There has been a lot of discussion over the past year regarding copyrights, violation of copyrights, licensing fees and related matters. I've been thinking about it and I'd like to take you through a bit of a logic flow.

Back in the dark ages -- the 1970s and 1980s -- copyrights and image licensing fees were pretty simple and straightforward to figure out: the greater the reach of the media in which the image was to be used, the higher the licensing fee. If you were buying an image for use in Time magazine, you paid more for it than if you were using it for a brochure for the local florist. Simple. Logical.

Then in the mid-1990s, things started to get both more complicated and more illogical. The computer started to become a primary medium for receiving information and the internet started to become a primary advertising medium.

Ah, yes, the internet where everyone with a computer, everywhere in the world can reach your website any time of the day or night. Logic would tell us that this type of unparalleled reach would result in the highest licensing fees. But logic would be wrong. Images and other intellectual property that is licensed for use on the internet has the lowest fees and, most of the time, is provided (or taken) for free.

So how does that effect us? Well, let me talk about my business which is Professional Dog Show Photographer. My primary product is an 8X10 color print. Why? Tradition. That's been the primary product of dog show photographers for as long as I can remember. I sell my primary product for $25 and often give away a low-rez file for web use to those who buy the print.

What's wrong with that? Well, most people don't really want the print. They want the web file. And they think it should be for free. That's why they sit behind me when I'm shooting and take their own digital photos to put on their websites. They don't think that's stealing. They think it's meeting their needs which I'm not. Folks buy my prints so they can scan them and put the images on their websites. They really don't understand when I tell them my copyright doesn't include that usage. They've always done it to other photographers. They expect to be able to do it with any photographer.

Against this mentality we continue to rave about copyrights, usage fees, post-event sales that we never get, etc. Maybe -- just maybe -- we're the ones that are out of tune with what the marketplace is telling us.

While I've been a professional photographer for over 30 years, I've made most of my living as a marketing/advertising guy. In that role, I've always believed that you listen to what the marketplace is telling you and provide it. It's a simple philosophy but it's not always simple or easy to do. The marketplace is telling us they want files. They want low-rez files for their websites and they want hi-rez files so they can make as many low-cost prints as they need. They have access to the same labs we use and they certainly don't need to pay our markup.

If we get away from the antiquated belief that our files are really the equivalent of digital negatives, then we can consider whether or not it makes sense to sell our files at a value level that let's us make money. And what is that level? I'm not sure, frankly. If you consider that we cut down on most if not all of our processing and distribution expenses, then how much do we have to earn to make the front-end of the process profitable. $50 per file? $100 per file? Remember, we'd be providing them with unlimited usage rights.

The gotcha in all of this is, of course, what price would the marketplace bear. It's well and good for me to say that the value of unlimited usage of my images is $100 per image but if the marketplace is only willing to pay $25, then I'm not going to make many sales at my pricing level. But, for the sake of discussion, let's assume that there is a pricing level that works both for me and the market.

I'm interested in what folks on this forum think about this "radical" change in perspective. The trigger for this rumination is the fact that none of us can afford the time, energy and money it will take to legislate our copyrights under the mentality that a print is a print; a file is a file; one use is only one use. Our buyers don't think that way. Maybe it's time for us to change the way we think.

Jim

I agree with what you've said. I would however include a blurb about stock and magazines. That too has changed similarly and today, you can get from Getty, an image for a buck or two which once cost $300-500!

I have crossed over into the new age. I have done many jobs where I sell my services and NOT the prints. I would sell the prints to but that usually is not part of the deal.

For example I did a corporate job (relatively small business) where I just hired out at $150 per hour and at the end of the contract, I handed over all the images - NO post processing, no manipulation just DVD's with 2000 jpg's.

I made about $2500 bucks on that job it's in the bank, and I dont ever have to deal with the images or headaches associated with copyrights. Staff photographers have been doing this for years - just look at National Geographic. They show credits, but a staffer until lately, gets a salary and expenses, and does not get the rights to the images - they do now get some royalties, but that's a recent charge.

Anyhow, I figure out a way to deliver for my clients. I try not to let them think to much about it, and on a project like the one I described, I could try to get greedy and make a ton of the images and their usage, but then I’d have to do all the processing, and keep track of the business and my shots. . . neither things I want to do!

In this case it worked, in yours it may not.

