No smoke without fire.
http://www.infocado.co.uk/ and my images
- Thread starter Steve M
- Start date
Looks like you have an issue with Infocado to me. They have obviously changed their business model to source amateur work in place of professional. If the level of amateur work is high enough then they are getting a bargain as most will let them have the pics just to see them in print. That's just a fact of life.
Unfortunately photography has changed massively with the advent of digital. Professionals need to find areas where they can provide a service that cannot be matched by freely available material.
Unfortunately photography has changed massively with the advent of digital. Professionals need to find areas where they can provide a service that cannot be matched by freely available material.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Nov 2008
- Posts
- 13,374
- Location
- London
I'd let someone use some of my images for free if it meant I got some decent exposure (excuse the pun
). If it was a big company then I'd definitely bill them, judging from their website and a quick google, they should have really given you SOMETHING, even it was a tenner per image.Do you have a link to the images in question?
I'd let someone use some of my images for free if it meant I got some decent exposure (excuse the pun
Do you have a link to the images in question?
These are some of them:
P1020852 by Steve Millward, on Flickr
P1010832 by Steve Millward, on Flickr
P1010691 by Steve Millward, on Flickr
P1010951 by Steve Millward, on Flickr
P1010459 by Steve Millward, on Flickr
P1020570 by Steve Millward, on Flickr
Darley Abbey Mills by Steve Millward, on Flickr
P908154211 by Steve Millward, on Flickr
1020980 by Steve Millward, on Flickr
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 8 Oct 2005
- Posts
- 604
If you're work is good enough someone will pay for it, if companies don't want the highest quality work they're free to ask to use people like the OP. He doesn't have to say yes, and if he does he's not been ripped off and your not losing income as they didn't ask you!.
Over reaction of the year I think. Do you think that street sweepers think this way when they see a member of the public using a bin to dispose of their rubbish in the 'proper manner' doing them out of their job. Or are actors sat at homes invoicing the television companies because they are showing programs based around 'reality' for entertainment instead of classically trained actors in a heady mix shakespearean dramas or comedy......
You're getting upset over nothing really. As you are a pro photographer did you ever give a picture out for free so you could get your name about or did you go straight into charging hundreds / thousands of pounds for your work without any reference / reputation? I would doubt it would be the latter.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Nov 2009
- Posts
- 25,462
- Location
- Planet Earth
Nice pictures!
It is one thing allowing a picture or two to get some free publicity but TBH any more and it is taking the mickey. They should at least give you a bit of money - it is not like £200 or something along those lines is going to end up making them bankrupt! If it was for charity I could even understand them not paying for pictures.
You might as well enter your pictures in a competition in a magazine or internet website and you have more chance of getting free publicity and a prize.
It is one thing allowing a picture or two to get some free publicity but TBH any more and it is taking the mickey. They should at least give you a bit of money - it is not like £200 or something along those lines is going to end up making them bankrupt! If it was for charity I could even understand them not paying for pictures.
You might as well enter your pictures in a competition in a magazine or internet website and you have more chance of getting free publicity and a prize.
Last edited:
what a joke!
Well i received another E-mail from them today confirming they had selected 12 of my images to use, so the Derbyshire calender they are producing will be entirely my work. They have promised to print my name and website on the calender.
As mentioned earlier in this thread though, at this stage i'm just happy for the exposure. Yes it's cheeky by them and of course it would be great to get paid, but they wouldn't budge. They told me if I wanted paying they would use another photographer..
If there is a next time, i will definately ask for a fee, but as this is the first time i've ever had any interest like this, I'm happy just to see my work in print with my website address attached.
I really do see why giving away work might upset some of the pros, but see it from my point of view. Also, some of the over dramatic comments in this thread from some about loss of earnings, screwing the industry ect, have been laughable and pathetic in my opinion.
I am a photography student at the moment so feel i sit in the middle of this debate, as I would like to gain some exposure for a wider audience to see my work, but also hope to break into the competitive market that I am currently being trained in. So I can understand why, especially as someone who isn't in this profession would feel privileged that their work wants to be used.
However, I feel that you too need to sympathise with the professional photographers who train and spend the time you have possibly spent learning your craft, learning theirs, to be removed from the equation by an "amateur".
