# Photographer writes excellent letter to the band Garbage about unpaid photo use



## editor (Apr 2, 2015)

I like this very much indeed. Well said!









> AN OPEN LETTER TO GARBAGE
> 
> Dear Shirley, Butch, Duke and Steve
> 
> ...


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 2, 2015)

as a garbage fan, i hope they send a nice reply


----------



## dweller (Apr 3, 2015)

Dear Pat Pope
We were all deeply saddened to read your Facebook post in which you admonished us for approaching you to humbly request your kind permission to include one of your images in a book we are working on to celebrate our twentieth anniversary. 
We regret that you interpreted our request so negatively. 

HAVING ALREADY paid you in 1995 for the entire shoot from which these images were selected, we really didn’t expect such a hostile reception to our enquiry. 
We adore the photographs you took of us at such a special time in our career but it was never our intent to use the aforementioned images without your express permission.

As an independent band on our own label we are struggling to juggle the harsh realities of the modern music business with our desire as artists to produce music and accompanying content for our fans. 

Our book is not intended as a profit generating venture but something beautiful to create and present directly to our fans as a celebration of our music and the image-makers who we have been lucky enough to work with over the span of a twenty-year career.
We very quickly and painfully learned that without a book publisher to help offset costs, we are not in the financial position to afford to pay for the usage of every photograph we were hoping to include in the book.

Before we scrapped the idea of producing the book entirely, we decided instead that we would take a leaf out of Amanda Palmer’s book “The Power of Asking” and simply ask the photographers themselves whether they wanted to be included in our book or not. Any refusal of permission would be respectfully accepted and no further questions asked .

We were so grateful and delighted to learn that most of the photographers were happy for their images to be seen in conjunction with the telling of our story. 
We would be entirely unable to produce a book at an affordable price for most of our fans without the generous consent of all these amazingly talented photographers and filmmakers. Historically, artists over the centuries have been known to help each other out in an effort to get their work seen and heard. We are proud and grateful to be part of this artist community.

Over the years we have happily compensated many photographers, filmmakers and other kinds of content providers for their work and will continue to do so in the future. We believe completely in the concept of the artist being compensated fairly whenever possible. 

With that said, collectively as a band and as individuals, we have often provided our services and our music for no financial compensation in the spirit of artistic collaboration. Obviously we assess every request based on its own individual merits but we would never publicly admonish or begrudge a fellow artist for merely asking.

Regards
Shirley, Butch, Duke and Steve 
“garbage”


----------



## StoneRoad (Apr 3, 2015)

IIRC - paying for a shoot, unless the contract specifically includes it, does not mean the copyright in the images has been transferred from the photographer to the client.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Apr 3, 2015)

terrible response.  horrible passive aggressive and makes them look like utter pricks.

it looks utterly classless to plead poverty when you've sold 17 million records.


----------



## Orang Utan (Apr 3, 2015)

Sounds like a bullshit response considering their citing of Amanda Palmer


----------



## trashpony (Apr 3, 2015)

If they were paid for initial sales of their music by their record company, do they turn down their PRB fees on the basis that they were paid at the time? Or is it just the unique circumstances that this is a wankbook for their fans that makes this okay?


----------



## twentythreedom (Apr 3, 2015)

The Power Of Asking 

He said "no"


----------



## dweller (Apr 3, 2015)

Yep, I found their response very passive aggressive. 

I found their letter on a thread on the petapixel facebook page. Most of the respondents are slamming the photographer for 
going public instead of sending a private reply in the first place.


----------



## 8ball (Apr 3, 2015)

I can see both sides.  Creative people commonly allow stuff to be used for free if asked - consent shouldn't be assumed but all they did was ask.  It's a fairly normal thing to be asked permission or even for participation in various things without offer of payment.  The deal is you get so say no.  It helps if you're not an arse about it.

The photographer made the decision to make his refusal public so Garbage were pretty much obliged to reply.  I think the photographer was hoping for some kind of underdog kudos but I think he'll be disappointed.

The other side is that Garbage get to enjoy the profits of continued play of their songs etc.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 3, 2015)

dweller said:


> With that said, collectively as a band and as individuals, we have often provided our services and our music for no financial compensation in the spirit of artistic collaboration. Obviously we assess every request based on its own individual merits but we would never publicly admonish or begrudge a fellow artist for merely asking.


Hmmm. Nobody comes out of this too well, imo. Garbage are pretty pompous and passive-aggressive, but they also have a point with this last bit. It was a polite email. He could have replied privately, and should have done.


----------



## Orang Utan (Apr 3, 2015)

i can see why he was so exasperated though. photographers' fees keep getting squeezed and squeezed. it was probably the last straw.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 3, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> i can see why he was so exasperated though. photographers' fees keep getting squeezed and squeezed. it was probably the last straw.


They do. And writer fees too. Publishing is getting very shit for that, despite the fact that, contrary to much propaganda, the book is not dying and sales are pretty healthy. Profits are going somewhere. 

But he said he was probably committing professional suicide. And he's probably right.


----------



## 8ball (Apr 3, 2015)

We've hit 'peak photographer'.


----------



## Orang Utan (Apr 3, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> They do. And writer fees too. Publishing is getting very shit for that, despite the fact that, contrary to much propaganda, the book is not dying and sales are pretty healthy. Profits are going somewhere.
> 
> But he said he was probably committing professional suicide. And he's probably right.


aye, shame though.

a friend of mine is not a professional but takes a lot of pictures of social housing in London and got asked by The Times for permission to use one of his pics, with the usual shit about them having 'no budget' to pay him. He asked them for £50 and they didn't reply. He couldn't check to see if they'd used it zanyway (which has happened with other friends with other publications) cos you have to fucking pay to see their site. Oh the fucking irony.


----------



## Orang Utan (Apr 4, 2015)

And it's not just writing and photography. it's design too. and probably loads of other creative professions. except they're not viewed as professions any more. just something people do for fun and maybe a little bit of 'exposure', like creatives are nothing more than gentlefolk amateur hobbyists, not people who are relying on getting paid to earn a living.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 4, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> aye, shame though.
> 
> a friend of mine is not a professional but takes a lot of pictures of social housing in London and got asked by The Times for permission to use one of his pics, with the usual shit about them having 'no budget' to pay him. He asked them for £50 and they didn't reply. He couldn't check to see if they'd used it zanyway (which has happened with other friends with other publications) cos you have to fucking pay to see their site. Oh the fucking irony.


It's very shit. I have some experience of being on the other side of that and asking for images when I genuinely don't have any budget - it's a case of using cheapo stock image sites and images from other sources that won't cost. I can generally offer a copy of the book, but not much else. And it's getting worse - budgets _are cut _year-on-year. Tbh most people say yes, though.


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 4, 2015)

Why didn't Mr Pope just ask for a fee before whacking up that pompous guff on FB?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 4, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> Why didn't Mr Pope just ask for a fee before whacking up that pompous buff on FB?


Good question. He says that he received the email on the same day he posted his rant. Should have slept on it.

If you're a professional photographer who wants work photographing public figures, they've got to be able to trust you. He really has fucked himself doing this.


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 4, 2015)

Hardly thoughtful .


----------



## 8ball (Apr 4, 2015)

Everyone has bad days.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 4, 2015)

8ball said:


> Everyone has bad days.


Yeah. Most of us have done it in one context or another. I've even sent ill-judged emails straight away with the thought 'no, fuck it, if I sleep on it I'll only change my mind'. 

But this is his job...


----------



## 8ball (Apr 4, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I've even sent ill-judged emails straight away with the thought 'no, fuck it, if I sleep on it I'll only change my mind'. .



Me too.  It's like a battle of wits between the sensible me and self-sabotaging me.


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 4, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> i can see why he was so exasperated though. photographers' fees keep getting squeezed and squeezed. it was probably the last straw.



So go nuclear on your own livelihood?

I've a feeling that Pat Pope is a better photographer than he is a businessman.


----------



## 8ball (Apr 4, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> I've a feeling that Pat Pope is a better photographer than he is a businessman.



That's quite a good ad for him as a photographer tbf.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 4, 2015)

8ball said:


> That's quite a good ad for him as a photographer tbf.


Hmmm. True. I'd not seen the photo before, that's for sure. But the loss of trust, though. On balance, I reckon he's fucked himself.


----------



## Fez909 (Apr 4, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Yeah. Most of us have done it in one context or another. I've even sent ill-judged emails straight away with the thought 'no, fuck it, if I sleep on it I'll only change my mind'.
> 
> But this is his job...


Not if he's not getting paid for it, it's not. And that's the problem: if you give your photos away for free you devalue yourself.


----------



## 8ball (Apr 4, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Hmmm. True. I'd not seen the photo before, that's for sure. But the loss of trust, though. On balance, I reckon he's fucked himself.



Depends what you're hiring him to do, I reckon.

If you're never going to ask him for free publication of stuff you might hire him regardless.
The fact he wrote the thing in the first places makes me think he's probably diversified a bit anyway.


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 4, 2015)

On this evidence the geezer's a chippy twat. 

Either he's made his fortune and doesn't care who he pisses off, or he doesn't see photography as a serious profession with more than one aspect.


----------



## 8ball (Apr 4, 2015)

Fez909 said:


> Not if he's not getting paid for it, it's not. And that's the problem: if you give your photos away for free you devalue yourself.



You miss the point.  He didn't jeopardise his job by refusing - he did it by throwing a public tantrum.

Not that I think he's especially jeopardised it - I think he was mostly trying to make a mostly valid point.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 4, 2015)

8ball said:


> Depends what you're hiring him to do, I reckon.
> 
> If you're never going to ask him for free publication of stuff you might hire him regardless.
> The fact he wrote the thing in the first places makes me think he's probably diversified a bit anyway.


Second bit - possibly, yes. 

First bit? If you're going to be difficult and stroppy in public, you'd better be _the fucking best_ in your field. Otherwise, there are plenty of non-difficult, non-stroppy people looking for work.


----------



## Fez909 (Apr 4, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Second bit - possibly, yes.
> 
> First bit? If you're going to be difficult and stroppy in public, you'd better be _the fucking best_ in your field. Otherwise, there are plenty of non-difficult, non-stroppy people looking for work.


Eh, no. 

Why should only the "best in the field" get to complain about something that affects everyone. If no one says anything, nothing will change. Someone has to speak up.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 4, 2015)

Fez909 said:


> Eh, no.
> 
> Why should only the "best in the field" get to complain about something that affects everyone. If no one says anything, nothing will change. Someone has to speak up.


I have a different attitude towards this, I think. I'm not saying I think it's ok the way people are increasingly asked to give their work away. I don't. But it was a polite request that was then made embarrassingly public. Even if you are the best in your field, it's rude to do that.

And spymaster is completely right - first of all, you ask for payment and see what they say.


----------



## Fez909 (Apr 4, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I have a different attitude towards this, I think. I'm not saying I think it's ok the way people are increasingly asked to give their work away. I don't. But it was a polite request that was then made embarrassingly public. Even if you are the best in your field, it's rude to do that.
> 
> And spymaster is completely right - first of all, you ask for payment and see what they say.


And how do you get this sort of thing to stop without going public?