BTW, never has the artist been the one to enforce through suit copyright, sure there's a few cases here and there, but the big players are the MOSTER media mogals like Turner, and Murdoch. They are the one's that always, in the past have held in check our rights - including the rights to free speach and today, they are letting us down. Youre right, we dont have the power, but then again, nothing worth doing has ever been easy. . .

Jim, like you, I have started to give a low rez file for each print bought. I make it 500x500 save it at level 7 and oversharpen *just* a touch. It looks good on a website, but will print horribly. I do so because people ARE going to scan them and put them up anyhow. You can try and stop them, but it just gets you frustrated and mad at the world.

I had someone excitedly tell me that my photo was in one of the yearbooks. I decided I just wasn't going to be upset about it. I know they ordered from me and I am going to look at it as excellent advertising. I do ask that when using my photo on a website, they link back to me. Some do, some don't. So I stamp them with my web addy.

I do think the world has changed. It was much harder to steal a photo before it could be scanned and printed on a home printer. The internet has made people TRULY believe that if it is on the internet, it is free. I had someone ask me if I would print a photo for them for that reason. That on the internet made it public property. Of course they got an earful but, I am sure they ignored me

I don't really care if my stuff is used on personal site. I do care if it is used in advertising. That is the line I draw at.

But Jim, I think you are right. Photographers are going to have to change with the times to a degree. Theft is a matter of fact and people make no apologies for it

Julie,
I think it's impossible to distinguish between a "personal" site and an "advertising" site. I had someone try to tell me that they only put pictures of their dog on their site as if it were a scrapbook. I asked if they sold their dog at stud or bred litters and they said "yes". Well, then, that's an advertising site.

Jim and Linda don't have a website. My dogs do. I breed occasionally and Rowdy would love to sire another litter so they are being advertised in the strictest sense of the word.

And, BTW, a scrapbook gets shown to maybe 20 people. Your website can be viewed by millions. It isn't a matter of you promoting it. People search for what they want and they'll find you. So, while people's perception may be that what's on the internet is "free", the fact is that the internet provides tremendous reach and, therefore, has tremendous value.

But I'm not trying to make money on low-rez images. Folks still send out stud packages and litter packages and they need to make low-cost prints. You can buy a pretty decent photo printer for well under $100 and run as many prints as your ink cartridges will allow. I think that's the primary value of my providing hi-rez files. Will I lose that print revenue? Not a chance. They were never going to use me anyway.

Jim

Tony,
you're absolutely right about stock houses. They have degraded the value of stock images to the point where you have to ask yourself why try to sell stock. They have not done any favors for photographers.

I also agree that if you sell your services, give them the files. In commercial work, that's absolutely the best way to do it. They get your creativity and vision. They have the staff to do the computer work and post-processing. Everyone wins.

Unfortunately, my selling my services to show chairmen and offering the images for free to exhibitors would require a MONUMENTAL cultural change which I do not see happening in my lifetime.

I guess the process of enforcing copyrights isn't the primary force at work in my thinking but I would really rather spend my time shooting shows and not printing, collating, stuffing envelopes, printing postage and mailing stuff. However, I would also prefer shooting shows to chasing thieves or going to small claims court.

It's not that I'm not willing to work hard. I just would prefer to work on things that I enjoy and that meet the market's needs/wants. I've put out a short survey to my best clients asking them what they would prefer in terms of my primary show product. When I get the results, I'll share it with the forum. I also asked some pricing questions which I'm sure will be very useful . As in "are you willing to pay more to get more"? If one person answers "yes" to that, I'll be amazed.

Thanks for your response. As always it's very helpful.

Jim

I struggle with the same issues. My main clients are kids with ponies. Though, I just did a show breeder and her whippets. Yes, the photos are advertising on her site, but, in the same breath, those photos are advertising for ME. I ask for a link back and credit. I know this has worked so far for me, as that is how I got her as a client.

I am fairly new as a photographer. So, my needs are different than those that have been in it for 20 years and are already known. The more people see my name, the more "validity" I get as a photographer.

I have personally drawn the line on advertising as sending a high rez file to a magazine. I am probably wrong though.

most magazine work is NOT advertising, it's documentary, at least in the U.S.A. NOT so in Canada. If you think it's tough in the U.S., try to figure out Canada's rules! Each Province and local jurisdiction has it's own regs, and they dont have the same open policy as the U.S.A. . .

Jim, I think your spot on with thoughts! You seem like a wise person.

