Sheer Lunacy, Brought to you (in part) by Lucent
The company Lucent (Euronext Paris: ALU, NYSE: ALU) has hundreds of patented, trademarked, and copyrighted innovations and creations that they leverage to the maximum extent possible, employing thousands. We have Lucent, indirectly, to thank for underwriting what is essentially a rights giveaway. One of their IT Managers - you know, the guy who makes all this patented and trademarked equipment work, Sander van de Wijngaert to "thank" for diminishing the value of copyrighted works.
It seems that Sanders is proud of his 100th sale of an image, for a gross income of $26.35. (Above right is a peek behind the veil of Shutterstock's photographer management screens) Yet he's found a bit of criticism flowing his way. His response?
(Continued after the Jump)
Over at DPreview, Sanders defended himself against criticism, saying "I don't do it for the money....it's more the fun checking every day to see how many images I've sold." Genius. And they let this guy manage even a few square inches of internet access?
Over at SportsShooter, one person made a tongue-in-cheek suggestion - "That's not so bad. I would only need to license 6900 pictures to pay for my new D300. Sign me up!"
Here is what his mantra should be:
"First they came for the musician's copyright, and I did not complain. Then they came for the movie maker's copyright and I did not complain. Then they came for the photographer's copyright, I not only didn't complain, I participated in it's devaluation. Then they came for the IP copyright, and I did not complain, then my company laid me off because they had no more IP rights to leverage so that I had a job, and now I don't. I should have better respected the value of IP and copyright in the first place."Guess what then? By that time, he won't be able to sustain himself on $26.35 total sales for his best images before taxes, (and NL taxes are much higher than in the US) and he'll wonder what hit him. According to his website, he offers wedding photography, model portfolios, and retouching, as well.
The saying "there's a sucker born every minute" applies here. The problem is, he was born so many minutes ago that he's aged not into a fine wine but a scourge on the profession he says he does because "photography is for me a the ideal form of relaxation." (that's a Google translation of his site).
UPDATE: Sanders notes on DPreview that he "left Lucent months ago". Since the photographs were uploaded over a year ago, the relationship between he and Lucent was in place at the time that he created the images and posted them online. He says "... and they knew I was into (paid) photography." Really? Well, you've not updated your professional affiliation as it is listed on the web. Sanders goes on: "...I agree there is not much money to earn...unless you do this fulltime which I don't." Actually, with contributors like yourself around, even those that do it full-time aren't earning much money, certainly not as much as they should.
Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.
17 comments:
"According to his website, he offers wedding photography, model portfolios, and retouching, as well."
When someone claims they do microstock for fun rather than for money, then it makes me wonder why the heck they would offer the above quoted services? That seems like work more than merely fun IMO.
Wow! It is really surprising that you would make this so personal. These are afterall his photographs, not yours. The fact he is willing to give his stuff away should not matter to you unless, your "product" is of the same quality and as such this is economics 101. Don't forget that there is a reason that a Bentley is $150K US vs. Kia that is $10K even if they sell both cars. The only way Bentley would be nervous is if Kia made a Bentley like car and still sold it for $10. On another note. I am very surprised that you would be willing to risk your own livelyhood and your family well being buy essentially dragging through the mud a corporation that Sander works/worked for but that had nothing to do with this. I am certain that should the legal department at Alcatel-Lucent get a hold of your post, they may look to aid their cashflow problem by looking to take some of yours.
Oh, but Lucent's paycheck to him is indirectly underwriting his ability to do this. The first thing that Lucent's legal department would do, if they cared to, would be to see where I made a false statement. Since there aren't any false statements, that would be the end of it.
Note - I said "indirectly". Dictionary.com defines "indirectly" (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/indirectly) as "coming or resulting otherwise than directly or immediately, as effects or consequences", and has, as synonyms to it "incidental, unintentional, secondary". It is a consequence of the fact that they employ him that he can pay his bills - that is a positive consequence. It is also a consequence of the fact that they employ him that he can contribute to the diminishment of the value of photography - that is a negative consequence. Consequences can be positive and negative. I am referring to one of the negative consequences of his getting a paycheck from them.