I am currently working within the architecture industry (what I did before photography) and it is in tatters due to this very fact of people undercutting each other within the industry and causing the value of an architect to go down.
Take the legal profession for a perfect example (something i also learned through a case in architecture) they charge around £220-£250 per hour (compared to my boss who is a chartered architect with 40 years experience who charges £90/h) for a fully trained chartered professional, and £110 for a legal-student essentially, aka someone who isn't even qualified. These prices have stuck as their profession hasn't been devalued by other professionals, undercutting each other and subsequently removing the importance of the training they have undertaken.
I know this is quite long winded and rather spelled out, but i felt it important to reiterate the point of undervaluing a professional's work, and explain in it a less "reactive" way of some of the pros on here.
P.s. you can't really compare a street sweeper to a photographer as a street cleaner will still get paid at the end of the day, they don't get paid per item of rubbish they sweep up!!!
cheers. ross.
Personally I think some people are having childish tantrums in this thread relating to issues that aren't really relevant to this thread.
I can see the point Steve M is making. Someone comes along and offers to put an image of his in a calander, thus increasing his web presence, and popularity/flickr traffic.
Can anyone honestly say they wouldn't give a few photos away free for the possibility of future paying work? You'd have to be soft in the head to turn down free advertising. Unless you know for a fact you could sell the photo tomorrow for £100 then I say go for it.
I'd do it unless it was blatantly clear that the company was ripping you off. Personally I'd query with them why their T&C says they pay and they're asking for yours for free, see what their reply is and take it from there.
If you stopped and listened to every photographer that whined because you took trade from them, then you'd never sell any photos. The argument about undercutting has been going on for decades and at the end of the day, if your work is good enough, it will sell. Giving ALL your work away would be stupid in this case however, as they'd clearly be making a load of cash for the price of the printing.
{edit} Ah, I see that you've agreed to the calender. Well all I can say is that I hope you haven't handed over the image rights to them in their entirety, otherwise you'll never be able to sell them to anyone else!
I can see the point Steve M is making. Someone comes along and offers to put an image of his in a calander, thus increasing his web presence, and popularity/flickr traffic.
Can anyone honestly say they wouldn't give a few photos away free for the possibility of future paying work? You'd have to be soft in the head to turn down free advertising. Unless you know for a fact you could sell the photo tomorrow for £100 then I say go for it.
I'd do it unless it was blatantly clear that the company was ripping you off. Personally I'd query with them why their T&C says they pay and they're asking for yours for free, see what their reply is and take it from there.
If you stopped and listened to every photographer that whined because you took trade from them, then you'd never sell any photos. The argument about undercutting has been going on for decades and at the end of the day, if your work is good enough, it will sell. Giving ALL your work away would be stupid in this case however, as they'd clearly be making a load of cash for the price of the printing.
{edit} Ah, I see that you've agreed to the calender. Well all I can say is that I hope you haven't handed over the image rights to them in their entirety, otherwise you'll never be able to sell them to anyone else!
Last edited:
Maybe i didn't make my point clear enough. The council pay a street sweeper to clear the streets of rubbish. If everyone used the bins then the number of street cleaners would be greatly reduced as the workload is reduced to due people disposing of the rubbish properly. Rather than specific items of rubbish being removed whilst the streets remain cluttered with other crap.
No, undercutting in the architectural/construction industry is not a new thing. There are a couple of similarities though, with the advent of CAD there are plenty of people who can now produce professional looking plans who actually have very little construction experience. Quality of work has suffered because of this, there's too many CAD monkeys out there that have very little comprehension of actual construction methodology and impact of design. I'll never forget the fresh architectural graduate who asked me why pier sizes were important. I explained about brick/block sizes, coursing etc... there was a pause... so what size is a brick? He asked... You couldn't make it up!
Oh yes indeed, that was the parallel I was making (CAD monkeys is a well known term by the way to those who don't know the industry, no slurs intended on amateur photographers!).