It is true that people in the past have been affraid to infringe on CR and Free Speach because the big corperations in the USA protected the journalist and by extention others as well. Without that protection, our rights to our material will slowly erode. . . there also is a hezzatation to regulate the internet.

if youre worried about your stuff on the www why not use flash?

Great post, thanks you guys. . .

Finally, it's a cultural change at hand. people just are not as honest as they once were. . . I dont think you can regulate honesty, just like you cant force demacracy with a bomb. . .

Tony,
you're right about Canada -- they definitely do things differently there . I just had a response to my survey from an exhibitor/breeder/webmaster who lives in Canada. She stated very strongly that she would never purchase an image she couldn't copy for the web or for advertising.

The fact is, the Canadian photographers do it differently than we do: they deliver on-site and deliver both prints and a CD with the original file. They also charge more.

It's a good concept except they're essentially delivering the images straight out of the camera with little or no PhotoShop work on them. Whenever we've used them for magazine ads, I've had to work on every one of the images to make them acceptable for magazine reproduction. I like the concept but I don't believe in delivering a schlock product.

We're still dealing with a film/print mentality in this particular segment of the profession where the photographers knew nothing about who was scanning their prints and were happy it was somebody other than them cuz they didn't know how to. Geez, most are still shooting film with Hasselblads! Today!!! It boggles the mind.

It's hard to go from that mentality to one that says a print is a print, a file is a file, and you've only bought rights to the print. Folks flip you the finger and go right ahead and scan it.

My objective is to maintain image quality in whatever form it gets used while still making a decent revenue from the process of shooting a show. BTW, based on the early survey returns, most folks want that print. What does that tell you?

Jim

I know it is difficult for people to accept change. If they see it is for their best interest and bottom line they will be on board quickly.

About ten years ago I did my first Specialty. It was with Cavaliers and they were not as into the shots with the judge images. Coming from commercial photography, I had a different approach to the process. I charged each person for shooting their dog/dogs. Those that waited to the end and wanted a judge in the shot, I just grouped that in with the sitting/creation/shooting fee. No one questioned the process. I also had some other ideas that I tried.
I shot a Boston specialty and it went over like a lead balloon. Possibly too early for digital change or my shooting!!!

I see two major obstacles. Advertising seem to all look alike when they are the standard show with the judge shots and all the stuff the show has around.
I personally dislike the look and thought that if a few people would advertise with a different look, the trend would catch on. The photographer could take a nice portrait of the judge. A nice type of signage for the show location,date, etc could be included and the dog could be photographed to the best of its presentation. For instance a Pom on the table with four big people does not give the dog the best presentation- right?

The second problem is companies like Booth who hire many photographers and their shots are ring to ring shots. I totally understand the need for those win pictures, I have purchased them myself. But if the customers are offered an image that they would hang on the wall and not just in a scrapbook, would that not make our business better off?


I have been into the horse shows longer than dog shows. In the marketing of my breed over the last thirty years, I have seen amazing changes in the photography for advertising. If I am shopping for a stallion (stud dog) I want to see the animal. You can list all the wins and put that in wonderful layout but show me the dog (horse). I think you get it.

As long as we are brainstorming right now, what if there was a show, with Tony, Julie and Jim in a vendor space with their set ups. The owner or handler could pick one or more of the photographers to photograph the dog during the show.
(Would it not be wonderful to have constant business rather than all at the end)

Or what if we went to a show and only one photographer will shoot a couple of win shots and you walk away from the show with a CD that you paid for before you had your dog photographed.

Or you could go to the show, have the dog photographed, view images on a screen and order what you want then and there. CD provided with images purchased.

When I say magazing advertising, I mean an ad in a magazine. Not a shot featured in a magazine. With dogs(and horses) the owners want their animal featured so that they get exposure and the judges start to recognize them.

The majority of the dog show photographers I see are using Medium format film. So, it is like Jim said, they haven't really worried about the digital aspects yet. So, you won't likely get a CD when you leave.

I was asked to do the St Bernard nationals. They want 8x10 prints period. They want the judge win shots. Period. They would love to have candids, but, win shots are a must.

I do not think I would pay to be a vendor with other photographers doing the same as I. Not worth the money or TIME.

I have no problem instantly proofing and printing, but, you have to have(and pay) assistants for that. That drives your costs up significantly.

I am not going to give my images away on CD's. It is fine to have a business model like that, but, it just seems to really limit future sales. I have just received a $150 order off of Christmas shoot I did(and they had ordered more than that initially). Had I sold the CD of them, that would have been it.