
Last month, I was contacted by a travel video production company in California. They are putting together a DVD on Patagonia and were looking for a spectacular image to use on the DVD cover. After searching the internet and even contacting the late Galen Rowell’s Mountain Light stock photography agency, they decided that my image above was the most spectacular image of Torres del Paine National Park that they could find. I gave them a reasonable quote of $300 for using it on the cover of up to 5,000 DVDs. I did not hear back from them until yesterday. Fortunately, they have decided to go ahead and purchase my image, even though their distribution partners are not going to pay for it and had wanted to use some less interesting images that they found on micro-stock sites for $30 or less. At least in this case, my client decided that the less expensive option was not worth it, but it highlights the tough reality that we as photographers have to deal with on a daily basis. Is my photography too expensive? Are there too many options out there for photo buyers? What is the value of a photo in the digital age?
I checked my Twitter account this morning, followed a link from @FiNS magazine, and discovered 1 of my tiger shark images being used on-line, possibly without my permission. You can read the article here. There is no image credit, but it is no doubt mine. I sent off an email to the London Evening Standard just a short while ago and am waiting to hear back from them. They could have gotten it from one of my agents like Alamy or SeaPics, or they could have just used it without permission after finding it on the internet. We’ll see what happens.
Another case in point. I was in the Seattle REI this past spring. They sell my mini prints and I have taught photo classes there. I saw one of my best images of Mount Rainier being used on a promotional brochure for climbing Mount Rainier. It took a few days, but I finally tracked down where it came from. It is still posted here, and is apparently free, even though the site says at the bottom in tiny letters something about respecting copyrights. The only place that this image could have come from was from the Singh-Ray filters blog where I am occasionally featured. One of my fans, decided to grab the image and stick it on this website without even giving me credit. The graphic designer that I now work with directly at REI did not see any copyright information (even though it is in the metadata!) so he thought that he could use it for free. REI did eventually agree to pay me several hundred dollars for using it.
The internet is an amazing tool. It allows me to travel the world chasing pictures and work from home. I have spent a lot of time & money modifying my website to the point that it is Search Engine Optimized (SEO). I now get hundred’s of visitors every day who find my site simply by typing in a Google search for something that I have photographed. I am fortunate to be able to pursue my dream full-time. I could be making more money doing something with my degree or the tangents that I briefly followed, but I made a decision that being stuck in traffic and working in an office was not for me. I am very grateful that I have been able to make my modest career possible, but my biggest concern in the years ahead is, what if there is no longer any value in my photographs?
My friends and peers who have been in the industry for the last 20-30 years are very pessimistic every time that I talk to them. There is no doubt that the analog days of the stock industry in the late 80′s and early 90′s was great time to be a photographer. Distribution was tightly controlled by a few agencies. Can you imagine having to pay several hundred dollars for a basic research fee every time that you wanted to look something up on Google? That was what you had to do in order to then have original transparencies Next-Day shipped to you. Next, you had to pay for using the slide, even if you just took it out of it’s sleeve to consider it for mock-up purposes. My point here is that those days are long gone. In this era of technology making our lives ever more spectacular, we as photographers need to be vigilant that we are not being taken advantage of, but we also need the search engines to help people find us in order to make sales.
I get requests all the time from people and organizations that want to use my images for free. If it is a cause I believe in, I usually have already donated money, but I will consider donating an image in exchange for a credit line and I typically ask for at least a small purchase of one of my prints or note-card sets as an acknowledgment of the value of my photography. Most of the time people agree to this modest request. One of my favorite questions that I ask designers that contact me on behalf of someone else, is whether they are working for free for their client? No is almost always the answer. So why do they expect me to work for free?
I understand that new photographers are very excited just to have any of their images published and almost always give away their work for free. My only question is, is that a viable business model that I have not yet learned about? Most photographers just don’t use their heads when they are giving away their work, but unfortunately, they are the rule now rather than the exception. Royalty free and micro-stock sites are here to stay, even though I can not justify selling images that take me weeks of effort and sometimes thousands of dollars to produce for those prices. On the consumer side, I understand that a whole generation of people has been brought up thinking that everything on the internet is free. (I personally never downloaded any music until iTunes came out and my computer software is all paid for.) I recently followed a blog thread by a well-known underwater photographer who had someone copy and make a painting of one of his images and then offer them for sale without his permission. He politely asked them to stop doing that. The person did stop, but not before sending him a long nasty email where she kept referring to his photos as “just stock photography.” Apparently, “just stock photography” now means it is for free.
Tougher times are ahead my fellow photographers, but I wish you success however you may find it.