----------



## 8ball (Apr 4, 2015)

Fez909 said:


> And how do you get this sort of thing to stop without going public?



What, people asking for things?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 4, 2015)

Fez909 said:


> And how do you get this sort of thing to stop without going public?


You refuse permission, and encourage others to do the same. 

This has stopped fuck all, though. It's even given garbage the public opportunity to say how loads of other photographers did agree to do it without a fee.


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 4, 2015)

Fez909 said:


> Eh, no.
> 
> Why should only the "best in the field" get to complain about something that affects everyone. If no one says anything, nothing will change. Someone has to speak up.



He got a cheeky offer. It happens every day to most people that run their own businesses. Most would counter-offer before going publicly bananas.

If I were someone in need of photographic services and Pope wasn't the only bloke who could provide them; after seeing that rant I'd go elsewhere.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 4, 2015)

tbh reading his rant again, the 'I worked hard on it' bit is laying things on rather too thick. He was paid for the shoot, and probably pretty well. Money from reuse is really a bit of a bonus. Not saying he shouldn't get his bonus for reuse - he should - but he's self-pitying there as if he had never been paid anything for all his hard work.


----------



## Orang Utan (Apr 4, 2015)

There are people out there who want to pay for their services properly and do so. don't see why they;d be be put off by someone complaining about not being paid. the only people who'd be put off were people who'd want to rip their creatives off in the first place


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 4, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> There are people out there who want to pay for their services properly and do so. don't see why they;d be be put off by someone complaining about not being paid. the only people who'd be put off were people who'd want to rip their creatives off in the first place


Nah, that's really not true. This is a public rant. You've got to be able to trust people not to publicly rant about you after you've worked with them because they don't like something you did.

tHey didn't use his work without paying. They just asked to use it. There's an enormous difference.


----------



## Orang Utan (Apr 4, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Nah, that's really not true. This is a public rant. You've got to be able to trust people not to publicly rant about you after you've worked with them because they don't like something you did.


even if you haven't paid them? nah, fuck em


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 4, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> even if you haven't paid them? nah, fuck em


This time it's because he was asked for a free reuse. Next time it will be what? That the shoot overran and you didn't pay what he thinks you should? Or payment was late from someone you don't even have control over? Nah. He's embarrassed the band personally by involving them. That is basic unprofessionalism.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 4, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> There are people out there who want to pay for their services properly and do so.


Sad truth about this bit is that increasingly it is not true.


----------



## 8ball (Apr 4, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Sad truth about this bit is that increasingly it is not true.



Depends on the particular industry area.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 4, 2015)

8ball said:


> Depends on the particular industry area.


In the areas of book publishing I know, it is very much increasingly true. That said, top photographers hired to do shoots with well-known bands are very well paid. A friend of mine used to work as an assistant to a well-known photographer and he charged 1 grand a day. She got 100 of that, so it still left him with 900. It's good work if you can get it.


----------



## 8ball (Apr 4, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> In the areas of book publishing I know, it is very much increasingly true.



Did you mean_ not_ true?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 4, 2015)

8ball said:


> Did you mean_ not_ true?


Yes, sorry.


----------



## 8ball (Apr 4, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Yes, sorry.



It's a shame.  'Everyone needs to eat' is an important principle.


----------



## skyscraper101 (Apr 4, 2015)

Am I alone thinking that the photo in the OP isn't even that good. Terrible lighting on all of them. Makes Shirley look particularly old and you can't even see the others that well its so dark. I wouldn't want it anywhere near my vanity project if I was them.

Regardless, even if the band hadn't sold millions of records which they have, the fortunes of Butch Vig alone would be enough to put out an initial few thousand books and credit enough photographers with a payment. He's got points on _Nevermind_ ffs! As well as numerous other hit albums by Smashing Pumpkins, Sonic Youth, L7, Tad, Helmet, Foo Fighters... etc - not to mention all the other endorsements he gives his name too. I was watching a video the other day featuring some protools plugin which he's pushing. I bet he rakes it in.

Can't pay the photographer my arse.


----------



## 5t3IIa (Apr 4, 2015)

I met Shirely once TWENTY SIX YEARS AGO. Got her autograph  IM SO OLD AND SO ARE ALL OF YOU.


----------



## weltweit (Apr 4, 2015)

Interesting they say they paid for the photoshoot so expect further usage for free. A little like a concert goer having paid for the concert then expecting any resulting tapes, records or videos to be free!


----------



## Fez909 (Apr 4, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You refuse permission, and encourage others to do the same.


How?


----------



## gabi (Apr 4, 2015)

Were the pics rights managed or royalty free?

As a designer I've spent hours bashing out the details for rights managed pics. Of course you can also just buy exclusive use and they're taken off the market for good. Did Garbage do that? Presumably a contract was signed with the guy, would be interesting to read it.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 4, 2015)

weltweit said:


> Interesting they say they paid for the photoshoot so expect further usage for free. A little like a concert goer having paid for the concert then expecting any resulting tapes, records or videos to be free!


He provoked that with his 'I worked hard' schtick.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 4, 2015)

gabi said:


> Were the pics rights managed or royalty free?
> 
> As a designer I've spent hours bashing out the details for rights managed pics. Of course you can also just buy exclusive use and they're taken off the market for good. Did Garbage do that? Presumably a contract was signed with the guy, would be interesting to read it.


Presumably he kept copyright. It is standard to keep copyright unless expressly stated otherwise. 

The band also has image release rights. They can get arsey with him if he ever wants to use the image, too.


----------



## twentythreedom (Apr 4, 2015)

They could have offered him some book tokens at least


----------



## Fez909 (Apr 4, 2015)

littlebabyjesus are you only defending the band and criticising the photographer to make yourself feel less guilty because you've been on the other side? It seems like it to me, as I can't understand why you'd think it's OK for a band who have sold millions of albums to ask for freebies from photographers, but it's not OK for the photographer to highlight this publicly.

To me, saying the photographer shouldn't go public, is the same as when employers force you not to talk about your salary to other people. The reason being, if you don't know, you can't fight it effectively. By going public, other photographers can join him and fight for better recognition and pay. And musicians might be less willing to ask for freebies if they think it's going to negatively impact on their image.

Is there a similar body to the BPI for photographers? What have they got to say on it?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 4, 2015)

I'm not defending the band. I've said that I think both parties come out of this badly. But Iet's get some perspective here. He will have been well paid initially for the shoot, and nobody has used his work without permission. This was just an email asking to use an image without paying a reuse fee. 

Your second paragraph is unrealistic, I'm afraid. He is selling his professional services, and trust is a big part of that. The band did not betray his trust by sending him an email asking to use an image. But he has betrayed their trust by going public.


----------



## Orang Utan (Apr 4, 2015)

He's right to 'betray' them (if indeed that's what he's doing) by going public about them wanting to rip him off


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 4, 2015)

He's being a self-righteous arse about it. And running to social media for a public rant about clients as soon as one of them asks you for something you're not prepared to give them is a bollocks way to behave.


----------



## Orang Utan (Apr 4, 2015)

It's totally justified to publically out people who don't want to pay for services.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 4, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> It's totally justified to publically out people who don't want to pay for services.


the bbc should be perennially in the headlines then as theu want everything done for free and pref yesterday


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 4, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> It's totally justified to publically out people who don't want to pay for services.


First you try to sort things out in private. He didn't do that. 

I'm guessing he regretting posting that the day after. Should have slept on it.


----------



## trashpony (Apr 4, 2015)

I can't imagine it's the first time he's been asked to contribute his services/his living for free. Maybe it's the fact that Garbage were a fucking huge band who have sold millions of records that tipped him over the edge. 

And what would Garbage do if someone wanted to play their music without paying them royalties? I can't imagine they'd turn them down on the grounds that they'd already been paid. I can't imagine they'd keen quiet about it either


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 4, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> It's totally justified to publically out people who don't want to pay for services.



Cobblers. It's wanker behaviour. At least give them an opportunity to reassess their request.

Dear band,

I would appreciate a fee for the reuse of these photographs. I think £xxx would be fair, given the work done.

Regards
Photographer.


----------



## Orang Utan (Apr 4, 2015)

They'd already stated that they didn't want to pay him. Fuck em. He has every right to stick it to them.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 4, 2015)

trashpony said:


> I can't imagine it's the first time he's been asked to contribute his services/his living for free. Maybe it's the fact that Garbage were a fucking huge band who have sold millions of records that tipped him over the edge.
> 
> *And what would Garbage do if someone wanted to play their music without paying them royalties?* I can't imagine they'd turn them down on the grounds that they'd already been paid. I can't imagine they'd keen quiet about it either


In their reply, they stated that it does happen, and they do keep quiet about it. Perhaps they are lying. But either way, he's responsible for his own behaviour.


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 4, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> They'd already stated that they didn't want to pay him. Fuck em. He has every right to stick it to them.



Nope. The initial letter said the budget was limited. He extrapolated from that that they'd pay him nothing, so didn't even ask before going nuclear publicly. 

He's behaved like a tosser. He looks far worse than they do out of this.


----------



## Orang Utan (Apr 4, 2015)

Fuck the little man, eh? How dare he complain? And in public! How very dare he!


----------



## bi0boy (Apr 4, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> It's totally justified to publically out people who don't want to pay for services.



Do you mind if I quote your post without paying you a fee?


----------



## Fez909 (Apr 4, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> Fuck the little man, eh? How dare he complain? And in public! How very dare he!


And don't forget, it's not like this was a one-off incident:


> PS: Just so you know, this is actually an improvement on the management of your "Absolute Garbage" album where the record company just used my work without even asking. I only found this out when I went into a shop and bought a copy, which, when you think about it, has a certain irony.


----------



## Orang Utan (Apr 4, 2015)

bi0boy said:


> Do you mind if I quote your post without paying you a fee?


I've just sent your quote to all major press organisations


----------



## bi0boy (Apr 4, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> I've just sent your quote to all major press organisations



I only asked nicely, you bastard. You could have asked me for 50p first or something.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 4, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> Fuck the little man, eh? How dare he complain? And in public! How very dare he!


Hmmm. Little man? 

I've just had a brief perusal of his website. He's not so little. I'm guessing neither you nor I could afford to book him.


----------



## Mr Moose (Apr 4, 2015)

Garbage are doing it for their fans, lol. 

I've been mad on many a band and yet I've never yearned that any of them venture into publishing.


----------



## Mr Moose (Apr 4, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Hmmm. Little man?
> 
> I've just had a brief perusal of his website. He's not so little. I'm guessing neither you nor I could afford to book him.



It's a battle of the entitled.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 4, 2015)

Mr Moose said:


> Garbage are doing it for their fans, lol..


Yeah, that bit was sick-making.

Both parties come out of this looking like spoilt tossers, tbh.


----------



## Orang Utan (Apr 4, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Hmmm. Little man?
> 
> I've just had a brief perusal of his website. He's not so little. I'm guessing neither you nor I could afford to book him.


He's got clout enough to stick up for those who are continually and habitually being ripped off.


----------



## Mr Moose (Apr 4, 2015)

I'm working to rule until we get the Fugazi autobiog we deserve.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 4, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> He's got clout enough to stick up for those who are continually and habitually being ripped off.


