"Donating" UW Photos

Here is an email I received from Murray Kaufman through the UW-Photo list. It is reproduced by request/with permission from Murray:

I received this email today and sent an immediate response.  Some of the  other list members, who are also ASMP members, thought that I should share  this with everyone on the UW-Photo Forum.  Even if you are an amateur UW  photographer,you need to be aware that this situation occurs frequently and  it negatively affects all of us.

 

Murray

Received 11-12-02:

Dear Members and Friends of LAUPS

I am looking for photos that the photographer would be willing to donate to a new permanent exhibit at the National Aquarium in Washington, D.C. The exhibit is being sponsored by the National Marine Sanctuary Foundation. We need about 150 photos total, but attached is the list of our most immediate needs. I have a longer list I can forward to you as well as soon as I update it with what we've already located.

When NMSF agreed to sponsor this exhibit, we were under the impression we could get most of our photos from the NOAA photo library and we didn't budget for buying photos. Now, come to find out, the NOAA photo library is woefully outdated and we can't find good photos. So, we're looking for photographers who want the exposure -- with a photo credit and their website address, for example.

Initially, a photo sent by email is fine. I can forward it on to the Aquarium Director for his approval. If the photo is selected it will be placed on a panel and might be blown up as large as 18" Wide by 12-24" Tall, so it has to be of the highest quality. We'll need a slide or transparency sent to the fabricator in Washington, D.C.

Time is of the essence so I'd like to find photographers in the LA area, where I'm based, so I can drop by and look at the slides if they can't be

accessed online.

I hope that answers all your questions and I very much appreciate your

assistance on this!

Best Wishes,

Laurie Howell

National Marine Sanctuary Foundation

e-mail: GrScene@aol.com

Here is the response I sent to Ms. Howell:

 

Laurie Howell

National Marine Sanctuary Foundation

 

Dear Ms. Howell,

 

Many underwater photographers, both amateur and professional, received your request for donated photos for a permanent exhibit in the National Aquarium.  As a member of the underwater photographers group in the American Society of Media Photographers (ASMP), I would like to express to you why I believe that your request is unfair and should not be honored.

 

Underwater photographers, whether amateur or professional, experience great expense and personal risk to make images in the marine environment.  Accordingly, they should be fairly compensated for their work.  A "for profit" organization, such as the National Aquarium, should pay appropriate usage fees for these images, which will be used as part of their business. Even though the exhibit is sponsored by a non-profit organization, such as the National Marine Sanctuary Foundation, the printers, shippers and everyone else involved in the charitable work (including the employees of the organization) are usually being paid for their work, so there is no reason to expect that the photographers should give their work away.  Certainly, a photo credit is not adequate compensation for use of an image in a permanent exhibit in a facility that charges admission fees.

 

I hope you will understand how your request undermines the underwater

photography community by diminishing the value of their work.  I hope that

you will reconsider and  pay fair compensation for the images you use.  I

also hope that all underwater photographers who see this message will

carefully consider the negative impact of donating their hard-earned images to this project.  

 

Sincerely yours,

 

Murray S. Kaufman

Reefs and Rain Forests Publications

618 N. Sierra Drive

Beverly Hills, CA 90210

tel:  (310) 278-8843

fax: (310) 278-8844

email: murray@murraykaufman.com

www.murraykaufman.com

Thoughts?

Cheers

James

I'm not certain of the specifics but I agree with Murray. Requesting that people donate their work to a permanent exhibit that charges admission is highly inappropriate. I would suspect that Laurie Howell is not working for free.

I know Murray from a past dive trip. He's a nice guy and very reasonable. Though a professional photographer, he does it for fun---a great guy to have on a trip and well worth standing behind on this issue.

I went to a ASMP meeting while at DEMA, and found the members who were active at that meeting to be very good at complaining. What I felt during the meeting didn't make me want to join. I know that it is very difficult to make your living as an underwater photographer/magazine writer, and the ones I know that are successful don't rely on any one source for the majority of their income.

