It’s not just a photography thing, creatives all over experience this at one time or another, some more than others. The client who wants to “make a deal”. Here is a very well done video illustrating some of the pitches creatives get from clients. A “friendlier” variation of the Harlan Ellison video.
In November, the NY Times reported on the Bush Administration’s intent to open up land in southern and eastern Utah, some near Arches and Canyonlands National Parks, to oil and gas extraction (details here).
On December 19, a 27-yr-old University of Utah economics major foiled a Federal oil and gas lease auction by winning bids on 149,000 acres of proposed lands, 22,000 of which lie near Arches and Canyonlands National Parks in southern and eastern Utah.
Tim DeChristopher won 13 bids, totaling $1.8 million and encompassing 149,000 acres. He is required to pay $45,000 to retain those bids, but is under investigation by Federal authorities for fraud since he had no intention to go through with the deal or to use the land for the intended purpose of the auction. His goal was to hold the land until the next administration took over and possibly reverse the decision to open the scenic land to oil and gas drilling.
A very bold move and one to be applauded. This issue is very contentious, not only between the government and conservation groups, but even between US Agencies, specifically the BLM and National Parks Service. You can read that in the NY Times article linked to above. It seems obvious this is one of a series of last ditch effort by the current administration to take a stab at conservationists as they go out the door, knowing they may not have much chance once the new administration takes over.
I applaud Tim’s effort and I hope it succeeds, if only to draw more attention to this type of swift maneuvering by a shady administration. Admittedly, these kinds of shenanigans occur with every administration and none are immune, as far as I can tell. But, how often does regular Joe Citizen get to have a say?
Here’s one of those rare moments when one person says “hey, this is important and I think I should do something since nobody else seems to be able to”. It was creative, non-violent, and I’m sure the rules will be changed in the future to prevent this sort of thing from happening again, but the word got out (and is getting out). One person can make a difference.
I think the citizens of the U.S. are waking up from their complacency of depending upon the government, trusting the government to act in their best interests. And, we have become a bit sleepy over the past few decades of prosperity. I think smart citizens can, non-violently, participate to help and to call attention to issues that are not getting the coverage or priority they should because someone in the upper echelons of power don’t think it’s important for us to know (or don’t want us to know, until it’s too late).
As a photographer, I was more than irritated to read the NY Times article and discover the intent to scar a valuable viewshed in the southwest. I’ve only been to the Arches area twice, but do intend to visit again. And, even if I wasn’t ever planning to return to that area I would hate to know that the surrounding areas had become an industrial park, ruining the opportunity for not just photographers, but other visitors, to enjoy the pristine views.
So, to Tim DeChristopher: Good job.
The Washington Post today printed an article about the ability of the TSA (Transportation Safety Administration) and DHS (Department of Homeland Security) to seize and hold for off-site inspection any electronic storage device and/or written documents for an unspecified time without any reason of suspicion or wrongdoing.
This means iPods, laptops, cell phones, hard drives, USB flash drives, beepers/pagers, CDs/DVDs, video and audio tapes, written documents, books, papers, pamphlets and other written materials commonly referred to as “pocket trash” or “pocket litter”.
Exerpt:
“They’re saying they can rifle through all the information in a traveler’s laptop without having a smidgen of evidence that the traveler is breaking the law,” said Greg Nojeim, senior counsel at the Center for Democracy and Technology. Notably, he said, the policies “don’t establish any criteria for whose computer can be searched.”
Customs Deputy Commissioner Jayson P. Ahern said the efforts “do not infringe on Americans’ privacy.” In a statement submitted to Feingold for a June hearing on the issue, he noted that the executive branch has long had “plenary authority to conduct routine searches and seizures at the border without probable cause or a warrant” to prevent drugs and other contraband from entering the country.
end exerpt
When do we get to the point where we hear the words “Papers, please” whenever we cross a state border, enter a neighboring town or city, board a bus, train, get into a taxi, or are just walking down the street? When do we start seeing public service announcements on television exhorting us to keep an eye on our neighbor and report suspicious activities? When do we start hearing “Patriotic” radio announcements?
To what extent are we going to allow our government to rule by fear, to convince us that we’re under constant threat and need to allow the government to keep their grubby hands in our business?