Yes. But I don't think that's what he's done here. His ill-considered, premature rant has probably done more harm than good.

In his case, as a 'celebrity' photographer, he's using his photos of famous people on his website to sell his services. They will have image rights over those photos, but I'm guessing he has arranged permission to use them without paying the artists a fee for their faces. 

To repeat, I don't defend not paying for reuse. But his self-righteous indignation rings very hollow for me, I'm afraid.


----------



## Mr Moose (Apr 4, 2015)

'I can't use what I can't abuse'. He should have seen it coming tbf.

Three old duffers churning out bass driven alt rock by numbers fronted by Indie gobshite by numbers. 'Twas never going to end well. 

Never felt less than calculated, but they filled a gap in the market.


----------



## Fez909 (Apr 4, 2015)

Garbage themselves like to go public with self-righteous rants:



			
				Shirley Manson said:
			
		

> Dear Kanye West
> 
> It is YOU who is so busy disrespecting artistry.
> You disrespect your own remarkable talents and more importantly you disrespect the talent, hard work and tenacity of all artists when you go so rudely and savagely after such an accomplished and humble artist like BECK.
> ...


Seems like the photographer used their own template against them. "disrespecting artistry" only applies when it is musicians; that's what she's saying. That's why the letter makes sense to be public: he was trying to get them to admit that all artists, including photographers, deserve respect. And instead they sent a passive aggressive letter that makes them look like cunts.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 4, 2015)

He's picking on one of his 'lesser' clients, tbf. I doubt he'd have called out Bowie or Deborah Harry in similar circumstances.


----------



## gabi (Apr 4, 2015)

Butch vig was the pre cursor to X factor as I recall. He auditioned girls to be his lead singer. Brilliant producer and decent drummer, but obviously a pretty ruthless businessman.


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 4, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> Fuck the little man, eh? How dare he complain? And in public! How very dare he!



 What an awful post. Fuck knows why Fez liked it.

Not only is it missing any point being made on this thread by several light years, it also smacks of the petulance exhibited by the stroppy snapper.

Are you related?


----------



## Orang Utan (Apr 4, 2015)

Nope. But trust you to side with the baddies.


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 4, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> Nope. But trust you to side with the baddies.



There are no baddies.

There's one outfit asking cheekily but politely to use some work for no more money than has already been paid, and a childish pillock trying to make a point but failing, and looking a knob to anyone with a little more commercial awareness than a potato.


----------



## Mr Moose (Apr 4, 2015)

Fez909 said:


> Garbage themselves like to go public with self-righteous rants:
> 
> Seems like the photographer used their own template against them. "disrespecting artistry" only applies when it is musicians; that's what she's saying. That's why the letter makes sense to be public: he was trying to get them to admit that all artists, including photographers, deserve respect. And instead they sent a passive aggressive letter that makes them look like cunts.



I hadn't read the 'J'accuse' against Kanye West. It's amusing that she thinks, at 48, anyone in the contemporary music world would care about her opinion esp as Garbage's influence on the current music scene looks minimal to say the least. Ok, that's unfair, zero.

Desperate 'look at me' stuff.


----------



## Orang Utan (Apr 4, 2015)

Fuck off, Spymaster. It's someone rightly complaining about a bunch of millionaires trying to rip him off. Many of my friends work as designers and illustrators and are always getting asked to work for free, or ripped off, or paid late, not by small businesses, but massive moneybags organisations. Fuck these chancers. They deserve to be exposed. Most people who get ripped off by them have no clout to complain about it.


----------



## editor (Apr 4, 2015)

I get my photos ripped off all the time but what really fucking pisses me off is when some big company asks to use my work for their own commercial purposes while telling me that they have "no budget." 

It's not unusual for companies to assume that artists/photographers/musicians should be the only unpaid people in their commercial projects. And they can get the fuck off.


----------



## editor (Apr 4, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> He's picking on one of his 'lesser' clients, tbf. I doubt he'd have called out Bowie or Deborah Harry in similar circumstances.


Perhaps they pay him and aren't in the habit of using his work without permission, payment or credit.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 4, 2015)

editor said:


> I get my photos ripped off all the time but what really fucking pisses me off is when some big company asks to use my work for their own commercial purposes while telling me that they have "no budget."
> 
> It's not unusual for companies to assume that artists/photographers/musicians should be the only unpaid people in their commercial projects. And they can get the fuck off.


I don't think anyone's defending that, though. And he's right to be pissed off that they used an image without permission on an album. Presumably he will have followed that up with a letter and received a cheque. He should have done. 

But if someone writes to you like this, don't you first write back stating your fee for the proposed use?


----------



## editor (Apr 4, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I don't think anyone's defending that, though. And he's right to be pissed off that they used an image without permission on an album. Presumably he will have followed that up with a letter and received a cheque. He should have done.
> 
> But if someone writes to you like this, don't you first write back stating your fee for the proposed use?


Not if they already have history for using my work for commercial projects without permission, payment or credit.


----------



## gabi (Apr 4, 2015)

Where's the contract?


----------



## Orang Utan (Apr 4, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I don't think anyone's defending that, though. And he's right to be pissed off that they used an image without permission on an album. Presumably he will have followed that up with a letter and received a cheque. He should have done.
> 
> But if someone writes to you like this, don't you first write back stating your fee for the proposed use?


why bother if they're not going to pay you? they've already stated they wouldn't. why do you care that he's been a bit bolshy about it? he's exposed Garbage as a bunch of chancers. Good on him.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 4, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> why bother if they're not going to pay you? they've already stated they wouldn't. why do you care that he's been a bit bolshy about it? he's exposed Garbage as a bunch of chancers. Good on him.


Setting aside rights and wrongs, sometimes if you don't ask you don't get. I'm sure he knows that very well. And again, setting aside rights and wrongs, that works both ways.

His own website is itself testament to that. He will need model release forms from the likes of Bowie etc to use their images on his website. I presume he asked them for this - 'do you mind if I put this photo on my website?' - and they said yes.


----------



## twentythreedom (Apr 4, 2015)

I wonder who else working on the book project is being asked to do it for free


----------



## Miss Caphat (Apr 4, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Hmmm. Little man?
> 
> I've just had a brief perusal of his website. He's not so little. I'm guessing neither you nor I could afford to book him.



so he could afford to say what he was actually thinking, and make people think next time before they make assumptions and insult artists by offering them "credit" or "exposure" 
Good for him.


----------



## editor (Apr 4, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> His own website is itself testament to that. He will need model release forms from the likes of Bowie etc to use their images on his website. I presume he asked them for this - 'do you mind if I put this photo on my website?' - and they said yes.


Desperate argument is desperate.


----------



## Chilli.s (Apr 4, 2015)

IMHO a bit lame not to pay some sort of amount, even if just a token payment. Without some detail of initial contract, hard to judge.


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 5, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> Fuck off, Spymaster. It's someone rightly complaining about a bunch of millionaires trying to rip him off. Many of my friends work as designers and illustrators and are always getting asked to work for free, or ripped off, or paid late, not by small businesses, but massive moneybags organisations. Fuck these chancers. They deserve to be exposed. Most people who get ripped off by them have no clout to complain about it.



Childish.

Sounds like your friends learned their business skills from the same cornflake packet that Mr Pope did.  Most of mine very rarely get ripped off, are able to negotiate without spitting their dummies, and usually get paid within their contract terms.


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 5, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> why bother if they're not going to pay you? they've already stated they wouldn't.



No they didn't.


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 5, 2015)

twentythreedom said:


> I wonder who else working on the book project is being asked to do it for free



Probably everyone who isn't contracted otherwise.


----------



## weltweit (Apr 5, 2015)

I think the photographer was right not to offer his image for free, he also has to make a living and paying for a photo-shoot does not usually confer all image rights in perpetuity. I am less certain about his taking it public, it could backfire on him rather like someone taking an employer to court can.


----------



## twentythreedom (Apr 5, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> Probably everyone who isn't contracted otherwise.


Any clue what kind of roles will be non-contracted? Just wondering how widespread this is


----------



## bi0boy (Apr 5, 2015)

They said the book wouldn't make much money from sales. So why not offer every contributor a share of the profits, a royalty payment?

Then this photographer will see how just many people are willing to fork out for his oh-so-amazing pictars. If he's right and they're worth something he should make a bomb.


----------



## bi0boy (Apr 5, 2015)

Just because you spend time doing something doesn't mean you're entitled to earn a living out of it.


----------



## editor (Apr 5, 2015)

bi0boy said:


> Just because you spend time doing something doesn't mean you're entitled to earn a living out of it.


Unless you're a professional photographer of course. Then it's your job and you have every right to expect to be paid if your work is used in commercial projects.


----------



## Belushi (Apr 5, 2015)

bi0boy said:


> Just because you spend time doing something doesn't mean you're entitled to earn a living out of it.



I bet garbage would disagree with you when it comes to people downloading their music for free.


----------



## Cheesypoof (Apr 5, 2015)

i think the photographer is within his rights to refuse, and you know, 'out' Garbage. It is annoying if they are millionares not to want to pay him, but they probably thought they'd chance their arm...


----------



## bi0boy (Apr 5, 2015)

editor said:


> Unless you're a professional photographer of course. Then it's your job and you have every right to expect to be paid if your work is used in commercial projects.



But it wasn't though. They asked him if they could use it and he refused, because he thought it was worth more than they were prepared to pay. I wonder if anyone else will pay for it now.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 5, 2015)

bi0boy said:


> Just because you spend time doing something doesn't mean you're entitled to earn a living out of it.


No, you're entitled to control over how your work is used, though. In the case of photos, you're entitled to say when they can and cannot be used, unless you've sold that right to someone else or otherwise foresworn it by releasing the work on a free licence of some kind. 

But I think you're also entitled to ask politely for the use of work without necessarily offering payment. Anyone who's self-published knows how expensive it is and how difficult it is to make money out of it. I don't think Garbage are necessarily lying when they say that they don't expect this book to make them much, if any, money. 

Then it's up to the person in question to either refuse permission or to ask for some arrangement, whether an upfront payment or something else.


----------



## bi0boy (Apr 5, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> No, you're entitled to control over how your work is used, though. In the case of photos, you're entitled to say when they can and cannot be used, unless you've sold that right to someone else or otherwise foresworn it by releasing the work on a free licence of some kind.



The photographer exercised that right here - I don't see the problem. He is whingeing not because they used it for free in their book, but because they didn't think it worth paying him for. Maybe his photos are shit.


----------



## Cheesypoof (Apr 5, 2015)

agree - while i think asking for the pics for free was shabby, at least the band asked first. I am surprised that they claim to not be in a financial position to pay though....


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 5, 2015)

There's nothing shabby about trying to negotiate the best deal possible. Shabby would have been using the work without asking.

Shabby is also plastering a rant on Facebook without giving the other chap a chance pay a fee.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 5, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> There's nothing shabby about trying to negotiate the best deal possible. Shabby would have been using the work without asking.


I don't completely agree. If they are doing something that they hope will make them a lot of money, then it is shabby not to offer payment. I don't think it's ok to underpay people just because you can.