Anonymous, did you read the title of this site and blog? It is - Photo Business News and Forum. (THIS IS NEWS AND IMPORTANT)
You may not agree with John on what he is writing or his approach, others may. It is a well respected blog that is showing the impact that the new models of internet business are affecting the industry of professional photography.
Guess what, twenty-six cents per image is a big deal. A huge deal and very harmful to the long range health of the industry.
I've seen my Getty sales plummet from seven or eight thousand dollars a month to less than a thousand per month. Mostly filled with inexpensive sales to counter the microstock onslaught.
It does matter. It is important. This guy is bragging on an internet sale that he made 100 sales and his total take was $26.00.
Get real dude. You don't find this offensive?
I think you should immediately contact people at http://www.iophoto.com and warn them about their stupidity of offering 39MP Hassy images for sale at microstock prices. Or, maybe, you could enlighten us as to the fact who is (indirectly?) sponsoring their attack at the value of copyrighted work?
Thank you for being a good example for my blog:
http://tjungle.blogspot.com/2007/11/technology-continues-to-eliminate.html
The blog postings that is linked here is right on. The only source of the product the publishers were seeking was an expensive source. QUality yes, expensive yes. Now with microstock there is an alternative. It is not as expensive. Is it as quality? That depends on how high of a quality the previous source was. If there is a quality difference, then there is of course a reason for the price difference. If the quality is the same, then there should not be a price difference in an efficient market. As such, the people who benefited from this need to either raise quality of their product OR try some other variation on the product OR take on another profession. This is the reality of the modern world. GM faced it with Toyota and Honda. US employees face it now with people in India willing to work for 75% less etc. etc. WELCOME TO THE GLOBAL ECONOMY!!!
John H,
Very well stated...
In dealing with photographers everyday, I'm simply amazed at the number of them willing to simply undermine the profession by giving away their creative works for free, in hopes of some type of future employment... The problem with this mind set, is the company exploiting the current photographer, will move on to another inexperienced photographer once they receive a request for increased payment from the current photographer, leaving the photographer with nothing more than a few extra bills they need to cover for the new equipment they purchased, to help the company make millions off their creative efforts...
Think about it... you've invested your time and money to shoot a single photo or group of photos that now become the main focus of a local advertising campaign, the company goes on to now move into a national campaign using the same images, making millions of dollars along the way... You as the photographer actually paid the company for the right to shoot the image and if you read your contract carefully, I wouldn't be surprised if it also includes a non-disclosure agreement forbidding you from even disclosing you shot the photos and even if you are allowed to, what kind of reference would you receive the the company using your images... Just imagine the advertising director calling the business you used for a reference and that very ad director stating you as the photographer are more than happy to shoot his images for free, and would probably do the same for him if he simply feeds you so BS line about possible future work... So what exactly do you think the company is going to be willing to pay you, nothing more than a simple thank you and then move on to the next photographer...
You are a fool if you fail to request fair market value for your images...
John H....As I read your post. I agree with the questionable reasoning by people who sell their work for pennies where they could earn much more. On the other hand, the comparison to music industry or movie industry does not strike me as correct one. In my thinking the intellectual property in those industries was under attack due to piracy. In our industry we are looking more at members or entrants into the industry that are not paying attention to what they are doing. Perhaps distilling thoughts further within this post is needed? You are right about many things, but some appear to be incorrect, which is unlike you.
IMO, more people should be looking at these predatory business models, which take advantage of photographers with more enthusiasm than business sense every day.
I can goi out and buy an energy-hogging incandescent light bulb for about 17 cents. But if everyone does it, without paying attention to the long-term implications, the overall model is simploy not sustainable in the end.
I mean heck, why should we be against DDT? It's a great pesticide. Cheap and effective. We'll worry about the lng-term, unintended consequences when they get here...
Thanks for banging the drum on this, John.
-David H
So.. is Barnes and Noble going out of business because you're using Amazon's ad system to fund your hobby of a blog?
Is TypePad going out of business because you're using 'Blogger'?
Hardly.
If you're photography career is at risk due to microstocks, you'd better take a look at your photography first. The market will bear the best value to the consumer. Always has, always will.