I'm not saying that Murray's point isn't valid. In fact, I agree with him. I just have the sneaking suspicion that underwater photography is no different than any other business, and without control of everyone involved (unionizing), it is going to be difficult to prevent people from underselling. And, most likely, very good images and writing will still be worth paying for.

While I was sitting there, I couldn't help thinking: hmmm. I'd probably do these things they are talking about for less than they would charge. After all, I web chronicle my trips FOR FREE. (However, I'm not saying that my photos or writing are up to their caliber). I'm sure I would have been lynched if I had said anything.

Good thing I have a "day job." But -- you gotta start somewhere, right? Charging less seems like a fair practice for someone who isn't a household name in the industry.

Just some random thoughts.

I think I disagree with you guys. Given that I'm just getting started in photography and have few, if any, photos that are of sellable quality, I'm certainly looking at this from a biased perspective...Having said that...

I currently have no intention of pursuing any kind of monetary compensation from my photography interests. There is just too much involved in that that I don't want to bother with. I post my images in a smaller resolution mainly for technical reasons and I freely give full size, hi-res pictures to anyone who asks, for whatever reason.

To me, the compensation for my pictures is the joy that others have in seeing them, be it family, friends or strangers. Having my pictures on display at such an exhibit would be worth far more to me than whatever money I might be able to expect from them. I would fully expect credit to be given but that's about it.

I certainly understand where Murray and others are coming from, but to suggest that the expectation of donations somehow dimminshes my work as an amateur is naive. Certainly those who pursue the financial side of photography deserve to be compensated. Most of you have fantastic ability and should be rewarded how you see fit. But you should also realize that those "rewards" vary by the individual and aren't necessarily related to money.

This is a very intersting subject and I'm glad to see the diverse opinion. I'm not a pro either - I'm an amateur that has spent a lot of time and money on my hobby. With that said, here's my opinion:

Let's look at an example - say - Coral Reef Organization is putting together a newsletter consisting of art/graphics, stories, and photos. Coral Reef Organization is a not-for profit NGO, however they pay their staff and they pay their "contractors." For their newsletter they pay the graphic artists for their work, the writers for their work, but they want to get the photos for free. This is just a made-up example, but it happens like this ALL the time.

So why are they willing to pay (they say "We have the budget") for the art and the stories, but NOT for the photos????? It's obviously a supply and demand thing right? Or maybe they think "Well, the artist will have to draw something, and the writer will have to write something, but heck, the photographer only has to email me something off his hard-drive."

Perhaps what they don't realize is that I had do jump off a boat in 6' seas in a remote corner of the world, where malaria is still a pretty common problem - with my $5,000 camera setup - in order to get that shot. I agree w/ Murray when he says that we risk our $$$ and our LIVES to get some of these shots.

As Dennis Miller says - "That's my opinion - I could be wrong."

PS - I have donated my shots to researchers and graduate students before.

Cheers

James Wiseman

Maybe I am biased as I too know a number of pro underwater photographers thus feel that people should be compensated for their work. I also understand that to get to be known sometimes you have to provide product at less than the FMV. Is that free?

As for Eric I do believe you have the talent to be able to market your product but, I also believe that you have a lot more talent for your current calling. That does not diminish your photographic or writing ability but, as a person in the financial industry, your day job will certainly allow you to enjoy your current hobby/obsession.

It's a rather difficult topic to resolve. First, to make sure I'm clear, I'm definitely not saying that photographers do not deserve to be paid for their work. Absolutely they do. My issue with Murray's response was that it implied that because he and others want to be paid, that standard should apply to all of us.

I think it's a matter of personal decision who photos would be donated to. I would generally approach it by looking at the organization I'm giving them to. If it was to put in a book that would then be sold, I probably wouldn't donate them. If however, it was to be put on display at a local aquarium, I probably would. I can't really articulate the difference other than to say that the display of the pictures at the aquarium has more motivation than to just bring in money.

I definitely do agree with you and he about what we put into our photography. We've all spent quite a bit of money to get to the point we are at. I'd be a bit frightened to add up all the money I've spent on equipment, trips, certification etc since I started.

