed a living) you advised him to take up a job for which there was suficient demand to allow him to earn a good living.
For really the last time (maybe)
Phil