But as someone who has self-published, I can well believe that they won't make anything out of this book. It will cost a lot to print, and they won't get good deals from bookshops/Amazon. You don't generally self-publish to make money. You do it to get something you think is worthwhile out into the world.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 5, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Setting aside rights and wrongs, sometimes if you don't ask you don't get. I'm sure he knows that very well. And again, setting aside rights and wrongs, that works both ways.
> 
> His own website is itself testament to that. He will need model release forms from the likes of Bowie etc to use their images on his website. I presume he asked them for this - 'do you mind if I put this photo on my website?' - and they said yes.



TBF, you need to ponder the difference between the electronic and the physical reproduction of the picture. Generally the latter is reproduction as an artefact or *in* an artefact for sale while the former generates no money. It's also likely that his contracts are written to solicit limited use rights (i.e. on his website) from his clients.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 5, 2015)

weltweit said:


> I think the photographer was right not to offer his image for free, he also has to make a living and paying for a photo-shoot does not usually confer all image rights in perpetuity. I am less certain about his taking it public, it could backfire on him rather like someone taking an employer to court can.



The problem with allowing free use to individuals or organisations that appear to have the ability to pay, is that allowing free use will perpetuate this blagging, and even cause more people to try it on. I'm glad he went public. Not on the basis that I think he's either wrong or right in this instance, but because business needs to learn not to blag.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 5, 2015)

bi0boy said:


> They said the book wouldn't make much money from sales. So why not offer every contributor a share of the profits, a royalty payment?
> 
> Then this photographer will see how just many people are willing to fork out for his oh-so-amazing pictars. If he's right and they're worth something he should make a bomb.



I suspect that, given Garbage's output and Ms Manson's pretensions, this book is going to be of the coffee table/art-book type, which would explain the "there's not much money in it" claim - high-quality repro is expensive.
Even so, as you say, promising contributors a smidgen of a percent on sales would be a good way of paying *something* for the use of contributions, and needn't be expensive, especially if you acknowledge those contributors in a dedication at the front of the book.


----------



## Orang Utan (Apr 5, 2015)

I'll just leave this here:
http://www.ted.com/talks/amanda_palmer_the_art_of_asking?language=en


----------



## Mr Moose (Apr 6, 2015)

bi0boy said:


> They said the book wouldn't make much money from sales. So why not offer every contributor a share of the profits, a royalty payment?
> 
> Then this photographer will see how just many people are willing to fork out for his oh-so-amazing pictars. If he's right and they're worth something he should make a bomb.



The right idea, but seriously have you met a single human who might buy this  book? It's seriously questionable they have many 'fans' at all let alone ones who might buy their vanity project book.


----------



## bi0boy (Apr 6, 2015)

Mr Moose said:


> The right idea, but seriously have you met a single human who might buy this  book? It's seriously questionable they have many 'fans' at all let alone ones who might buy their vanity project book.



Then the photographer can't expect them to profit from the book. He can't have it both ways. Either his photographs are meaningful and relevant and people are interested and want to pay for a book about the subject featuring his amazing pictures, or else the subject is dull and boring and no one gives a fuck and he can't expect anyone to pay for some shitty book that happens to have a few of his old snaps inside that perhaps he made a few bob from back when the band were in the charts.


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 6, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> I'm glad he went public. Not on the basis that I think he's either wrong or right in this instance, but because business needs to learn not to blag.



But they're not blagging are they?

Either the terms of reuse were laid out in his original contract and they were asking him to waive them; or they weren't and the band was courteously asking for his permission despite not being contractually obliged to.

As you know varying of contracts and reductions or write-offs of fees happen all day, every day, in pretty much every business and all he needs to do is say no.

From the band's (again, polite and measured) response quoted by Dweller, there was never any intention to deceive and they were simply trying to keep costs down on a project unlikely to make much money. Fortunately it seems that most of the other contributors are happy with what they've already been paid, for a little more exposure, and to get credited for their work.

I'd be interested to know what Pope's original contract said about the reuse of images. If fees were specified which the band were asking to be waived, then he's overeacted and should have dealt with it professionally in private. If no terms of reuse were specified and they were legally able to reproduce the imagery without permission or payment, then he's an utter fuckwit for publicly shitting on a goodwill gesture that they weren't obliged to make, and that kind of behaviour will likely lose him other clients.


----------



## chilango (Apr 6, 2015)

Culture, in all its forms, should be free and held in common by all.

You turn it into commodities, products and property then you've let the wolf of capital in through the door.


----------



## gabi (Apr 6, 2015)

Jesus, just looked at his folio. Is there anyone he hasn't shot?


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 6, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> I suspect that, given Garbage's output and Ms Manson's pretensions, this book is going to be of the coffee table/art-book type, which would explain the "there's not much money in it" claim - high-quality repro is expensive.
> Even so, as you say, promising contributors a smidgen of a percent on sales would be a good way of paying *something* for the use of contributions, and needn't be expensive, especially if you acknowledge those contributors in a dedication at the front of the book.



Given his Facebook outburst there's a fair chance that he'd have slung that back at them too.

"Why should my livelihood have to depend on your project's success ...... etc, etc?"


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 6, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> But they're not blagging are they?
> 
> Either the terms of reuse were laid out in his original contract and they were asking him to waive them; or they weren't and the band was courteously asking for his permission despite not being contractually obliged to.
> 
> ...



From my little experience with this, I doubt the contract was very specific, beyond giving permission for the particular use the shoot was being done for and reserving all other rights to the photographer (which is standard). I doubt it specifies reuse fees at all, although maybe such high-profile photographers can and do do that. 

It wasn't an idle point I made earlier about all the famous faces plastered over his website. It's not an accident that the most famous of all - the likes of Bowie - are most prominent. I'd do that too if I were him. He's selling himself. And I fucking guarantee that if Bowie's management came calling for free reuse of an image, he wouldn't be throwing a public hissy fit. 

But very often, image rights for this kind of thing are never agreed explicitly. It's assumed that reasonable fair use in things like online portfolios is ok, but technically he needs a model release from everyone in the photos for that specific use. These things are let slide very often as you'd have to be a bit of an arse to refuse permission to a photographer to use your image on their website - but technically, you can.


----------



## Diamond (Apr 6, 2015)

He's got a valid argument but doesn't make it very well.

If correct, they have appropriated his IP before without permission or compensation - a point that he should have lead with rather than make as a postscript.

This means they have form and frames the request in a rather different light.

If someone has nicked your property of any kind before and then "politely" asks to abscond with some more, I think you have every right to take them to task, all the more so in the current context which seems to disdain copyright altogether for lazy personal convenience masked by "ideological" bullshit.

In any event, they should have made sure that they were assigned the copyright if they wanted to use it again and paid the photographer some more in the first place.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 6, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> But they're not blagging are they?
> 
> Either the terms of reuse were laid out in his original contract and they were asking him to waive them; or they weren't and the band was courteously asking for his permission despite not being contractually obliged to.



And if they were asking him to waive his rights, that's what's known as "blagging",you prawn! Any extra-contractual considerations *should* be subject to renegotiation, not to wheedling about having "no budget" *or* about "rights".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 6, 2015)

Mr Moose said:


> The right idea, but seriously have you met a single human who might buy this  book? It's seriously questionable they have many 'fans' at all let alone ones who might buy their vanity project book.



From what I recall of their heyday, they had a lot more fans in North America than they ever had over here, so there may well be a core market for it there.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 6, 2015)

chilango said:


> Culture, in all its forms, should be free and held in common by all.
> 
> You turn it into commodities, products and property then you've let the wolf of capital in through the door.



Well yes, but for many artists some degree of commodification of their art, at least over the last thousand years or so, has been inescapable due to having to operate within the patronage system. Even today, it's a rare artist that can survive without engaging with the wolf, sadly.


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 6, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> And if they were asking him to waive his rights, that's what's known as "blagging",you prawn! Any extra-contractual considerations *should* be subject to renegotiation, not to wheedling about having "no budget" *or* about "rights".




That IS negotiation, you turbot!

'We aren't going to make much out of this, can we please use your stuff in return for crediting the work?'

As far as opening gambits go, it's not a particularly bad one.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 6, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> That IS negotiation, you turbot!
> 
> 'We aren't going to make much out of this, can we please use your stuff in return for crediting the work?'



Crediting the work is usually a requirement anyway, in published work, simply to avoid having your arse reamed out in court, so effectively their "negotiation" comprises of offering a "credit" that they're obligated (unless they *want* their arses reamed) to give anyway. 
In other words, they're attempting to blag something for free, you plankton!


----------



## chilango (Apr 6, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Well yes, but for many artists some degree of commodification of their art, at least over the last thousand years or so, has been inescapable due to having to operate within the patronage system. Even today, it's a rare artist that can survive without engaging with the wolf, sadly.



As an artist (or designer or winter or musician or whatever) you can choose. Nobody forces an artist to "try and make a living from their art" *. 

Plenty don't. Out of choice. Plenty either keep their stuff for their own pleasure or choose to share freely. 

...and earn a living some other way.

It's a choice I made. It's a choice I'm happy with.



*obviously there are exceptions. There are of course circumstances where the artists have no other means of earning a living available. But for the vast majority of us in the "developed world"  this isn't the case. Art is generally a poor career choice financially, and one made from a position of relative privilege.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 6, 2015)

Of course they would need to credit it, but saying that you will properly credit the work is standard form for any request of this kind. It's just being polite.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 6, 2015)

chilango said:


> As an artist (or designer or winter or musician or whatever) you can choose. Nobody forces an artist to "try and make a living from their art" *.


True, of course. However, this isn't really the issue in point here. Pat Pope, judging from his portfolio, has had some very nice paydays in the past from his photography. And this is his job. The issue here is a bit different, I think. It's about others making money out of your work while not paying you.


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 6, 2015)

Ok, so we're arguing about the word "blag" which I've always considered to mean _cheat._ 

As I say, as an opening gambit in this situation it's pretty innocuous and easily countered without publicly chucking toys about, squid dick!


----------



## Diamond (Apr 6, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> That IS negotiation, you turbot!
> 
> 'We aren't going to make much out of this, can we please use your stuff in return for crediting the work?'
> 
> As far as opening gambits go, it's not a particularly bad one.



From a legal perspective, it's meaningless and possibly a bit offensive too.

The photographer has a moral right to be credited which exists independently but is related to the underlying copyright.

If someone assigns you their copyright but does not waive their moral rights, as is standard practice, they can found an action if you fail to credit them.

So what garbage are saying by way of offer to this photographer is - "give us a vaguely defined license to use your copyright for free and in exchange we will recognise your existing moral rights, which would be in effect regardless of the bargain"...

Again, from a legal perspective, it's a bullshit attempt to try and get a license for free to some work from an artist that they have apparently stolen from in the past.

The fact that others have fallen for the ruse or been in such a weak bargaining position to reckon that to be a good deal is immaterial.


----------



## chilango (Apr 6, 2015)

Well, yeah, the whole relationship as determined by it being an economic relationship.

That's the way of the market for you. 

Their rules.

Withdraw your labour and organise collectively innit?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 6, 2015)

Diamond said:


> From a legal perspective, it's meaningless and possibly a bit offensive too.
> 
> The photographer has a moral right to be credited which exists independently but is related to the underlying copyright.
> 
> ...


