Posted on by Leslie

Technology and the industry

All the recent discussion about giving away very limited usage to build a fan base has been great, if a bit frustrating in its misunderstandings. The biggest misunderstanding is that what APE and to some extent I have been talking about is extremely limited free usage–not giving away advertising or even editorial rights but more like personal use rights. I’d never advocate giving away really monetizable (at least effectively monetizable) usage, but letting people use your images in very, very limited ways (like on personal blogs) might be a good idea.

I think what we are really seeing here can be put into two general camps: those who believe that the industry should work “this” way–even if it hasn’t really been “this” way for a while, and those who believe that the industry is evolving and how it works now isn’t how it worked then (whenever then may have been) and isn’t how it will work in the future.

The first camp often speak as if what they say always ends in “…dammit” as in “Clients should pay $50K for that usage and be seen and not heard…dammit.”

I used to be one of those. Pissed off, holier-than-thou, and, frankly, bitter that things simply weren’t as they should be.

I got better. Now, thankfully, I’m in the second camp.

Judy Herrmann in one of her SB2 talks mentions how photography used to be glass plates, then film, now digital, and in the future it’ll be some other medium. I think she nails it. You can’t hold onto the past and try to make the now or the future fit into that past-based context. It just doesn’t work.

In the case of giving away very limited electronic use, here’s what I want to know–how is that different from giving away a print? If you give a print to an AB, she could scan it and use it in her next ad–albeit illegally of course. Same for giving her the rights to use one of your electronic images on her personal website or blog. You just have to trust…and verify as much as you can without treating your gift as a Trojan horse.

Now, technology is really getting interesting for photographers. The ability to encode metadata that travels with your electronic image, including the rights granted for that image, means that your gift is clearly limited. Sure, it is possible to strip metadata, but that is illegal (so if they strip it and then use it in violation of copyright, you have a HUGE stick to wield). Soon, I believe, it will be possible to encode the metadata into the actual pixels–that will make it unstrippable (essentially). So giving away extremely limited usage will be easy to do and easier to police (this will also be helpful when/if the Orphan Works laws change).

I was politely debating with a photographer via email about this idea–of giving away very limited use and explained that it has worked for me. In my case, my product is also intellectual property (often)–it is my advice and that is often in the written form, or podcast. That makes it IP–just like an image. And I give away articles (Manuals) and there is no cost to download the Creative Lube podcasts. These “freebies” bring me more business than the money I might have made by monetizing the usage I give away with these items.

Unfortunately, I could not get that photographer to agree that an image for him is the same as a Manual or Podcast for me, but in the legal reality, they are the same. All three are intellectual property, protected by exactly the same laws and potentially stolen and misused in exactly the same ways.

In the past we would have trusted the ABs who got a print as a gift not to scan it and misuse it. I trust those who use my works not to abuse them. Why not choose to trust? And if you want to trust and verify, just keep up with technology…it’ll be easy (or at least not a burden) soon, I bet.

9 Replies to “Technology and the industry”

  1. While this is an important argument to make. It’s not in the least bit timely.

    The fact that photographers are still trying to respond to threat of infringement because of perceived dangers (the internet) and their lost income is telling. Why are photographers so slow here?

    The future is much, much faster than this and if photographers are at all interested in catching that wave then by all means let’s move on. I, personally, want to hear from you about new innovations and success stories.

    Look, for example, at new ways to distribute, syndicate, and advertise work. Look, for example, at how social networking can be a leverage for audience and eyeballs.

    Examine the ways these new mediums offer incredible possibilities and opportunities. And let’s find out how those who are successful tapping these possibilities and opportunities are doing it.

    What impresses me — now more than ever — is that photographers are perfectly positioned to take advantage of this content ‘gold rush.’ Most of them, though, are wearing blinders.

    From my point of view, AB’s and their budgets are at the best – a secondary placement for pictures. And at the worst – a wast of our precious time.

    The future of this business (as has been suggested, and to which I agree very much) is about growing an audience, a following, a fan base. I look forward to reading and learning from you about the tremendous opportunities we are presented with today.

