http://www.infocado.co.uk/ and my images

[Steve M]

Well each to their own I guess, personally I try to avoid screwing people over for no gain. If there's something to gain, all bets are off and each case on it's merits but when there's nothing to be gained...well that's a little sociopathic to me.

I've been reserved with my replies to you, but now you are talking total rubbish i'm afraid.

Lets put this very simply:

*Nobody is going to end up on the dole anytime soon due to me giving away a few photos. The company would have just got photos for free from another amateur if i had refused.

*Who are you to decide there is 'no gain' as you keep saying. I've said several times, I take photos as a hobby and my hobby is not in any way motivated by money. Seeing my work in print with my website address on it is really a great thing as far as i am concerned. Try to stop seeing this through £ tinted glasses.

*Do you honestly expect me to not give away my work for the good of the photography industry?! An industry (containing people i have never met) that will not altered in the slightest due to this episode.

I think you need to get real and put this into context

 

[bigredshark]

Fair enough, and I do (and have!) acknowledge that it's not a black and white area. That comment was aimed at the post before more than the OP.

What you're saying is reasonable, you had images which weren't widely available elsewhere (I can't imagine many togs covered the games) of a past event (so a nobody could go and shoot images tomorrow of the same thing) and gave them away with a reasonable purpose of advertising.

I'd differentiate that from general landscape shots of an area which would be widely available as stock and/or could be shot specifically shot for the purpose.

Essentially, you had images which, if you hadn't provided them, they likely simply wouldn't have had. So if you did anyone out of cash it was yourself and you decided that the advertising was a worthwhile trade and nobody lost out. I think that's subtly different - which is why it isn't a black and white area.

I don't want to seem like I'm out to criticise the OP here, I just think the argument about why you shouldn't give away photos like that is worth having.

 

[Steve M]

I don't want to seem like I'm out to criticise the OP here, I just think the argument about why you shouldn't give away photos like that is worth having.

Fair comment, and it's been a healthy debate, which is always a good thing

Like i said though, we need to keep this particular case in context and not get carried away.

 

[bigredshark]

*Who are you to decide there is 'no gain' as you keep saying. I've said several times, I take photos as a hobby and my hobby is not in any way motivated by money. Seeing my work in print with my website address on it is really a great thing as far as i am concerned. Try to stop seeing this through £ tinted glasses.

Whatever it is to you, it's income to somebody. And no, the £600 involved probably isn't going to put anybody on the dole but it's the principle and if 100 people do it that's two photographers incomes all of a sudden. I will criticise and explain why when I see it because I hope that maybe one of the people listening will see the argument and not do it even if you do.

*Do you honestly expect me to not give away my work for the good of the photography industry?! An industry (containing people i have never met) that will not altered in the slightest due to this episode.

I think you need to get real and put this into context

Do I expect you to? No, given what you've said that's obviously not going to happen. I would like to think that the average person might see the arguments and consider not doing it.

I'm also moderately surprised given your attitude you aren't more concerned you're getting taken for a ride by the publishers who *are* making a profit from this make no mistake. It's a fantastic model for them, bumps they're profit probably 50% over having to pay for photos. If they weren't and lack of budget now was a concern they'd have offered a percentage of sales or similar.

 

[Steve M]

I'm also moderately surprised given your attitude you aren't more concerned you're getting taken for a ride by the publishers who *are* making a profit from this make no mistake.

I've already stated a few times that my photography is not motivated by money.

Good luck to them, they've clearly found a way of making a few quid from a small outlay. Isn't that how business works?

 

[Rojin]

The one thing that nobody has proven, is that the company in question will actually pay for the content in these regional test runs that they are trying out. If the fact of the matter is that the whole reason these small test runs exists is by sourcing free material, then none of the arguments in here are relevant. If as they say the test runs prove popular and it moves to a larger run next year where they do pay for the content, well the OP is in a very good position isn't he?

 

[Steve M]

The one thing that nobody has proven, is that the company in question will actually pay for the content in these regional test runs that they are trying out. If the fact of the matter is that the whole reason these small test runs exists is by sourcing free material, then none of the arguments in here are relevant. If as they say the test runs prove popular and it moves to a larger run next year where they do pay for the content, well the OP is in a very good position isn't he?

Yeah, they have already told me that if the calender sells and they use my stuff again for the main run for 2013, i will get paid.

Perhaps though if the calender does sell in the test run, they may look to get 'proper' images for the main runs and then the 'real' photographers will get paid after all!

 

[ichabod crane]

Architecture has a good relevance in this thread as it does suffer from a similar problem with practices undercutting each other to get work and ever lowering the standard of the entire industry. Architects obsolete in 10-20 years lol

But I can also see where the OP is coming from, he is an amateur who is flattered to have some work published. So I say go for it and if some sales come of this publication then all the better. Personally I wouldn't do it but each to there own.

These sorts of companies are just out to make some quick cash they will appear and disappear within a short period and are not really the cliental of a professional photographer anyway.

 

[Steve M]

Sorry to drag up an old thread but the calender sold quite well, well enough for the company to approach me again to use my work for a 2013 calender, and this time they are paying me so it all turned out well in the end.

 

[Sinopa]

Sorry to drag up an old thread but the calender sold quite well, well enough for the company to approach me again to use my work for a 2013 calender, and this time they are paying me so it all turned out well in the end.

I did not see this thread first time round but having just read it now found it interesting. Thanks for the update.

 

[MikeHunt79]

Sorry to drag up an old thread but the calender sold quite well, well enough for the company to approach me again to use my work for a 2013 calender, and this time they are paying me so it all turned out well in the end.

Nice, sometimes you have to make a leap of faith and in this case it seems to have done the trick.

 

[booyaka]

well done - congrats

 

[LizardKing]

But I have a problem with them giving them away for free, and caving to the 'if you charge we aren't interested argument', if nobody gives photos away for free they'll pay, if people do it's a race to the bottom.

You must feel what Bill Gates felt towards Linus Torvalds in the 90's, it didn't do MS any favours then and will do you and the photo selling industry any good either.
Are you going to complain about all industry's that offer there services for free within a commercial market?
Part and process of running a business is moving and adapting with market trends, if you fail at that then you can only blame yourselves.


Fair play to the OP. And glad it worked out well!