This is hokum.

They are just being polite by saying that he will be credited properly. They're not trying to offer that as some kind of incentive. They're just asking for a free usage - there is no bullshit in that, they're pretty straightforward.

And the use without permission from before was the same band but a different management team. That was the record company. It was for a 'best of', and I wonder if it was just used as a thumbnail. If so, he's being rather precious - he wouldn't expect payment for a thumbnail usage. If it was bigger than a thumbnail, he clearly had a grievance, and could and should have written to them and demanded payment.


----------



## laptop (Apr 6, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> the bbc should be perennially in the headlines then as theu want everything done for free and pref yesterday



Permission to use this quote in a small attempt to change this situation?


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 6, 2015)

laptop said:


> Permission to use this quote in a small attempt to change this situation?


yeh for my nominal £30 charge


----------



## laptop (Apr 6, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh for my nominal £30 charge



Pint next time we're in adjacent postcodes?




Two pints?


----------



## laptop (Apr 6, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> This is hokum.



It is, in fact, not hokum. Unless the original contract waived the right to be identified, or the photographer failed to "assert" that right, he has that right and can (in principle) sue for use without credit.


----------



## Diamond (Apr 6, 2015)

Yep, it's not even a proper offer as no consideration is proposed to move from garbage to the photographer as far as I can see.

It's just a request for a license disguised as an offer, which is particularly pernicious given that garbage and their representatives seem to have form in appropriating the photographer's stuff without permission.

And then you add in the "champion of artists" stuff and the whole thing looks more than a tad hypocritical...


----------



## laptop (Apr 6, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Yep, it's not even a proper offer as no consideration is proposed to move from garbage to the photographer as far as I can see.



It's struck me after all these years that though CDPA 1988 Section 77 may be fiendish expensive to enforce, it does mean that no-one can claim that a credit is "consideration" for the purposes of establishing that there is a contract, it being a right and all.

So long, that is, that the creator "asserts" the right. The phrase "I assert my moral rights" on the invoice is standard for photoshoots, AIUI.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 6, 2015)

laptop said:


> It is, in fact, not hokum. Unless the original contract waived the right to be identified, or the photographer failed to "assert" that right, he has that right and can (in principle) sue for use without credit.


That's not the bit I was calling hokum on. The hokum bit is the idea that they're doing anything other than being polite by saying they'll credit him. They weren't offering a deal. They were asking for a favour.


----------



## Diamond (Apr 6, 2015)

laptop said:


> It's struck me after all these years that though CDPA 1988 Section 77 may be fiendish expensive to enforce, it does mean that no-one can claim that a credit is "consideration" for the purposes of establishing that there is a contract, it being a right and all.
> 
> So long, that is, that the creator "asserts" the right. The phrase "I assert my moral rights" on the invoice is standard for photoshoots, AIUI.



Ah, yes, had missed the assertion aspect, which seems a bit odd to me.  I'm not sure why a statutory right should require such assertion in the first place though...

But anyways, it's a bit of an odd one because nine times out of ten, you would want to credit the author, would you not, if you were purchasing a license to a work or its copyright wholesale?

But yes, I agree, how can a promise not to infringe a statutory right constitute valuable consideration?


----------



## Diamond (Apr 6, 2015)

Watching my nephews and nieces yesterday with their hauls of Easter chocolate it got me to thinking about a clumsy analogy this afternoon - say one of them steals a piece of chocolate from the other and scoffs it down (that being not uncommon) and the owner gets a bit shirty and then later on that same perpetrator says to the victim, please may I have some more of your chocolate but in exchange I will recognise that your endeavours have procured it...?

I doubt any kind of deal would be struck in those circumstances.


----------



## Diamond (Apr 6, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> That's not the bit I was calling hokum on. The hokum bit is the idea that they're doing anything other than being polite by saying they'll credit him. They weren't offering a deal. They were asking for a favour.



But they're _required_ to credit him, assuming that the terms of the original deal were standard.

It's not being polite - they're not offering him anything new or of any value - they _have_ to do it as a matter of course.


----------



## laptop (Apr 6, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> That's not the bit I was calling hokum on. The hokum bit is the idea that they're doing anything other than being polite by saying they'll credit him. They weren't offering a deal. They were asking for a favour.



But it's a right (unless any of the above-noted caveats apply). So "offering" it isn't politeness, any more than "offering" not to burgle your house is.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Apr 6, 2015)

No surprise about Garbage' reply they've always been shallow commercial crap.


----------



## laptop (Apr 6, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Ah, yes, had missed the assertion aspect, which seems a bit odd to me.  I'm not sure why a statutory right should require such assertion in the first place though...
> 
> But anyways, it's a bit of an odd one because nine times out of ten, you would want to credit the author, would you not, if you were purchasing a license to a work or its copyright wholesale?



My recollection of the accounts of colleagues who were present at the debates on the 1988 Act, as it became, is that Associated Newspapers (Rothermere) lobbied furiously to make the rights to be identified and to defend the integrity of works toothless - through the medium of Michael Heseltine (prop. Haymarket magazine group) and (in the early stages) Harold Macmillan (prop. Macmillan books). AFAIK this was solely on the basis that they weren't going to be told how to exploit their writers and snappers.


----------



## Diamond (Apr 6, 2015)

laptop said:


> My recollection of the accounts of colleagues who were present at the debates on the 1988 Act, as it became, is that Associated Newspapers (Rothermere) lobbied furiously to make the rights to be identified and to defend the integrity of works toothless - through the medium of Michael Heseltine (prop. Haymarket magazine group) and (in the early stages) Harold Macmillan (prop. Macmillan books). AFAIK this was solely on the basis that they weren't going to be told how to exploit their writers and snappers.



That makes sense then...

Still, it was a pretty weak concession for them to gain; apparently requiring the most rudimentary legal advice to circumvent.

Would be interesting to know if there have been any significant cases on that point.


----------



## laptop (Apr 6, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Would be interesting to know if there have been any significant cases on that point.



Those that I am aware of are (a) £50 add-ons to damages for use without a licence in the lower courts; or (b) settled out of court for five or six figures. 

So, 27 years on, we still don't know for sure what the law _means_, because there are no judgements from higher courts.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 6, 2015)

laptop said:


> But it's a right (unless any of the above-noted caveats apply). So "offering" it isn't politeness, any more than "offering" not to burgle your house is.


It's politeness. 

Whenever I've written this kind of letter, I have always said something like 'You will of course be fully credited, but I'm afraid I cannot offer payment'. 

And I'll continue to do that where I genuinely can't offer payment. Out of politeness.


----------



## laptop (Apr 6, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> And I'll continue to do that where I genuinely can't offer payment. Out of politeness.



Ah, so you're asserting what you would like to think your own motivation is, without regard to the rest of the world. There's no arguing with that. Nor sense in it.


----------



## Orang Utan (Apr 6, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It's politeness.
> 
> Whenever I've written this kind of letter, I have always said something like 'You will of course be fully credited, but I'm afraid I cannot offer payment'.
> 
> And I'll continue to do that where I genuinely can't offer payment. Out of politeness.


In what sort of situation would you not offer someone payment for their work? Charity? School?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 6, 2015)

laptop said:


> Ah, so you're asserting what you would like to think your own motivation is, without regard to the rest of the world. There's no arguing with that. Nor sense in it.


No, I'm guessing that this is also what the person who wrote this letter was doing. Not that they thought they were offering a favour by saying it, which is what Diamond implied.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 6, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> In what sort of situation would you not offer someone payment for their work? Charity? School?


Where there isn't a picture budget. Very often it will be commercial organisations I'm asking. When it's an individual, I offer to send them a copy of the book. If I can, I will offer a small payment of, say, £30, but even that's not always possible. Generally these are low-circulation school and library books. Most people are surprised when I tell them how small our budgets are to make them. 

It's either that or the book doesn't get made. It's very well being high and mighty about this, but I'm not the one slashing budgets. I'm just trying to deal with the result of the slashed budget.


----------



## Orang Utan (Apr 6, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Where there isn't a picture budget. Very often it will be commercial organisations I'm asking. When it's an individual, I offer to send them a copy of the book. If I can, I will offer a small payment of, say, £30, but even that's not always possible. Generally these are low-circulation school and library books. Most people are surprised when I tell them how small our budgets are to make them.
> 
> It's either that or the book doesn't get made. It's very well being high and mighty about this, but I'm not the one slashing budgets. I'm just trying to deal with the result of the slashed budget.


But all too often it is organisations such as News International who are claiming there is no budget.


----------



## Diamond (Apr 6, 2015)

laptop said:


> Those that I am aware of are (a) £50 add-ons to damages for use without a licence in the lower courts; or (b) settled out of court for five or six figures.
> 
> So, 27 years on, we still don't know for sure what the law _means_, because there are no judgements from higher courts.



Yeah, always seemed pretty bare bones when I studied it many years ago.

Still, it's difficult to see what kind of dispute might arise on infringement of the right - the only one I can really think of is if a person purchased the copyright and then failed to credit the originator, which seems to blend with the tort of "passing off"...

Perhaps we haven't seen any cases because the originators are not in a position to make their case for financial reasons?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 6, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> That's not the bit I was calling hokum on. The hokum bit is the idea that they're doing anything other than being polite by saying they'll credit him. They weren't offering a deal. They were asking for a favour.



It's *legally required* to credit the artist. It's nowt to do with being polite, it's an attempt to bag something for nothing while stating "we'll fulfill our legal obligation to credit you as the author of your work, and because we're such good eggs for fulfilling that obligation, you should let us have limited free usage rights".
This isn't complex stuff, it's basic.


----------



## laptop (Apr 6, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Perhaps we haven't seen any cases because the originators are not in a position to make their case for financial reasons?



'Fraid that's it. 

"You are now entering the British legal system. Please deposit £200,000."


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 6, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> It's *legally required* to credit the artist. It's nowt to do with being polite, it's an attempt to bag something for nothing while stating "we'll fulfill our legal obligation to credit you as the author of your work, and because we're such good eggs for fulfilling that obligation, you should let us have limited free usage rights".
> This isn't complex stuff, it's basic.



They're asking for a favour, not offering one. Nothing wrong with being polite when asking for a favour and reassuring the requestee that you're going to credit them properly.

That is basic stuff, too.

If you don't do it, you know what will happen? They'll write back and ask if they will be getting a credit.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 6, 2015)

Diamond said:


> But they're _required_ to credit him, assuming that the terms of the original deal were standard.
> 
> It's not being polite - they're not offering him anything new or of any value - they _have_ to do it as a matter of course.



The photographer David Hoffman was mentioned on another thread last week. Hoffman has several decades of form for pursuing unofficial and/or uncredited use of his pictures.
I was looking through a book of pictures focusing on (pardon the pun) the miners' strike of '84-85, and where they'd used pictures taken by people who weren't professional photographers or photo-journalists, they still credited the original photographer wherever they'd been able to trace them, because it made legal sense to do so.


----------



## Diamond (Apr 6, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> They're asking for a favour, not offering one. Nothing wrong with being polite when asking for I a favour and reassuring the requestee that you're going to credit them properly.
> 
> That is basic stuff, too.



