UKC

Dear oh dear ....

http://photothisandthat.co.uk/2013/08/08/not-so-great-for-photographers/

In reply to Henry Iddon: they should be thankful for free advertising from UK plc..
<runs for cover>

In reply to Henry Iddon:

whilst clearly a rubbish deal for the photographer in question. Perhaps the blogger needs to understand that just because a budget is set to £55m does not mean that costs aren't going to be tight - what if the TV space for the adverts comes to £54m and staff and resources comes out of the rest? (I know this is unlikely, but just because the millenium dome cost £400m (or what ever) does not mean they had £100 to spend per pencil)

In reply to balmybaldwin:

On that basis, who should work for free? Should a budget be approved that factors in fair payment for the people building the dome (to extend your analogy) but not the photographers? If so, why?

In reply to balmybaldwin:

Read it and wept. No surprise to me though, I get emails like this a lot and not just from wee local PR companies with no budget, my quote to the Scottish Government who recently wanted to use one of my images with 'unlimited' use on their website and in hardcopy was laughed at.

My quote was in line with NUJ price guidlines.Now if the government budget cant stretch to that.....

In reply to Tall Clare: so the 1% benefits..

In reply to SeanB:


Eck the Shrek, blew the budget by attending Wimbledon this summer...

In reply to Henry Iddon:
So if you were running a government campaign would you immediately offer to cough up the full whack of ~£15k (as they are suggesting)? knowing that we as a country are skint and every penny will no doubt be scrutinised either internally or by some tabloid hack trying to fill the both pages and their own agenda. Or, would you try and be a bit cheeky and try and get a deal?

IMO the picture by Shaun Curry isn't worth more than the £100 offered.

And the photographers haven't been conned in any way shape or form as they were offered something openly and chose to turn it down.

In reply to gethin_allen:

Surely the budget-setter would check what the proper going rate was for the work required - is it normal to expect people in other professions to work for nothing, or some nominal sum? If not, why photographers?

A tabloid hack getting grumpy about photographers being paid fairly for their work would be directed to sources stating the recommended rates, wouldn't they?

In reply to balmybaldwin:


easily fixed. They can phone up the tv companies and offer a hundred quid instead.

In reply to dissonance:

I was just thinking about that - if everyone contracted to work on the project worked for £100, the government would save a fortune. Brilliant!

In reply to Tall Clare:

I'm not saying that those who set the budget are right, infact invariably they are way off the mark, just that the assumption that if £55m is availble then there must be plenty of cash for photos.

It is rather piss poor for a marketing campaign about how good we are at stuff(one assumes this includes photography)

In reply to Henry Iddon:

I'm struggling to see what the problem is. Someone asks for something for free (not a crime). They can be turned down and perhaps offered it for £x instead. If a price can't be agreed, a deal will not take place. I think it's called a market.

In reply to Robert Durran:

When other professionals working on a project are paid a fair wage for their work, why aren't photographers? Or is it because 'anyone with a camera is a photographer'?

In reply to gethin_allen:


In what sense? Artistic merit? This is irrelevant in this instance.

The price being discussed is about usage!! £100 for a one off repro in a nat newspaper? yes, by all means its worth £100.
Unlimited use spanning a variety of media and borders?? No, its worth way more than that.

In reply to Tall Clare:

Market forces?


If they take photos with it, then, in an obvious sense, yes. I suppose the onus is on "profesional" photographers to convince people that they take superior photos worth paying a premium for.

In reply to Robert Durran:
>I suppose the onus is on "profesional" photographers to convince people that they take superior photos worth paying a premium for.

That's what they do, in the same way that lawyers are apparently 'worth' what they earn, etc.

In reply to Tall Clare:

Judging by this case, they're not doing it very well!

In reply to SeanB:

I just don't think it's a very good photo and if I were looking for a photo to use to advertise something I'd look somewhere else.

In reply to gethin_allen:

The difference is it was obviously exactly what the GREAT Campaign wanted, they thought is was good.

In reply to gethin_allen:
The impression I get is that even if it was the best photo they had ever seen in their lives, they were still only going to offer £100 (or try to get it for nothing, as was originally the case).

The expenditure of buying and maintaining equipment, the persons time, travel to the photo shoot, etc, etc all need to be factored into the cost of the photo. The perception with photography seems to be that since "its only a photo", and everyone has a camera these days, then why should much be paid for it? I guess people trying to get the photo for peanuts should just head out and take a photo themselves and see if it is good enough to be used for such a campaign.

In reply to Tall Clare: "in the same way that lawyers are apparently 'worth' what they earn, etc."
it's a lot easier to quantify the value of other professions: a good lawyer or barrister wins cases, whereas a photographers wears are judged by everyone and it's a matter of opinion whether it's worth what they are asking for the photo.

In reply to gethin_allen:

The value of photography is pretty well defined, particularly with regard to use of the copyright.

In reply to gethin_allen:

Sorry, but you're missing the point.

This is about usage, not about aesthetics.

Have a look

http://www.londonfreelance.org/feesguide/index.php?&section=Photography...

In reply to SeanB:
I think you maybe missing my point too, the people buying the photos don't think and probably don't care about how long it took you to get a photo or how much you spent on gear. They see a photo and value it on it's aesthetics; good photo= high value. You need to find a way to show these people why they want to pay someone to take photos rather than just go out a point and shoot something.

So what if someone offer you a pittance for a photo, say no and if they want it they can pay what you want for it. If they don't think the photo is special enough to deserve what you want they will go elsewhere. It's a free market and if that's a problem then sorry to say you're knackered.