  2. If it was a question of risk vs. benefit than the choice would be interesting. It is clear that in your business offering some of your advise as a sample has yielded a benefit. I have yet to hear how offering photos to bloggers will lead to a monetized use.

    I will be offering some of my images for free to my wife’s Google Knol (“a new Wikipedia-like collection written by experts) that is focused on Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes. I hope that the photos make her Knol more popular and she becomes even known in the diabetes world. There is a family benefit here.

    Will it be worthwhile to my healthcare photo career as well? It will be an interesting experiment. Would I have been wise to offer the images to a doctor that wasn’t my wife? I don’t think so.

    The greater question is where is the benefit?

  3. Personally, I’ve always thought that our industry needed some basic courses in economics, business, and marketing. Commercial artists are COMMERCIAL! This means that “supply and demand”, “profit and loss” and “differentiation and branding” all should be part of a comprehensive business plan.

    Since I entered the business in 1980, photographers (including me until I wised up) have been under the impression that they should control the market rather than taking advantage of changes in market conditions. Wise up folks, you can’t control the market. In my most controversial opinion, get ahead any way you can but be sure your business and marketing plans includes financial success rather than emotional and egotistical self actualization to which most photographers cling.

    While we should fight for every structural gain we can get on copyright issues and follow industry best practices, if you find it to your career advantage to shoot an editorial project or commercial job for reduced compensation or in trade, please do so because you can bet your bottom dollar that your fellow photographer will in a heart beat.

  4. Bruce:
    I disagree. You are missing the point. Responding to price is not a good idea. What I am talking about above is a marketing “tool”–just like giving away a print to a client to hang on her/his wall used to be (and still is).
    -Leslie

  7. Ok … lets just say there is a photographer who wants to get a fashion portfolio together. When confronted with that task, I don’t know about others, but I’ve always had to drop thousands or tens of thousands to build a respectable book of images. True?

    But then, let’s say a city magazine approaches the photographer and says: “we love your people work and we want to give you a 12 page 24 image spread plus cover. We’ll pay all production expenses to your specifications if you shoot it. If it goes well we’ll give you 2 more this year.

    If I take the deal, I get a portfolio of images to show and publicity without dropping a time out of pocket. So what I am understanding you to say, Leslie, is that you would advise the photographer to turn it down and spend the thousands to get the same images? Why? On principle? Because it’s good for the industry long term?

    I’m sorry to disagree back at ya – but I’ve been in business over 20 years and I would recommend the photographer take the deal. Trade for services has been around for a long time – it still works great under the right circumstances.

  8. Bruce:

    I said I disagreed to the responding to price part. There will always be people who will do “it” for less–whatever “it” may be. Chasing price is not a way to build your business.

    However, working for trade can be a good idea when the VALUE of the trade is equal to the value of the images’ use. For example, a mag that offers a free ad to a photographer if s/he does a shoot is NOT a good trade…unless that mag is something targeted directly to the photographers clients. The trade you describe above can be a good one.

    Btw, there is no reason a new portfolio should cost that much money. I don’t believe in shooting for a new portfolio. A portfolio should be a representation of your vision–if you’re not constantly making your own work, then I guess you could end up spending a ton on portfolio shoots, but you should be making your own work consistently.
    -L

  9. Hmmmmm – Leslie, while I think we basically agree, however, I do believe we need to be face to face to solve this one.

    I believe that in general, when competing on a high level in the advertising arena, production values are critical. Excellence in creativity and photographic technique is a given but I think most “A” level ad photographers would agree with me if I maintained that to be a player you have to come to the table with enough chips to anti up. I.E. if I want to shoot for American Express I’d better show that I can pull a team together that will match the quality that is worthy of a million plus dollar ad placement.

    I think we all have responded to price at some point but I do agree that you have to prove your value and stay true to your vision – this includes not compromising on production values, your value, and the value your client expects. In short, it’s a balance – the better you balance the scale the more success you’ll see.

    Just my humble opinion based on my experience.

Comments are closed.