I don't think you get it.

You can ask for a favour but trying to sugar the deal by acknowledging that you will respect basic rights "in exchange" is cynical in the extreme.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 6, 2015)

Diamond said:


> I don't think you get it.
> 
> You can ask for a favour but trying to sugar the deal by acknowledging that you will respect basic rights "in exchange" is cynical in the extreme.


I don't think you get it. It isn't an attempt to sugar any deal. It's a reassurance to head off a question that will otherwise be coming back at you. And the 'of course' bit when I do it is an indication that I don't think I should be doing anything else.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 6, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It's politeness.
> 
> Whenever I've written this kind of letter, I have always said something like 'You will of course be fully credited, but I'm afraid I cannot offer payment'.
> 
> And I'll continue to do that where I genuinely can't offer payment. Out of politeness.



And what would happen if you didn't of course "fully credit" the artist, if the artist decided to be litigious?  Obviously you, being a moral creature, wouldn't use their work without their permission, but if you forgot to credit, then they'd have a right to take you to court, because you'd have resiled from a legal obligation, accidental or not.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 6, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> They're asking for a favour, not offering one. Nothing wrong with being polite when asking for a favour and reassuring the requestee that you're going to credit them properly.



They're doing both. Don't make the mistake of assuming that your own behaviour/position is necessarily shared by others who do your job.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 6, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> They're doing both. Don't make the mistake of assuming that your own behaviour/position is necessarily shared by others who do your job.


Don't make the mistake of assuming it isn't.


----------



## Diamond (Apr 6, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I don't think you get it. It isn't an attempt to sugar any deal. It's a reassurance to head off a question that will otherwise be coming back at you. And the 'of course' bit when I do it is an indication that I don't think I should be doing anything else.



OK, we haven't seen the exact correspondence but the offer seems to be (i) let me use your intellectual property and (ii) in exchange I'll acknowledge that you own the underlying rights.

How is limb (ii) not an attempt to make limb (i) more attractive?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 6, 2015)

Diamond, I'm guessing that if you were drafting these letters, you'd perhaps not have much success. 

I would advise being friendly and open and giving as much info as possible.


----------



## Diamond (Apr 6, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Diamond, I'm guessing that if you were drafting these letters, you'd perhaps not have much success.
> 
> I would advise being friendly and open and giving as much info as possible.



The bottom line is that they're trying to get something which they don't own for free.

I could try and draft such a letter but I certainly wouldn't use such chancer tactics and would most likely advise the client to consider their position.

You generally don't get much by offering nothing in exchange.

And broadly speaking, I think that's a good thing.  Even more so in the creative industries, which are often highly vulnerable.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 6, 2015)

Diamond said:


> You generally don't get much by offering nothing in exchange.


This isn't true.

Also, let's be more realistic here. Generally, there will be no contract for such free usage. The email itself becomes the basis of the agreement. If I were a photographer, I would want the person requesting to say they will credit me so that I didn't have to ask them. That is why it is a polite thing to say it upfront. 

Some here are assuming Machiavellian motives that really are not likely to be present.


----------



## belboid (Apr 8, 2015)

Pope replies to various critics - wishing he had sent the letter to one of the other hundreds of bands who ask the same thing - http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/pat-pope/garbage-final-word_b_7015976.html


----------



## editor (Apr 8, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> But all too often it is organisations such as News International who are claiming there is no budget.


Or (from personal recent experience): the BBC, the Evening Standard and the Independent. And it fucks me off because you can bet the person sat at the comfy desk doing the asking isn't doing it for free.


----------



## belboid (Apr 8, 2015)

editor said:


> Or (from personal recent experience): the BBC, the Evening Standard and the Independent. And it fucks me off because you can bet the person sat at the comfy desk doing the asking isn't doing it for free.


tbh, i wouldn't bet on that at the papers - always ask the 'intern' to do the shitty jobs


----------



## editor (Apr 9, 2015)

And another one today:


> I'm working with the USA Today on a story about ********* and I'm writing to request the use of one of the
> images on your site (w/ appropriate photo credit) for submission as
> part of the article


Oooh! A photo credit! Too kind!

I've sent them my licensing fee. I don't think I'll be hearing back from them.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 9, 2015)

editor said:


> And another one today:
> Oooh! A photo credit! Too kind!
> 
> I've sent them my licensing fee. I don't think I'll be hearing back from them.


when i worked in an archive and people got in touch about using photos they all too often went quiet upon hearing the fees we charged: which were in all honesty very modest.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Apr 9, 2015)

belboid said:


> Pope replies to various critics - wishing he had sent the letter to one of the other hundreds of bands who ask the same thing - http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/pat-pope/garbage-final-word_b_7015976.html


I think his summary of the general issue is pretty good, and is true in a lot of different areas too.


> 1. People think this is a one off request for special dispensation from one particular group of artists just trying to make one specific project happen. It isn't. I receive hundreds of these requests a year, as does every other photographer I know. This is the new normal - writing down a budget in which you'll get the photographic content for free by making the photographer give it to you. How will you make them give it to you? By quietly abusing the power relationship.
> 
> 2. The Power Relationship. Garbage stated in their response on Facebook that they "humbly requested" the use of my work for an "artistic collaboration". To be clear, Garbage didn't contact me at all. Garbage paid someone at their management company to send me a pro-forma request for free usage of my work. When you receive a request like that, the power relationship is that a gigantic branded entity with huge reach and backing is asking a lone freelancer to accept that the value of their work is zero. Your two choices are to give them the permission, valuing your work at zero, or to refuse permission, in which case they will quietly remove you from the list of freelancers they work with so you won't get any future work. This has happened to me time and again when refusing or granting permission. If Garbage don't understand that this is the nature of these requests then they need to spend less time reading Amanda Palmer and slightly more time investigating how power and control work.


----------



## pocketscience (Apr 10, 2015)

Reminds me of the David Thorne piece about the bloke wanting the graphs done for free (minus the humour)


----------



## editor (Apr 11, 2015)

Here's the response from US Today:



> Thank you so much for the speedy response! I¹m working on rounding up the
> photos of the Top 10 US Cities to See Buskers for the writer not the
> publication directly (I do PR for the other cities/properties included in
> the round-up so am trying to remove all barriers to get the article
> ...


I wrote back and asked her is she was being paid for her job and why she thinks I shouldn't be paid for mine.

(Her mega PR company has some of the biggest global brands on their books, by the way)


----------



## Cid (Apr 14, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Where there isn't a picture budget. Very often it will be commercial organisations I'm asking. When it's an individual, I offer to send them a copy of the book. If I can, I will offer a small payment of, say, £30, but even that's not always possible. Generally these are low-circulation school and library books. Most people are surprised when I tell them how small our budgets are to make them.
> 
> It's either that or the book doesn't get made. It's very well being high and mighty about this, but I'm not the one slashing budgets. I'm just trying to deal with the result of the slashed budget.



The Garbage book is probably a vanity project coffee table thumper. You pay for vanity projects.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 14, 2015)

Cid said:


> The Garbage book is probably a vanity project coffee table thumper. You pay for vanity projects.


I've helped many people out on 'vanity' projects (loathe that term - condescending in the extreme). Always did it for nothing as I know how hard it is to avoid losing money, let alone make any.

It's a question of taking a view on whether or not what they're doing is a good thing - helping out, if you think 'yes'; not helping or charging for your services if you think 'no'.


----------



## Santino (Apr 14, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I've helped many people out on 'vanity' projects


How many of them were millionaire rock musicians?


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 14, 2015)

Cid said:


> The Garbage book is probably a vanity project coffee table thumper. You pay for vanity projects.


yeh. but they don't seem up for paying for the vanity project.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 14, 2015)

Santino said:


> How many of them were millionaire rock musicians?


None. But then again, neither am I a well-paid celebrity photographer.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 14, 2015)

editor said:


> Here's the response from US Today:
> 
> 
> I wrote back and asked her is she was being paid for her job and why she thinks I shouldn't be paid for mine.
> ...


but answer came there none?


----------



## Santino (Apr 14, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh. but they don't seem up for paying for the vanity project.


Vanity, thy name is woman-fronted rock band.


----------



## editor (Apr 14, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> but answer came there none?


She sooooo loved my photos but wanted to "just check" that I wanted to give them away for free to a commercial company I don't give a flying fuck about.


----------



## Cid (Apr 14, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I've helped many people out on 'vanity' projects (loathe that term - condescending in the extreme). Always did it for nothing as I know how hard it is to avoid losing money, let alone make any.



Possibly when used as a blanket term to describe any form of self publishing, less so when used to describe people who publish things about themselves.


----------



## equationgirl (Apr 14, 2015)

Diamond said:


> He's got a valid argument but doesn't make it very well.
> 
> If correct, they have appropriated his IP before without permission or compensation - a point that he should have lead with rather than make as a postscript.
> 
> ...


His argument is made in terms everyone can understand, nothing wrong with that. 

Some moral rights such as the right to be identified as the creator of a work (right of paternity) exist for the whole of the copyright term in any case and will survive an assignment of copyright.


----------



## equationgirl (Apr 14, 2015)

editor said:


> Or (from personal recent experience): the BBC, the Evening Standard and the Independent. And it fucks me off because you can bet the person sat at the comfy desk doing the asking isn't doing it for free.


Unless it's the intern made to do it...


----------



## Diamond (Apr 14, 2015)

equationgirl said:


> His argument is made in terms everyone can understand, nothing wrong with that.
> 
> Some moral rights such as the right to be identified as the creator of a work (right of paternity) exist for the whole of the copyright term in any case and will survive an assignment of copyright.



Of course they'd survive an assignment of the copyright - they're separate but related rights and it would be impossible to assign the moral right in any event.

It would be also a very strange situation in which you wouldn't want the moral right to attach to the work - if you had paid a lot of money for a piece of work, you'd probably want to attribute it to the author

Nonetheless, moral rights, like most property rights can be explicitly waived.  It's easy to imagine a legal scenario in which you would pair an assignment of copyright with a waiver of the attached moral rights - that would be very easy to draft - however I'm not sure why the assignee would want that.

I struggle to imagine such a situation, although I suppose it does happen...


----------



## laptop (Apr 14, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Nonetheless, moral rights, like most property rights can be explicitly waived.  It's easy to imagine a legal scenario in which you would pair an assignment of copyright with a waiver of the attached moral rights - that would be very easy to draft - however I'm not sure why the assignee would want that.
> 
> I struggle to imagine such a situation, although I suppose it does happen...



Moral rights aren't strictly a property right...

Anyways, far too many commercial clients demand that everyone waives their moral rights. Even when they don't exist in the first place (e.g. work "for the purpose of reporting news and current affairs".)

Why?

Because they can demand it.


----------



## Diamond (Apr 14, 2015)

laptop said:


> Moral rights aren't strictly a property right...
> 
> Anyways, far too many commercial clients demand that everyone waives their moral rights. Even when they don't exist in the first place (e.g. work "for the purpose of reporting news and current affairs".)
> 
> ...



I see your point but I'd disagree, they are proprietorial in the sense that they rely on an underlying proprietorial IP right.

Although they can't be exchanged, they must be waived if they are not to attach to the copyright.  So, yes, a bit of an odd one.