I’m not an extremist nor do I think the world is a happy place. I agree that reasonable measures need to be taken to protect innocent people from whack jobs anywhere, American or otherwise. But, come on. If you piss off a TSA or DHS guard at airport security they could make your life miserable in an instant for no other reason than a made-up “suspicion”. Granted, airport security has had this ability for years. But, it seems that the administration has been encouraging a more aggressive use of this discretionary power and there is no recourse for the innocent citizen if that power is abused. There should be checks. There should be criteria for reasonable suspicion.
Senator Russell Feinghold is planning to introduce legislation to require reasonable suspicion and prohibit profiling based on race, religion or national origin.
When a government encourages its citizens to react based on fear, its motives come into question. The U.S. government used fear to promote nationalism in WWII, but the threat was obvious. And, look what happened…..internment camps for Japanese Americans. Based on fear. We round up individuals and groups today, ship them off to an island prison away from prying eyes, hold them without recourse or reason for however long the government wants. Some may think it’s necessary until it’s them or a family member or friend that gets snatched up.
The threat is not so obvious today, either because the threat (as drilled into us by the current administration) is not as imminent as described, or because it is truly hidden (covert). Our government doesn’t inform us about the threats, the thwarted attempts or other progress, only that we’re under attack from all sides and we have to build a wall around our country and ourselves for protection. We have to give up our freedoms (little by little) so we can be safe, so we can be more dependent upon the government to tell us what’s good and what’s bad (or else).
I’m not sure who I should be more wary of anymore, terrorists or my own government. The line is beginning to blur.
I received a request earlier today (sent globally to a group I belong to, not specifically to me) for a photograph of a local landscape feature to be presented as an award by the city to a donor of land which will help expand and preserve open space. At the end of the request was this statement
“Presumably, the City will pay for t[h]is, but don’t get greedy Remember, it’s taxpayer dollars.”
I had to read it twice (and I still have to re-read it to make sure I’m getting it right). Don’t get greedy. I don’t think I’ve ever met a photographer, or seen an estimate for work, that could be considered “greedy”. Greedy photographers are, for one thing, probably not pleasant to work with (I imagine, I’ve never worked with one, so that’s just my opinion). I extrapolate this opinion from all those greedy companies that keep calling wanting free stuff from me. For another thing, greedy photographers aren’t likely in business very long. Word gets around, you see.
I replied with the following response:
I appreciate your request, and unfortunately, probably don’t have the image you’re looking for. But, I have to take offense to your “don’t get greedy” comment.
Professional photographers, like me, are more than willing to “donate” photographs to causes we believe in and it’s up to the individual photographer to determine the pricing of their work. A professional photographer, making their living from their skill and talent, rarely gets the opportunity to “get greedy” when pricing their work for sale or license. Those photographers who understand what it takes to be (and stay) in business price their work and the fees for their skill and talent accordingly and to the market in which they sell their work, regardless whether the buyer is a multi-national corporation, a local non-profit, or “taxpayers” through local, county, or national government. If photographers “got greedy” they would not make it very far in the business.
I’ve sold many prints of my work to city governments for display in their offices and never have I been asked to not “get greedy”. I think it’s an insult intimating that photographers take advantage when the truth, in my long experience, is the other way around.
It’s also a fact that you will likely find someone willing to provide the image you request for nothing, or nearly so. I would encourage you to not take advantage of this and perhaps offer some payment in return, regardless, as a thank you and a gesture that you understand what an image is worth.
Photographers, particularly fine art photographers, are constantly asked by perfectly legitimate causes to donate works for fundraising auctions or their skills to document an event. Honestly, if I could make a living giving my work away I would do it. I think many photographers would feel the same way. I would still be a wildlife biologist if the work was available and I could survive on $10/hour.
But, life requires money and we can’t work for free. I don’t think people working for an employer realize how different it is paying 100% for health insurance and not getting bi-weekly deposits into the old bank account. But, that’s for another time.
I love doing what I do, most of us do. We hate being taken advantage of or having our work minimalized by those who think a snapshot is the same thing as a fine art print and/or both are as easy to create.
I’ve been trying for 3 years to get a shot of the area in the request (and similar locations). I live 25 miles away from that location. When the lighting conditions are right, you have to be there and that can be problematic if you don’t live right there. If it’s just a snapshot they want, then there are plenty of those available. If it’s something special, then I’m afraid they’ll have to pay (reasonably) for it.
So this is for both the potential client out there and the wanna-be (or subsisting) photographer. For the client, stop taking advantage of (or demanding) free. That’s all that should need to be said about that.