It certainly is wrong for an organization to expect that they don't have to pay their photographers. But if Ms. Howell's original request is truthfull (that is, they originally planned on getting the photos from NOAA and as such didn't budget for it), then I see no problem with them asking for donations. I would definitely have issue with it if they always intended to try and get the photos for free.

I'll have to think on this a little bit more...see if I can clarify my position on it in my mind...besides, it'll give me something to think about in the meeting I'm going into

So why are they willing to pay (they say "We have the budget") for the art and the stories, but NOT for the photos?????  It's obviously a supply and demand thing right?  Or maybe they think "Well, the artist will have to draw something, and the writer will have to write something, but heck, the photographer only has to email me something off his hard-drive."

 

Perhaps what they don't realize is that I had do jump off a boat in 6' seas in a remote corner of the world, where malaria is still a pretty common problem - with my $5,000 camera setup - in order to get that shot.  I agree w/ Murray when he says that we risk our $$$ and our LIVES to get some of these shots.

Well, most of us here do these things for FUN, so the risk factor can't really be a big selling point. We actually pay someone else money to jump off of boats with $5000 camera setups.

It seems to me that the people you are talking about are willing to pay for art and stories and not for photographs simply because they can get get free photographs, but find it harder to get writers and artists to give away their work.

Eric, I think you're on to something. We have bigger egos, so we are willing to give our photos away just for the thrill of it... Well, maybe it's just me that has a big ego (or some would say...hehe).

Cheers

James

luminary,

I think what you are saying is fine and I agree that each of can decide to give away our work if we choose to, but I think you are reading Murray's response wrong. Your book analogy is a good one. Let's say that all of us together, or me and my friends, decide to get together and contribute equally to the creation of a book of our photographs. Each gets to use the book for enjoyment. Then one of us decides to begin selling the book and pocketing all the profit. This is essentially the situation. The organization intends a permanent exhibit which they will charge money to view and some of the draw will be your photographs that they want you to give for free.

Murray is not saying that you should charge money in order to support the prices he charges for his photographs, he's just saying that a for-profit organization should not ask for services to be donated when they are customarily payed for. Their failure to budget shouldn't come at the photographers' expense while they continue to draw salary. Magazines will pay you to publish your photo. So should the exhibit since they intend to profit from your work.

I know Murray well enough to know that he would like to get paid for his work, while I am quite happy to give away everything I do (but not in my profession). I would be upset to know that others are taking advantage of my freely donated work, particularly at the expense of others who are trying to make a living doing the same.

Hmm. I've been somewhere similar before and argued this from Murray’s side, but I've changed my mind. I think. I had some direct experience with a related dilemma a few years back when I decided to try to "re-career" as a science writer/editor. Sounded great: work from home, work my own schedule, just take projects that interested me. Problem is those benefits allow a lot of other people to pursue that line of work "as a sideline." Many of them, people with working spouses for example, can afford to work for far less than I could. It took me a while to figure it out, but once I realized that if I have to charge decent money for something that someone else will do for less, I'm not competitive. Duh!

Taken to the extreme, why should someone pay for something that they can legitimately and legally get for free, regardless of whether they do it for profit or not? While I think Murray has every right to voice his opinion that a for-profit operation soliciting donations is unfair, I disagree with his point. If a professional has to charge for something that to a layman is indistinguishable from something one of us--for whatever personal reasons we care to name--is willing to provide for free, that professional needs to figure out what he has to do to make his product worth paying for. I understand--very personally--how frustrating it can be to feel "I'm trying to make a living doing this and these jerks are screwing me by providing something similar at unrealistic prices," but that's just the way it is.