Or to put it another way - you can't buy them but you can give them up, as far as I understand.


----------



## weltweit (Apr 14, 2015)

I imagine it is getting harder to get paid for images these days with the massive increase of amateur photographers and now vast amounts of digital images online in places like Flickr.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Apr 15, 2015)

weltweit said:


> I imagine it is getting harder to get paid for images these days with the massive increase of amateur photographers and now vast amounts of digital images online in places like Flickr.



Only just caught up with this thread. You're right of course, but very importantly, the photographs talked about in the OP were as important to the success of Carbage as any video. If you want photographs to do proper business, you fucking well have to pay the photographer for their skills and experience as much as you expect fans to pay for your book.


----------



## starfish2000 (May 18, 2015)

Garbage just look like Cunt's now. Trying to intellectualise the theft of IP is always a bad idea.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 18, 2015)

starfish2000 said:


> Garbage just look like Cunt's now. Trying to intellectualise the theft of IP is always a bad idea.


No it's not. Ip can be and is abused by very rich and powerful people too. Sometimes stealing ip is the right thing to do. Not in this case (although they didn't steal it), but your generalised statement isn't true at all.


----------



## starfish2000 (May 18, 2015)

Generalised statement? Name examples of ip theft & their benefit to mankind. With a pie chart please.

Then give me your house.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 18, 2015)

Capitalism throws up all
 kinds of examples of abuses of ip by the rich and powerful. Gm crops, lifesaving drugs. That kind of thing.  Often based on massively dubious assertions whereby accummulated social knowledge goes totally unpaid - 'stolen'by the companies.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 18, 2015)

And for an example purely from the narrow field of the arts i give you Disney. They are cunts. Good luck to anyone who 'steals' from them.


----------



## editor (May 18, 2015)

I feel this story is worth another airing: urban75 vs Microsoft's Barney: 
http://www.urban75.com/Punch/barney.html


----------



## Voley (May 18, 2015)

pocketscience said:


> Reminds me of the David Thorne piece about the bloke wanting the graphs done for free (minus the humour)


I love that. This is the highlight for me:

----------------------------------
What the fuck is your point? Are you going to do the logo and charts for me or not?
*From:* David Thorne
*Date:* Tuesday 17 November 2009 5.02pm
*To:* Simon Edhouse
*Subject:* Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Logo Design





------------------------------------


----------



## paul russell999 (May 19, 2015)

I've noticed that the number of times a company says they "love your work" is inversely proportion to the probability that they are willing to pay for it when it comes to photography.


----------



## Sasaferrato (May 27, 2015)

I once had one of my photographs published on the front page of a national newspaper, without either payment or credit. However, the circumstances which engendered the use of the photo were absolutely dreadful for the family concerned. It was a picture of their son in his kart, (he had been Scottish Junior Champion) and sadly he died from a heroin overdose. Had I been asked I would have agreed, even to relinquishing the copyright.

It was ironic though, it was probably the only photo I'll ever have published. I don't take photos for a living though, and that is the difference.


----------



## Sasaferrato (May 27, 2015)

Fez909 said:


> Not if he's not getting paid for it, it's not. And that's the problem: if you give your photos away for free you devalue yourself.



Depends how you look at it. I'm an amateur photographer with a little skill. If someone wants to use any of my photos for any purpose, they are welcome to do so, provided they ask of course. There is one website that uses four of my pictures, and I'm chuffed that they chose my photos. The emphasis is _amateur_ of course, my pictures have no commercial value, because I do it as a hobby.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 27, 2015)

Sasaferrato said:


> Depends how you look at it. I'm an amateur photographer with a little skill. If someone wants to use any of my photos for any purpose, they are welcome to do so, provided they ask of course. There is one website that uses four of my pictures, and I'm chuffed that they chose my photos. The emphasis is _amateur_ of course, my pictures have no commercial value, because I do it as a hobby.


because you set no value on them: you should do, other people will.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (May 27, 2015)

Sasaferrato said:


> Depends how you look at it. I'm an amateur photographer with a little skill. If someone wants to use any of my photos for any purpose, they are welcome to do so, provided they ask of course. There is one website that uses four of my pictures, and I'm chuffed that they chose my photos. The emphasis is _amateur_ of course, my pictures have no commercial value, because I do it as a hobby.





Pickman's model said:


> because you set no value on them: you should do, other people will.


Yes, your pictures have no commercial value because you don't charge for them, that's all.

I am also an amateur photographer, but if somebody were to want to use something I have on Flickr for commercial purposes, I'd at least charge them _something_, because to do otherwise devalues photography and is bad for people who do make a living out of it. I get very cross about how many chancers out there expect to be able to get everything digital for free.


----------



## alsoknownas (Jun 1, 2015)

I make films for clients.  If I wanted to use a Garbage track in one of them, even if (as many of them are), it was a not-for-profit venture, I'd have to pay between £5,000 - £25,000.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 1, 2015)

alsoknownas said:


> I make films for clients.  If I wanted to use a Garbage track in one of them, even if (as many of them are), it was a not-for-profit venture, I'd have to pay between £5,000 - £25,000.


why not ask if they'd let you use it w/o charge?


----------



## alsoknownas (Jun 1, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> why not ask if they'd let you use it w/o charge?


Zero chance.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 1, 2015)

alsoknownas said:


> Zero chance.


don't ask never gets


----------



## alsoknownas (Jun 1, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> don't ask never gets


When I was first starting out I did many asks of that nature.  No dice.  Ever.
Many things are supremely negotiable ime - locations, equipment rental, etc., even costume and prop purchases, but getting people to shift on the use of music that has been published is not something that I ever achieved.


----------



## 8den (Jun 1, 2015)

Years ago at a reclaim the street in Dublin, about a dozen cops gotten baton happy, and ended up hospitalising 20 people. I was the only person there with a camera and got the whole thing on tape (my camera got trashed by a Garda). The next morning I turned the footage over to two tv stations. Being a young naive "the truth wants to be free" type at the time, I gave one, very reasonable, caveat to the use of the footage; that whenever it was shown, or reused they needed to credit indymedia.ie (I was a member of the collective at the time). I think one station managed to remember to do this. The other station just couldn't be arsed, and kept using it over and over again without credit, so I phoned up their archive dept, asked what their rate was for supplying archive footage. I worked out how often they used it, and then sent the invoice to their legal dept.

Similarly about 10 newspapers lifted stills from the video off the tv and ran the images on their front pages. Again I phoned their picture desks asked them their rate and sent the invoices to their legal dept.

Paid for a new camera.


----------



## editor (Jul 8, 2015)

Just got another one.  

"Are you getting paid?", I asked the person who wanted to use my pic for free.
"Yes, I am, she replied." "But the budget is very tight."


----------



## editor (Jul 13, 2015)

Now this one is fucking priceless. 

_"I am writing you in order to introduce you my involvement in Concorde
Magazine, a lifestyle Mag, as design consultant. In this position I am
currently scouting around for outstanding emerging photographer
profiles or shootings to be published in the magazine.

The lifestyle magazine is published on-line as a monthly Briefing, and
will come up with an annual printed edition that will be distributed
through top lifestyle retail spaces worldwide. Now the major exposure
is in Europe and Far East and more and more emerging photographer and
entrepreneurs are sharing their works with us. Social media exposure
is becoming very wide spread with FB 8k and an enthusiast growing
Instagram crowd. Some of the best design articles featured outstanding
photographers such as Roland Halbe and Janie Airey with pure and
classy pieces of contemporary and modernist architecture.

I will be pleased if you are interested in publishing your Center
Point Tower shooting, without having any financial involvement between
the parties. We publish your shooting and you benefit from being
exposed to a refined audience among top emerging photographers._"

*"without having any financial involvement between the parties"*

Got to love the new way of saying "for free."


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 13, 2015)

wtf is  a 'design consultant'?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 13, 2015)

editor said:


> *"without having any financial involvement between the parties"*
> 
> Got to love the new way of saying "for free."


Well, they won't be charging for the service!


----------



## editor (Sep 15, 2015)

Just had the Guardian asking to use one of my photos in exchange for no money at all. But they offered a teensy credit. Whoppeedo!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 16, 2015)

editor said:


> Just had the Guardian asking to use one of my photos in exchange for no money at all. But they offered a teensy credit. Whoppeedo!



Hope you told them to stick it up Guardian Media Group's £830 million investment fund, the chiselling cuntbuckets.


----------



## editor (Sep 23, 2015)

And now the Press Association have asked to use one of my photos which they want to use, "by the 80+ regional papers who subscribe to our news service."

Generously they said that they'd "happily credit me as the photographer," which is just fantastic news, so I wrote back and said that there would naturally be a charge for a commercial organisation using my photos to further their commercial aims.  

Oh, but guess what - here came the reply: "I'm afraid we don't have any budget for photos so I better leave it."

Yes, you'd better. Fuckers.


----------



## sim667 (Sep 23, 2015)

editor said:


> _ FB 8k_



8K likes isn't a measure of anything...... I ended up with 120K when i got really stoned and started up a page for "the game" to make lose "the game"

You all just lost "the game" by the way.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 24, 2015)

editor said:


> And now the Press Association have asked to use one of my photos which they want to use, "by the 80+ regional papers who subscribe to our news service."
> 
> Generously they said that they'd "happily credit me as the photographer," which is just fantastic news, so I wrote back and said that there would naturally be a charge for a commercial organisation using my photos to further their commercial aims.
> 
> ...



What they didn't say is that their subscribers' fees mean that subscribers pay for all content, so effectively those subscribers would be paying PA for text and images.
Cuntish, eh?


----------



## 8den (Sep 24, 2015)

Your food is lovely. If you give me a free meal I will tell everyone you cooked it. Must try that in a restaurant some time.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 25, 2015)

8den said:


> Your food is lovely. If you give me a free meal I will tell everyone you cooked it. Must try that in a restaurant some time.



Let us know how you got on, once you've recovered from the beating the waiters gave you!


----------



## editor (Jun 27, 2017)

Man oh man - look at the fucking balls on these fuckers:



> Weddings are expensive, and one of the big costs is certainly the photographer. So, why not ask a professional to cover your wedding for free? Which photographer wouldn’t be thrilled to shoot a strangers’ wedding in exchange for “eternal love and gratitude?”
> 
> It’s probably what one couple had in mind when they created this Craigslist ad, which caused plenty of reactions within the community. They look for not one, but _three_ photographers with pro gear, experience, talent, portfolio and developed business. And in exchange – they offer love and gratitude, and a chance to say “I’ve shot a wedding before.” Wow, who would want to miss this?









A couple looks for a professional wedding photographer, pays with a chance to say "I’ve shot a wedding before” - DIY Photography


----------



## dessiato (Jun 27, 2017)

The misuse of "whom" is irritating, too.


----------



## Gromit (Jun 27, 2017)

editor said:


> Man oh man - look at the fucking balls on these fuckers:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I can't muster the same outrage. Weddings are stupid expensive. 
Don't ask don't get. Worth asking, you never know etc. 

It is hard for wedding photographers to get started as the majority of couples don't want an inexperienced person responsible for capturing the special memories of their special day. 
They want references or sight of a portfolio of previous work. 