AutoCAD at times is the bane of my life, everyone and there aunts says they can use it. Sadly the truth is sometimes way short of expectations, and that's before you even consider design/construction experience. Starting to digress here, but photography isn't the only industry where experience and quality of work pay dividends, yet conversely there is also the cheaper end of the market where such things aren't as valued. Unfortunately with photography there is also the massive amateur source of work, where people are producing work for the pure enjoyment of it as a hobby rather than looking at it as a source of income.
I suppose my architectural decline of value analogy was more relative to this discussion than the legal one, however I was merely using that to show how the price of a professionalism can stay relatively similar over time. The role of an architect involves organisation, design, project management, drawing skills etc all of which can now (to an extent) be done individually, by its specific job, which is why the guys in my office feel the "architect" may well be non-existent as we know it in 10-20 years!
Photography as has been said is a relatively much more accessible hobby these days with cheaper priced and more widely available equipment. Again, however it is important for the professionals who have been specifically trained in this career stay as a single entity to protect the worth of the application of their training, i.e. maintain price similarities for the cost of what they do. Which is why it could be seen as insulting to them when companies such as the one on this thread who rely of photography to operate try to remove them from the equation all together. I feel Steve M has been singled out here as the fall guy on behalf of these companies, but I also feel he and several others on here need to realise why people are taking such offence to this.
Photography as has been said is a relatively much more accessible hobby these days with cheaper priced and more widely available equipment. Again, however it is important for the professionals who have been specifically trained in this career stay as a single entity to protect the worth of the application of their training, i.e. maintain price similarities for the cost of what they do. Which is why it could be seen as insulting to them when companies such as the one on this thread who rely of photography to operate try to remove them from the equation all together. I feel Steve M has been singled out here as the fall guy on behalf of these companies, but I also feel he and several others on here need to realise why people are taking such offence to this.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Nov 2009
- Posts
- 25,462
- Location
- Planet Earth
So they value the work of the OP enough to print a calendar but not enough to pay him??
Are they not going to pay you for ALL the printing runs or just the initial test ones. You need to ask them what the size of the first run is and if it is sucessful would it mean you get paid for subsequent runs.
What if next time they ask for some more pictures and the OP says they want to be paid and they then decline??
I would make sure that at least there was some sort of agreement in place that makes sure the OP is not taken for a ride.
MAKE SURE YOU ARE NOT AUTOMATICALLY GIVING YOUR RIGHTS AWAY TO THE PRINTED PICTURES!!
TBH,if the work is good enough for a whole calendar perhaps other companies might also be interested in the work themselves. They may actually pay the OP.
Only one picture needs to be successful.
Edit!!
I just realised the OP said the following:
"As mentioned earlier in this thread though, at this stage i'm just happy for the exposure. Yes it's cheeky by them and of course it would be great to get paid, but they wouldn't budge. They told me if I wanted paying they would use another photographer..
If there is a next time, i will definately ask for a fee, but as this is the first time i've ever had any interest like this, I'm happy just to see my work in print with my website address attached.
"
You mean another free photographer.
Are they not going to pay you for ALL the printing runs or just the initial test ones. You need to ask them what the size of the first run is and if it is sucessful would it mean you get paid for subsequent runs.
What if next time they ask for some more pictures and the OP says they want to be paid and they then decline??
I would make sure that at least there was some sort of agreement in place that makes sure the OP is not taken for a ride.
MAKE SURE YOU ARE NOT AUTOMATICALLY GIVING YOUR RIGHTS AWAY TO THE PRINTED PICTURES!!
TBH,if the work is good enough for a whole calendar perhaps other companies might also be interested in the work themselves. They may actually pay the OP.
Only one picture needs to be successful.
Edit!!
I just realised the OP said the following:
"As mentioned earlier in this thread though, at this stage i'm just happy for the exposure. Yes it's cheeky by them and of course it would be great to get paid, but they wouldn't budge. They told me if I wanted paying they would use another photographer..
If there is a next time, i will definately ask for a fee, but as this is the first time i've ever had any interest like this, I'm happy just to see my work in print with my website address attached.
"
You mean another free photographer.
Last edited:
Like i said, its not my opinion, its the opinion of the afore mentioned chartered architect with 40 years experience. And not the "role", the tasks would still be there but a single person undertaking them was their view. I personally feel that it wont be removed as a job but evolved to be more specific i.e. a designer/consultant.