For the photographer, learn the business and charge a reasonable fee so you can continue doing what you enjoy. A simple start is to calculate your Cost of Doing Business, what it takes to maintain your business at break even every day. This is especially important for those of you currently living on full-time or part-time jobs. If you aspire to be a full-time “Pro”, I think you’ll be surprised what it’s going to take to maintain your current lifestyle and stay in business once you lose that security. Price your skills and talent and your work right now as if you’re dependant upon it. It’ll make the transition that much easier.
For those of you without aspirations to be full-time professionals, calculate your Cost of Doing Business anyway. Why give your work away for nothing? If someone asks for it, it has value to them, shouldn’t you receive something for that? Giving it away sends a powerful message that you don’t value your own work. If you can get paid for it, you can use it to purchase that new lens you’ve been salivating over. Otherwise, you’ve got to spend your valuable time trying to convince your spouse why it’s better to buy the lens from your regular salary. I hope they are supportive of your “hobby”.
The proliferation of social networking sites boggles the mind. They all claim to be the best, most popular, most important, to your business growth, networking, getting jobs, showing your work, all that. Which ones are actually worthwhile? Who knows? How much time do you spend/waste finding out? It takes a lot of effort to create a presence on a social networking site. I’d say about the same, or more, effort than it does to get eyeballs to a website. And, eyeballs do not equal clients or sales. In that area, your website probably is a better outlet for attracting the eyes of those companies you really want to attract, not the looky-lou’s frequenting MySpace and Flickr.
But, that’s not the only thing you need to think about. Make sure you read the Terms of Service (TOS) very closely, paying special attention to the copyright and usage sections. Many will stipulate by uploading content of any kind you give the owners of the site the non-exclusive, world-wide, royalty-free license to distribute, create derivative works, even re-license, the works you upload to the site.
Most social networking sites, by default, toss your content into the Creative Commons license pool, unless you specifically designate your content as private (which on some sites require a premium subscription - read, pay for it - Ning.com is an example). If you don’t read the TOS carefully and find out where you designate the license model you want to use, you could be in for a bit of a shock down the road when you find your rights managed image is now being used as royalty free. That’s a sticky situation.
I place a copyright notice watermark with my name and website on all my images posted to the web. The advent of Orphan Works and these sneaky TOS make it unsafe to leave your images just lying about like money on the street.
However, these social networking sites are also quick to point out that they are rigorous in defending their intellectual property rights by stating you are in no way and by no means granted any permission, right, or ability to use, modify, redistribute, license or otherwise manhandle any content, code, trademarks, or other copyrighted material of the site.
Seems a bit one-sided doesn’t it?
Read carefully. Then make up your own mind.
Photographers get the same deal. Harlan tells it like it is.
We all know advertisements for cosmetics and clothing are unrealistic, in terms of the physical “ideal” these ads are attempting to portray. As much as we despise them and understand their fakery, they still influence how we look at one another and how we want to appear and be looked at.
I think these following links to videos showing the extremes of body shaping and “make-over” that can be done to a given image is both educational (in terms of the capabilities of Photoshop) and an eye-opener. We rely on our eyes to view our world and inherently accept most of what we see as real.
When body images are manipulated to such an extent as to barely, if even, resemble the original person, how do we interpret that? Does our belief then change to thinking everything we see in print and online is fake, or modified to some extent? I know some of my photography is thought to be manipulated when it is accomplished through a manual process. Others have told me their images have been questioned (and also their honesty) when telling viewers their images of brilliant colors or fantastic, unique, situations, are not modified.
Does that pass on to how we perceive real, flesh and bone, people? How much of that person’s body is real and how much is augmented or taken away, covered up or re-shaped? Does all this manipulation of pixels and flesh create a society that believes nothing is real? If nothing is real, what has meaning? We question ourselves (are we good enough, beautiful enough, smart enough, successful enough?) and we question others (are they real? what is their motiviation? aren’t they good enough? don’t they think highly of themselves? they’re taking advantage).
Regardless, these videos are interesting. Make up your own mind.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZ0adXaY_bs&NR=1 The Magic of Photoshop - “look like a supermodel” 3:30
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knEIM16NuPg&feature=related The Evolution of Beauty 1:00
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0u0wWOMIsE&feature=related Slob Evolution (of course the obverse is true) 1:15
Adobe announced it’s online beta version of Photoshop Express, which provides limited image processing online for photo sharing, etc. You can check it out at www.photoshop.com/express.