It's like the actor who can't work without an equity card but can't get an equity card without work. 

This is an actual opportunity to get a foot in a door portfolio wise and someone might actually fancy it along with an oppportunity to chat up bridesmaids, scoff cake and pinch some bubbly. 

(I might personally say okay it's free but you pay expenses still not just gas).


----------



## sim667 (Jun 27, 2017)

Gromit said:


> I can't muster the same outrage. Weddings are stupid expensive.
> Don't ask don't get. Worth asking, you never know etc.
> 
> It is hard for wedding photographers to get started as the majority of couples don't want an inexperienced person responsible for capturing the special memories of their special day.
> ...



A majority of couples also don't want to pay more than about £500...... which isn't going to get them a experienced photographer.

If you want a proper professional photographer, you pay the going rate. If not then you collect all your freinds iphone photos.


----------



## xsunnysuex (Jun 27, 2017)

I found an absolute bargain of a photographer for my daughter's wedding last Nov.   He covered the wedding from early morning till early evening.   From the bridal party getting ready to the reception.   And all for £250.	And the photo's were stunning.  Was so happy.


----------



## editor (Jun 27, 2017)

Gromit said:


> I can't muster the same outrage. Weddings are stupid expensive.
> Don't ask don't get. Worth asking, you never know etc.


That's because you're not a photographer and don't get this kind of shit all the time. You wouldn't expect a plumber to come around and fix your house for free for the 'publicity', would you?  Or try to get him to work for free on some bullshit about "300 potential clients".

And this 'foot in the door' stuff is utter bollocks too. Have you any idea of how much the equipment they've requested costs? They're asking for people with top of the line pro gear costing many thousands of pounds.


----------



## wiskey (Jun 27, 2017)

I was confused that they want you to bring lots of expensive kit  yet say there might be unknown gatecrashers... Hardly confidence inspiring that your stuff won't get nicked


----------



## editor (Jun 27, 2017)

wiskey said:


> I was confused that they want you to bring lots of expensive kit  yet say there might be unknown gatecrashers... Hardly confidence inspiring that your stuff won't get nicked


The 5D III costs two grand alone. The zoom they specified costs £1,800. I don;t think there'd be many photographers with that kind of gear desperate to do unpaid work for strangers, especially fucking piss taking ones.


----------



## Gromit (Jun 27, 2017)

editor said:


> That's because you're not a photographer and don't get this kind of shit all the time. You wouldn't expect a plumber to come around and fix your house for free for the 'publicity', would you?  Or try to get him to work for free on some bullshit about "300 potential clients".
> 
> And this 'foot in the door' stuff is utter bollocks too. Have you any idea of how much the equipment they've requested costs? They're asking for people with top of the line pro gear costing many thousands of pounds.


If they contact you direct then yes they are taking the piss. However, they put up an ad...

You see photographers taking the piss the other direction too asking models to work for free for exposure or portfolio shots. Many even charge the model. 

I didn't notice the equipment demands. So okay that does alter the feel of foot in the door opportunity making those kind of demands. That's no call to an am hoping to go pro.


----------



## sim667 (Jun 27, 2017)

Gromit said:


> You see photographers taking the piss the other direction too asking models to work for free for exposure or portfolio shots. Many even charge the model.



You often find they're not actually professional photographers, just a pervy old man with a camera. Whattaboutism doesn't really work for this argument.


----------



## Gromit (Jun 27, 2017)

sim667 said:


> You often find they're not actually professional photographers, just a pervy old man with a camera. Whattaboutism doesn't really work for this argument.


The pervy men will be the freebies but also some cheap ass small advertising firms. 
The ones that charge are proper studios using a model's desire to obtain work to create a money market exploiting that hope.


----------



## Gromit (Jun 27, 2017)

Don't get me wrong though. I have a lot of respect for the photography industry in which it's getting harder to make a buck since everyone got a camera phone.


----------



## sim667 (Jun 27, 2017)

Gromit said:


> The pervy men will be the freebies but also some cheap ass small advertising firms.
> The ones that charge are proper studios using a model's desire to obtain work to create a money market exploiting that hope.



The ones that charge are proper studios charging for their services.......  The photos are of no use to the studio, so why would the do them free?


----------



## spanglechick (Jun 27, 2017)

Far be it from me to defend Gromit, but you do get pro photographers seeking models for "exposure".  A common one is asking for people with lots of piercings etc.  It's even more rife in moving media (short films, promos, pilots etc).  


As regards this case, our wedding photographer was a pro portrait specialist who did our wedding for free to build up her portfolio prior to moving into weddings with her business.   It's not uncommon.  The difference is that she put the message out looking for weddings. We didn't approach her.


----------



## editor (Jun 27, 2017)

Gromit said:


> If they contact you direct then yes they are taking the piss. However, they put up an ad....


The fact that it's in an advert doesn't take away from the piss taking nature of their request for a photographer with the highest level gear coming along to take pictures for free with the bullshit promise of "300 potential clients."


----------



## editor (Jun 27, 2017)

spanglechick said:


> Far be it from me to defend Gromit, but you do get pro photographers seeking models for "exposure".  A common one is asking for people with lots of piercings etc.  It's even more rife in moving media (short films, promos, pilots etc).


If they're actually 'pro' photographers then they should be paying the models, or at the very least offering a decent portfolio in exchange (the models will also have to sign model release forms if the photographer wants to use the pics commercially).


----------



## sim667 (Jun 27, 2017)

spanglechick said:


> Far be it from me to defend Gromit, but you do get pro photographers seeking models for "exposure".  A common one is asking for people with lots of piercings etc.  It's even more rife in moving media (short films, promos, pilots etc).
> 
> 
> As regards this case, our wedding photographer was a pro portrait specialist who did our wedding for free to build up her portfolio prior to moving into weddings with her business.   It's not uncommon.  The difference is that she put the message out looking for weddings. We didn't approach her.



You do get photographers seeking models for for "exposure", but remember the definition of a pro photographer is very loose. Anyone with a camera can take some photo's and call themselves a pro photographer, without having the experience to warrant being described as pro, or any technical training whatsoever. Being a pro photographer is about credibility based on your portfolio, experience and clients reviews.

Someone who has never taken a photograph for payment in their life can set up a website and describe themself as a "pro photographer".

I may not be a pro photographer, but I've worked as an assistant, a darkroom technician, a studio technician and a lecturer, I have a photography degree,  but I wouldn't dare describe my self as a pro photographer..... Maybe a semi pro or pro amateur.

If I could live my 20's again, there's a lot of things I would do differently to try and get into the career I really wanted.


----------



## editor (Jun 27, 2017)

sim667 said:


> You do get photographers seeking models for for "exposure", but remember the definition of a pro photographer is very loose. Anyone with a camera can take some photo's and call themselves a pro photographer, without having the experience to warrant being described as pro, or any technical training whatsoever. Being a pro photographer is about credibility based on your portfolio, experience and clients reviews.
> 
> Someone who has never taken a photograph for payment in their life can set up a website and describe themself as a "pro photographer"


I've sold shitloads of photos - some to big name clients like the BBC,  Penguin Books, Time Out etc - and made a fair bit of cash for their use, but I'd still only describe myself as 'semi-pro', at best. And even that seems a bit of a stretch, really.


----------



## sim667 (Jun 27, 2017)

editor said:


> I've sold shitloads of photos - some to big name clients like the BBC,  Penguin Books, Time Out etc - and made a fair bit of cash for their use, but I'd still only describe myself as 'semi-pro', at best.



Exactly in line with the edit I've just made to my post.

I'd like to get my photos into stock, but I'm not sure if they're good enough, and the keywording drives me mental


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jun 27, 2017)

sim667 said:


> The ones that charge are proper studios charging for their services.......  The photos are of no use to the studio, so why would the do them free?


There's a running scam with "model agencies" doing shoots of young people for free and then trying to charge the earth for a "portfolio", using high pressure sales techniques (on the parents). Loads of them in Soho. The son of a friend of a friend got caught up in one recently - luckily they didn't pay up.

ETA: but you'd know that so now I'm a bit confused and may have made the wrong reply but whatever


----------



## editor (Jun 27, 2017)

So many young wannbe models have been ripped off by such scummy photographers. It's been going on forever.


----------



## sim667 (Jun 28, 2017)

FridgeMagnet said:


> There's a running scam with "model agencies" doing shoots of young people for free and then trying to charge the earth for a "portfolio", using high pressure sales techniques (on the parents). Loads of them in Soho. The son of a friend of a friend got caught up in one recently - luckily they didn't pay up.
> 
> ETA: but you'd know that so now I'm a bit confused and may have made the wrong reply but whatever



Yeah I know..... not even just model agencies. You know when people "win a photoshoot"...... exactly the same thing. 

I've had loads of freinds do it, I always warn them off and say I'll do something for them if they hire a studio, but they just get caught up in it all and spend hundreds because parents want copies etc.


----------



## Voley (May 25, 2019)

Would anyone give me an idea of what to charge for a photo? I've just been asked by a large charity for use of a photo of mine on their FB Twitter Insta etc. 

Usual thing. No mention of payment but you can have a credit etc. Doesn't happen frequently but I'm always in two minds a bit when this happens.


----------



## editor (May 25, 2019)

Voley said:


> Would anyone give me an idea of what to charge for a photo? I've just been asked by a large charity for use of a photo of mine on their FB Twitter Insta etc.
> 
> Usual thing. No mention of payment but you can have a credit etc. Doesn't happen frequently but I'm always in two minds a bit when this happens.


I usually let charities use my pics for free, but with a credit.


----------



## Voley (May 25, 2019)

editor said:


> I usually let charities use my pics for free, but with a credit.


I was thinking along those lines too. Last time this happened it was a bloke selling a commercial calendar so I expected some payment. It's The National Trust this time btw so not short of a bob or two I wouldn't have thought.


----------



## editor (May 25, 2019)

Voley said:


> I was thinking along those lines too. Last time this happened it was a bloke selling a commercial calendar so I expected some payment. It's The National Trust this time btw so not short of a bob or two I wouldn't have thought.


I think of it as a donation - although given the National Trust's crappy attitude to photographers maybe I'd think twice.


----------



## Voley (May 25, 2019)

editor said:


> the National Trust's crappy attitude to photographers maybe I'd think twice.


Don't know about this - they're not great in this regard normally then?


----------



## editor (May 25, 2019)

Voley said:


> Don't know about this - they're not great in this regard normally then?


There was something on here about it but it's this:
National Trusts & Commercial Photography Responses | On Landscape


----------



## Voley (May 25, 2019)

editor said:


> There was something on here about it but it's this:
> National Trusts & Commercial Photography Responses | On Landscape


Thanks.

Can't see my request for a year's free membership getting very far then.


----------



## editor (Aug 20, 2019)

Good piece here 
https://www.thephoblographer.com/20...CAkSHRh0Ha-0hpHDqj_Lz7-ng9LVE6sgVMJzJN52VyhKg


----------



## friedaweed (Aug 20, 2019)

editor said:


> Good piece here
> Concert Photography: Legalities and Licensing Of Your Photos (Premium) - The Phoblographer









That's an ace pic


----------