I cut my losses and changed direction again when I met too many "competitors" who were happy to admit that they could afford to work for peanuts and simply enjoyed feeling they were being productive. Similarly there are an awful lot of very talented amateur photographers (uw and land) who like to share their pics and love to hear "awesome shot, dude." I'm sure many of them (us) would jump at the chance to turn even partly pro. But there are only a very small number of people who really make it as pros, through dint of consistently getting shots that are unquestionably better, or by combining fantastic photography with a flair for telling a story, or who simply know the right people. And then there are a crowd stuck--like I was as a science writer--somewhere in the middle. I disagree that an amateur giving out pictures for free is "at the expense of others who are trying to make a living doing the same," and believe (and this is probably going to sound harsh) that this kind of competition will force many of them to reconsider their career options while inadvertently pushing a few to the level where I'm willing to shell out my hard-earned cash for their work.

I also disagree, as others have, with Murray's comments about the expense and risk and sacrifice we make to take uw pictures. C'mon, we do it for fun. I'll bet he also does it for fun; it's just that he's decided that maybe he can have his cake and eat it by getting paid to have fun. I know I would if I could! And donating my work diminishes its value? If my Ma could get a kick out of telling her bridge club that her lad got a picture displayed in the national aquarium, I'd say that's pretty good mileage--whether I donated it or not. Donated pictures don't have an overall negative impact to the uw photo community, they have (and this is probably also going to sound harsh) a negative impact on Murray's bottom line, which isn't--so far as I'm aware--our concern. I'm sure from what I've read that Murray is a nice guy, and I hope he makes it, but competition is the law of the jungle and, fair or not, he'll just have to deal with it.

Finally, given all that, my personal position on my pics is that I'll be happy to donate to a non-profit organization but if someone wants to make money from them I'd want a cut. That's just the way I am, and if I fail to make a buck because one of you wants to give them for free, well, it's a jungle out there. (And that's not even getting into whether people pay to visit the aquarium to look at the nice decor or to look at the tanks full of fish...)

Dang I've blathered on a long time, and all I wanted was to drop a note in the "hi, meet me" forum to see if anyone wanted to meet in Maine.

The trouble is they do want to make money and don't want to give you a cut.

No one so far feels any loyalty to supporting photo pro's wages, including me. It's true, for some people, that achieving success involves being recognized both though exposure and financial gain, and there's a thread of that running through this discussion that is distasteful. It doesn't justify approving what is essentially exploitation by a for-profit organization, though.

I hope I haven't wrongly insulted anyone since I haven't checked the facts!

I'm a newbie to UW photography and only doing this for fun. For me it's an expensive hobby, but a nice one. If someone would ask me if I could donate some pics I think I would feel honored and do so.

PROVIDED... that he wouldn't use it for profit and claim it to be his own work. I've had an experience once (winning a prize for a website) where other people got the money for my hard work. No fun at all :angryfire:

I'm a computer programmer, besides my day time job I program the database behind a basketball site... for free. This site belongs to an organization with paid employees. It's just one of my other hobbies. I like doing that, but as soon as somebody would use my work to earn money with it I would bring down the website and remove all my code.

So I don't think it's wrong to do some things for free or get paid for what you do, as long as it is a fair arrangement.

In this case I don't think I would have contributed photo's (although I would be very honoured if I were asked, thinking someone rates them high enough to be in such an exhibition)

I totally agree with Craig.

I'm a 100% amateur and i like to share my photos and videos with others, but i usually publish them in far from perfect quality. If a non profit organisation asks me to donate a photo, thats ok - but if someone wants to make money with my work, i want my part of it.

I know that taking uw photos and videos is an expensive hobby, but i have never calculated those costs when i sent high quality pictures to fishbase or the sea slug forum. But i'd get very angry if somebody published a book or cd for sale with my photos without paying me for them.

Some of the UW photo pros also donate their pics for identification sites, while others don't. It's probably a question of the individual photographers generousity.

An example of extreme profit orientation is (true story) a well known Swiss photo pro who's model got ill on a liveaboard. He asked one of the other female guests to help him out and she did (for 6 days). When she asked him for some photos later on, he wanted to charge her 100$ for each picture.

Sabine

I took a minute to step back and read over everyone's thoughts on this topic and came to the conclusion that I don't really have the necessary experience to feel both sides of it...I've never been approached by the National Aquarium (or a like organization) for donations, nor have I ever been paid for photos..