To each his own, and to call out the guy and bring his employer into the conversation is testament to your lack of character. Not surprising considering you're from DC.
Karma's a bitch.
>>>The market will bear the best value to the consumer. Always has, always will.
Like those oh-so-cheap lead-tainted toys that were so popular because they were so cheap -- that's what's best for the consumer, right?
Sorry - while I agree that many microstock agencies are selling photos too cheap and paying the photographers peanuts, I think it's in incredible bad taste to mention someone by name in your blog when he posted elsewhere about the topic. VERY bad taste.
There is a certain element within the "professional" photography community that is rather snobbish, arrogant, and quite frankly, sometimes just plain mean. This is why some of us don't associate with other so-called "pros" on any level outside of a studio if we must work with others. This blog posting only fuels the stereotype of someone who is bitter because their own work isn't selling anymore, and buyers are favoring less expensive alternatives.
I suggest worrying less about what others sell their work for (as well as not naming them) and worrying more about raising the bar on YOUR work. Microstock agencies are not threatening your livelihood - only you can do that. Spend less time blogging and more time taking photos.
I don't see it as being arrogant or mean in the least. John repeated information the individual posted. The Lucent indirect subsidy is central to an important point. This individual would not be happily reporting licensing an image 100 times for much less money than what it takes to fill a gas tank if he actually had to make a living licensing his work.
What's mean-spirited is what I see as being a very dark side of at least a faction of the microstock "community" and that's all the chortling over sticking it to the pros whose business is suffering due to their efforts. What they fail to mention is that they are competing only because they are subsidized very nearly completely by their day job.
for those of you who support the microstock business model, let me ask this? Would you ever consider working at your current position for free? not likely, because it would deprive your family of everything needed to survive. So why wouldn't you attempt to learn everything possible about the photography business and use the extra money you earn to purchase a vacation home or put your kids thru college. Because by supplying free photos for commercial use, these are the things you are giving up, it's not that hard to learn how to price your photos. An excellent program that will help you price your images competitively is photo quote which sells for $99.00 and the programs cost would be covered after a single image is sold.
Think about it, you could keep making someone else rich with your creative works or you could supply your family with the nice things in life they deserve. the choice is yours, in my case I choose to take care of my family first and this year will be spending time in Steamboat Springs with the family enjoying a white christmas, thanks to a business model that allows me to profit from the photos I sell.
Ok, at first, let me say - John, thank you for your blog! Because of it, one day I would charge the full price for my photography.
Now, here is the point of view from "dark side". Most of us (including me) who works with microstocks started doing this because we are amateurs and nobody did pay us for what we shoot. Unless you have a portfolio with 200 images (at least!) - no one will ever talk to you. And if you have full time day job, it is unrealistic "just to shoot the portfolio and come later".
So, we go to microstocks, where we are welcome with our level of photography. We work when we have free time and we happy to see that our images sell. But majority of our work at the beginning is crap. 90% of microstock's content is pretty bad, believe me.
After some time we learn to shoot what sells better and after few years I found that my work is on level with images I can find in trad. agencies. Yes, they now glad to work with top amateurs from microstocks (who now have 1000-5000 images in portfolios) and sends invitations to join ...
But look, John, here is the dilemma - I have portfolio that sells for few grands/month and spend less than 8 hours a week to keep it up. To start working with trads I have to start it over and shoot specifically for "big guys". My earnings on microstocks will suffer and nobody guarantee that I would have any comparable earnings in trads. In any photographer forums there are many who complain that earnings are pretty bad now because of microstock. So, why should I change anything then? I think this is why many microstock photographers who grew up there stay there.
Well, one day microstocks and traditional agencies will come to work together as it happens with Getty/IStock, Jupiter/StockExpert anyway...
I'm glad Mr. Harrington has "turned the light on this roach" and outed him.
For the record it doesn't matter to me that "he does this for fun" but he chose to boast about his earnings is what puzzles me; I don't think what he has earned to date from those sales would be something to brag about to the world.
It's like admitting that you've got a 2 inch penis.
Post a Comment