Subject: Re: Call for photos
Date: Oct 16 11:55:51 1995
From: Don Baccus - donb at Rational.COM
> Apparently you have had a bad experience at
> some point in the past, because I feel you were very
> quick to condemn my request.
Nope, there are so many avenues for publication for pay
that I've not bothered with a bad experience with unethical
publishers.
> This is no different from other calendars (for instance,
> the dog-a-day calendar published by by Day Dream
> Publishing, Inc. They do it as a contest,
> and the winners get to have their photos published
> (with no other prize). Day Dream also retains other
> rights to publish the photos in other calendars, PR
> and so on. We weren't asking for that. Yes, the Day
> Dream Calendar does (in the 1995 issue, anyway) pay
> the Humane Society of the United States for the
> use of their logo. We might consider that in future
> issues if the calendar succeeds, but at this point
> there is simply no budget for it.
"This is no different than Day Dream's, except for the
following difference". Oops. It IS different - Day Dream
is paying the Humane Society, so photographers know they
are helping (in a minimal way) the Society.
I often contribute photographs to the Portland Audubon
Society for the same reason.
> I should point out that other companies do the same
> thing purely for promotional projects.
Of course! Read my post carefully - did I ever state that you
are the ONLY unethical publisher?
No - I told folks to steer clear of ALL unethical publishers,
yourself included.
> When
> you are working with a very small company, a tiny
> budget and an unproven product, there is a very big
> risk involved for the publisher (the entire company,
> for which I sometimes work as a contractor for much
> less than the "going" rate, consists of one guy, his
> wife and two part-time office helpers). If you think
> any of us, especially myself, are getting rich on
> this, you are entirely wrong.
That's your problem, not mine.
Tell me:
1. Does the printer offer their services for free?
2. Sales channel - are they offering to sell your merchandise
with no cut for themselves?
3. Utilities - are the phone company and electric company
offering their services for free?
I doubt it.
Why, then, should the photographs - which, after all, are supposedly
the content that will cause people to buy your calendar rather, than,
say the National Audubon Day Calendar - be free?
All this does is help you undercut the market for Photographic Day
Calendars which DO pay photographers for their work.
> Other people with other interests have been willing,
> even eager for a chance to get their photos published
> without a fee.
And I, and many others within the photograpic community, are eager
to educate them as to why this is, in general, not in their best
interests.
> I do not think this is taking advantage
> of them (although if we were a large publishing house
> poised to make a significant profit, then yes, I think
> they should be paid).
As long as you are doing this on a commercial basis, you should
pay. Pure and simple. Profit/loss is your concern - your money,
your time, your risk. If you choose to do something else, like
become a slimey slumlord, that's your business - and, since you're
not paying for photos anyway, no loss to me.
On the other hand, you pay and I'll consider working with you. For
instance, I currently have an article out in a regional magazine
that is way behind in payments (but has re-organized in an effort
to right the ship). They are honest about their problems, and
about their efforts to right them - but have NEVER suggested that
contributors just reconsider submissions as a free gift.
They're honest. I'll work things out with them (and, have just
submitted another article to them despite not being paid for
the previous contribution yet).
> >From: Jon Anderson <anderjda at dfw.wa.gov>
> >Anyway, pay me for my work, Larry, or do this for a non-profit
> >environmental outfit, and I'll be happy to contribute.
Hey, Jon - thanks!
> I have worked most of my life for non-profit
> organizations and I have never knowingly taken
> advantage of anyone.
As in the commission of a felony, ignorance is no defense. You should
learn the standard practices of the industry before embarking on
a business venture within it.
> To the best of my knowledge
> neither has the publisher. Apparently you seem to
> think that such an enterprise as ours is not reputable
> unless it is non-profit.
No, it is not reputable unless it PAYS ITS VENDORS, photographers
included.
Not-for-profits often pay too, and explicitly recognize contributions
of services-in-kind as DONATIONS. Non-profits ask for donations.
Real businesses don't.
> If that is so, then I submit
> that you do not understand all there is to understand
> about small businesses in America. Many small
> businesses are essentially non-profit because they
> work on such a small margin.
But, it is not my business to sacrifice MY gain for YOUR profit.
Oh, I once ran a $2,000,000 business with 35 employees - we were
around for 15 years, actually.
I always paid those who worked for me, including those who did
artwork, writing and photography for us.
> And many non-profit
> organizations are not really out there for the public
> good.
Yes, but I choose to donate/not donate on my perception of
whether or not they do public good.
You want me to donate my services to you for your PERSONAL gain.
If you can't see the difference, the hell with you.
> No one is twisting your arm or holding a gun at your
> head to submit a photo. I have seen the growing
> concern over artistic rights and compensation,
> codified in the much modified copyright legislation,
> hobble free enterprise, non-profit efforts and
> education in this country. I am sorry to see that it
> has entered the ranks of amateur birding.
Interesting. You feel you have the right to make a profit
over my work, and my investment in time, film, and photographic
equipment. Look up the price of a Canon EOS 600/4 at B&H, and
then carefully repeat the following to yourself: C-A-P-I-T-A-L
A-S-S-E-T. As opposed to "gift to wierd little publisher
who thinks that my insisting on right for payment for my
work is crippling free enterprise".
Your little editorial comment implying that artists insisting
on their right to be paid for their work is hobbling free
enterprise exposes you as a genuine slimeball, no matter
what you think of yourself. The strengthened copyright
legislation is intended to protect people like me from
shits like you who think they have the right to take my
stuff and make a profit from it without payment (and, in
the cases the law is designed to protect against, without
asking permission).
> P.S. I give away my work all the time in the form of
> my newsletters, North American Skies and Family
> Explorer, that are posted in whole or in part, in
> various locations on the net.
Well, good for you - I give away my time, too, for causes
I believe in.
I don't ask people to give ME stuff for free so that I can
avoid honest hard work, though.
- Don Baccus, Portland OR <donb at rational.com>