Skip to main content

Exchanging photos for "exposure"


According to a recent opinion piece in the New York Tiimes, I'm not alone in being a "slave of the internet."

"...being told that what you do is of no ($0.00) value to the society you live in is, frankly, demoralizing. Even sort of insulting."

No matter what you charge for your art, someone always wants you to give it away for free. I'm not referring to charities or family members, but to businesses with budgets. If I choose to donate my time or some of my work to a charity I support, that's my decision to make. And if a close family member wants a photo, I don't charge (although a request to pay me always follows). No matter who asks for one of my photos, I'm flattered they asked and it makes me happy to know that someone enjoys my work enough to hang it on their wall in their home or office. But when a business expects me to jump at the chance to have my work included in their newsletter/website/magazine/event/whatever in exchange for "exposure," a photo credit or byline (quickly following that with "we have no budget to pay you"), that's just insulting. You have a budget. That's what it's for. And I'm sorry, but I really don't believe that whatever "exposure" I may get from giving your company my photo will result in customers ringing my phone off the hook offering me more work. Do you ask your mechanic to fix your car for free, in exchange for passing along his name to your friends? Nope, you don't. Please don't expect me to do it either.

Over the years, I've been asked by quite a few people if I would shoot their wedding. The question comes from random acquaintenances, mainly, but once I was asked by a stranger on the street while I was photographing buildings downtown. Odd. I've heard everything from, "We are on a really limited budget" to "Other wedding photographers I've contacted are SO expensive!" I should clarify something here: I don't shoot weddings. I never have and I have no desire to start. I admire photographers who do (and I know some really awesome ones), but shooting a wedding is a whole new level of pressure and stress that I honestly have no need for. I always refer the acquaintenance to one of my wedding-photographer friends with the caveat that you really do get what you pay for. Professional wedding photography is not cheap and there are many good reasons why pros charge the rates they charge.

This article by photographer John B. Mueller provides a great explanation of why photographers charge what we charge for our work. Ok, it may be an extreme example, but you get the idea. I feel comfortable saying I probably speak for most photographers when I say, "Please respect the time, effort and costs that go into producing our work." We'll do the same for you.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Would you deface a piece of history for a photo?

I read an interesting article yesterday on CNN. Russian photographer Vadim Makhorov and a group of his friends apparently disregarded rules that prohibit the public from climbing the Pyramids of Giza - just to get a few photos from the top of the pyramids. Were the photos worth it? I'm not sure. Yes, they were nice, but the idea that the photographers not only ignored safety regulations, but risked defacing one of the great wonders of the world - all for the sake of a photo - pissed me off. Now don't get me wrong. Oftentimes I do photograph a subject with the "It's better to ask forgiveness than permission" mantra. But I'm always respectful of my chosen subject, be it a person on the street, a field of wildflowers or a national monument. Of course Makhorov says he "would like to apologize for this ascension. We didn't want to insult anyone. We were just following the dream." Uh huh. He's not apologizing for doing it. He's apologizin...
2 comments
Read more

The "Peeping Tom" photographer vs. a subject's right to privacy

Where does a subject's right to privacy begin? A "peeping Tom" photographer/artist, Arne Svenson, in New York took photos of his unsuspecting neighbors through their windows. The photos (including those of children) are now featured in a gallery exhibit in Manhattan. Needless to say, the subjects are not pleased. According to the photographer, no invasion of privacy took place because the subjects in the photos can't be identified. I call B.S. on that. While faces may not be shown, I would bet that someone who knows some of the people in the photos could easily recognize them. I do agree that if you want your daily activities in your home to remain private, then you should close your curtains or window blinds. However, you should also be allowed to assume that your daily activities won't end up being turned into a gallery exhibit, raking in thousands of dollars for the so-called artist. And as this article  points out, people don't pay huge amounts of money...
2 comments
Read more

Do Schools Teach Students About Photo Usage and Copyright Infringement?

I know I've discussed the issue of copyright infringement and stolen photos before , but last week I had a few other instances occur so I thought this would be a good time to discuss it again. Here's what happened last week: I did an online search for my most-often-stolen photo (not the one pictured here) and sure enough: three more instances of the same photo pilfered without my permission. One website was a high school blog. Another site was a college website (their student online newspaper, actually) and the third was a news/entertainment-type site. I sent all three infringers my standard DMCA takedown request letter via email. In the email I explained that I am the copyright owner on the photo, they are committing copyright infringement by using the photo without my written permission and provided links to the photo on my website. Before taking further action, I requested that they either remove the photo immediately or send payment - a very reasonable fee for one-tim...
Post a Comment
Read more