HOWEVER, it’s highly recommended you read the terms of service VERY carefully. And be advised, there are 3 linked documents of terms you need to read, not just the summary page that the initial link brings up. Here’s the gist through excerpts (remember my recent post about contests?):
“You agree to use the Services and the Materials only for purposes that are permitted by the Terms and any applicable law, regulation, or generally accepted practices or guidelines in any applicable jurisdiction (including any laws regarding the export of data or software to and from the United States or other applicable countries) (“Law”). ”
and
“Except as indicated to the contrary in any applicable Additional Terms, Adobe hereby grants you a license to view, download and print Materials provided by Adobe (“Adobe Materials”) and any Materials provided by Users (“User Content”), except for Shared Group Content, subject to the following conditions:
BUT (and this is a very large BUT - my bold emphasis):
“Adobe does not claim ownership of Your Content. However, with respect to Your Content that you submit or make available for inclusion on publicly accessible areas of the Services, you grant Adobe a worldwide, royalty-free, nonexclusive, perpetual, irrevocable, and fully sublicensable license to use, distribute, derive revenue or other remuneration from, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, publicly perform and publicly display such Content (in whole or in part) and to incorporate such Content into other Materials or works in any format or medium now known or later developed.”
What does this mean? You can upload your photos to process, store and share. You cannot use any other content other than your own (unless the other users specifically state their photos are in the public domain, you can’t use any of Adobe’s content. But, by uploading your photos you grant Adobe permission and license to use your photos in any way they please, which means to license them to others (without payment to you), use them on their (Adobe’s) packaging, advertising, website, magazines, whatever they choose (without payment to you), FOREVER and ever.
These terms are similar to a neighborhood covenant stating if you park your car on the street or in your driveway you grant your neighbors the right to drive your car whenever they want, wherever they want, to keep it for as long as they want, even to sell it or rent it out to someone outside the neighborhood, repaint it, wreck it, return it with the tires or other accessories missing or with an empty gas tank, all without any compensation to you.
So, if you choose to use this service, be very careful what image files you upload. For the professional, this is very important (not likely that many pros will use this service, though), and even for the amateur this is a big deal. The wording in the terms of service (And Adobe here is not alone, you need to check other TOSs carefully as well; Facebook is another that has this wording, Flickr and MySpace as well). You can’t even watermark your images because the wording above gives Adobe (and whomever else displays this type of wording in their TOS) the right to remove it without penalty.
Amateur photographers, whether they care about making money from photography or not, should be aware that companies using their images for commercial purposes should pay for that use.
Reading reams of legal terminology is not an enjoyable task. But, doing so can save you a whole lot of grief down the road. Nobody is looking out for you but yourself. Pay attention.
Lately I’ve been too busy and/or not inspired to post anything to the ol’ blog. The holidays, various projects, and life’s intervention conspire to keep me from my fans.
Tonight I happened to be browsing the web, researching one of those projects, and came across a blog that had one of those links you sometimes follow just because you’re a little bored doing what you’re doing and want to take a break. Well, that link was to the Myers Briggs Personality Test.
This is a test so you can understand your personality type, which has as its base either introvert or extrovert and four additional psychoses, I mean, behaviors, such as Intuition, Sensing, Feeling, and Thinking. There’s a free basic test on the website and I guess you can pay for a more in-depth review of your inner brain if you wish.
It’s certainly interesting to find that the behavioral tendencies of the entire human race fall within essentially 8 psychological profiles. Actually, since I read them all, I think most of us straddle maybe 2 of those profiles depending on our mood at any given moment. And, while the descriptions seem to be relatively accurate, how objective is the test, really? I’m not a psychoanalyst, so don’t believe a word I say, but these tests do seem to me to have a bit of the self-fulfilling-prophesy about them. I suppose these profiles are developed after decades of talking with thousands of folks, both normal and wholesome and twisted and demented. That’s not the scientist in me talking, pay no attention.
I wonder what it does for me to find out what I pretty much already know about myself, unless this information is to wake me up to the fact that there are other people out there besides the ones that piss me off. Wait a minute. Maybe there is something there. You mean to tell me that if I knew what a person’s psychobabble profile is I could interact with them better? Employers could respond to the needs of employees in a more satisfying and rewarding manner? Businesses could tailor their customer service to provide the best service to the widest range of clients?
Hmmmm. Maybe it would help if all wore our MBTI code on our clothing. “Hi, I’m INTJ. Oh, I see you’re ENTJ……………………”
I added a new blog link category….business….and its first link. It’s to Seth Godin’s blog, well worth a read, he has some very good views on business that apply to everyone. Check it out.
I wonder sometimes where we’re heading in America. What do we, as a country, want to do? I’m not sure we really know. I often think, especially over the past few years, we’ve become too greedy. I suppose Capitalism could do that to a person. We’re all about making money in this country, it’s the American Dream after all, isn’t it? I can’t watch television or open a newspaper or magazine or walk into most any retail store without being inundated with pitches for products I just can’t live without. And, many of us seem to believe it. The ideal situation that companies froth at the mouth over….competition among users….is the pinnacle of consumerism. The Smith vs. Jones struggle for one-upmanship is more ruthless now than it was back in the day. Seems so, anyway. People change $400 phones like they do their $500 pants. But, I digress. What does this have to do with being a good employee?
Used to be, when a person did their time at a company, worked hard, were dedicated, productive, worked their way up, became a team leader, they were rewarded. These individuals are the face of the company, interacting with customers, making angry people smile, getting the job done, greasing the wheels, taking pride in their work and taking up the slack of the slackers.
Rewarding doesn’t happen much anymore. Well, it does to a point. Corporate conglomerates are only interested in the bottom line and when that bottom line begins to creep up, guess who tends to get the heave-ho? Yeah, the productive ones. Why? Because they’ve worked their way into increased bonuses and raises, surpassing their slacker (or less dedicated) brethren to the point that they’ve become not a nuisance but a liability. They are making too much money. When push comes to shove, the best workers get bumped because the bottom line cuts right across their necks. It doesn’t make much sense to me when one person can do the work of three slackers and gets kicked to the curb. But, I suppose I can understand when a company is trying to stay afloat something’s got to give. Slackers are a dime a dozen and most conglomerates just need “butts in chairs” to make the operation work below the executive level (well,…but that’s another story). Eventually, one of those slackers may rise up and at some later date get their legs chopped out from under them as well. But, the conglomerate will go on, customer complaints and downturns in employee moral are but miniscule bumps in the road. I saw it happen in a tech company I worked at. When times got rough, it was the highest paid people who got laid off. The slackers still had jobs while those people that were probably planning to retire with the company got the Big Sayonara.
This was brought to my attention again today when I was reading the December 10 issue of High Country News. In this issue is a great article about Jim Detterline, a 21-year veteran National Park Ranger at Rocky Mountain National Park. Over the years, he’s rescued hundreds of people off the various mountain peaks in the park. He’s an important asset to the visitors of Rocky Mountain National Park, and with his years of mountaineering and rescue experience he is an important asset to the operation of the park as a leader, mentor, and trainer of new generations of park rangers. You don’t get to be where he is overnight.
In 1999, the National Park Service initiated a new set of physical standards for law enforcement park rangers and Mr. Detterline was put on light duty as a result (it’s difficult to be fired in the government, but this is amounts to the same thing). Oh, did I mention that Jim Detterline is hearing impaired? That’s right, he needs to wear a hearing aid. Apparently, years of successful and beneficial service weren’t enough to save him from the wrath of a blanket policy. He fought it (wouldn’t you?) and was granted a waiver to return to ranger duty. But, he has to reapply each year for the waiver, killing his chances for any hope of career advancement. He’s spent $100,000 on his case and continues to battle the Park Service, but despite being disappointed in the way he’s been treated, still has a passion for his job. I wish him luck in his struggle against the government, which can be the absolutely most uncaring employer on the planet. I respect his perseverance and passion. Luckily, for him and park visitors, he didn’t get the boot.
So, what does Jum Detterline’s story have to do with getting fired because you make too much money? Nothing, really. It’s just a story to illustrate my point that in many cases in today’s job market it doesn’t seem to matter how good you are or what benefit you provide to customers and the business as a whole. The respect companies have for employees is almost non-existent and this spills over to employees as well who tend not to respect employers who don’t reward for work well done. In the end, quality and productivity, creativity and innovation suffer. Who wants to put out for someone that’s just going to stab you in the back?
Where do we go from here? How far down the hole does it have to go? There will be a point at which things turn around. The pendulum has to swing all the way over before it can come back. Companies will remember what (and who) keeps them in business and will begin treating employees less like frontline troops and more like money in the bank. I don’t know the statistics for the growth of small businesses, but my inclination is the growth of small businesses is on the rise. People are just tired of being used and and hung out to dry.
Good luck to you all out there struggling to make a difference in corporate land (and on your own). It’s a jungle and the only one looking out for you is you.