So I came up with what I see as a similiar scenario...As you all know, various kinds of computer software is available for cost or for free. Some people choose to charge for their applications and some choose to give it away. Either is perfectly acceptable and is totally up to the owner of the product. People who develop open source software do not care if it is used by others to make a profit. This is very similiar to a photographer donating his or her photos for someone elses use. Whether or not the other persons use will generate money is ultimately irrelevant. I have been on both sides of this. I've written software that I charged for, and I've written software that was freely given away. Individual circumstances determine which.

Personally, I would look at the organization and decide from that point. A public aquarium? Most definitely I would donate to them. For once thing, many (and I don't know about the National Aquarium) are non-profit organizations. They are supported entirely through admission costs and donations and most are so involved in the community or environmental issues or research that they have limited funds as it is. To me, this is much different than someone putting together a picture book and selling it.

Now, if the aquarium took those pictures and started selling prints in their gift shop, I damn well expect some compensation!

Please don't think that I'm against photographers trying to earn money for their work. That's not my point at all. My point is that just because they do, doesn't detract from my work because I don't.

Man, all this talk about photography makes me want to skip out on work and go diving!

In my industy I have numerous clients that are in the not-for-profit sector. Do I provide my services for free? No, because I am a service/profit oriented business. I would not be able to do the underwater photography that I so much love to do. Do I discount my fees to them? Yes, because they are not-for-profit.

When I take pictures do I think of cost? No, it is my hobby.

I do have to disagree with James on one point, risk. (Sorry James as I value your input always) Diving should not be a risk if you a properly trained and dive regularly. Hell, when I dive down south it is a walk in the park. Try diving in 48 degree water with some of the world's largest tidal exchanges in a drysuit with currents that are amazing. My point being generally most of us dive in the warm comforts of the south. Unfortunately the closest diving to me is silt bottom, 5 foot visability with a drysuit.

But, that is not the point of this thread.

If the pictures will be used for profit ie. book or postcard or advertising then yes, we should be compensated. How much?

Maybe a comparison could be to a actor starting out. Do they make the millions that the stars do? No, but they do get something for their efforts. Yes. But then extras do not....

Apparently, my arguement seems to sway both ways based on that point. So I will stop now.

I do have to disagree with James on one point, risk. (Sorry James as I value your input always) Diving should not be a risk if you a properly trained and dive regularly. Hell, when I dive down south it is a walk in the park. Try diving in 48 degree water with some of the world's largest tidal exchanges in a drysuit with currents that are amazing. My point being generally most of us dive in the warm comforts of the south. Unfortunately the closest diving to me is silt bottom, 5 foot visability with a drysuit.

Diving is a risk, because you are putting yourself in a situation where you are relying on equipment to keep you alive, on a buddy to make sure you don't do anything dumb, and on the assumption that most animals won't attack you.

I think the point is that considerable skill is necessary to minimize the risk involved with diving. However, it seems to me that if people are willing to pay money to expose themselves to a certain risk, then it will be hard to get an institution to pay someone else to expose themselves to the same risk, unless better results can be had.

The risk of being attacked by a shark is less than the risk of being stuck by lightening. As for reliance on equipment, as a risk then I guess all occupations are exposed to risk as I rely on a computer daily I take training to try to minimize any of it's risks (No, I am not getting into a discussion on computers with the King either). I also rely on a car to get me to work and back.

All of these, I do not consider significant risks that I should be compensated for. They are part and parcel with the obligations of the job.

When I dive I do not feel I am risking my life each time. The equipment I own is regularly serviced. I train to be able to perform a self rescue if it was needed due to a poor buddy. Based on the dive accident reports, recreational diving accidents seem to result due to individuals not staying current with their skills or not following their training.

Underwater photography as a compensated risk, I am not really sure about. Being compensated for the difficulty of getting the particular shot. I think so.

If you have to travel great distance to secluded places and spend hours on a boat to get the shot that you have to wait a week for the intended photo op to show up. Yes, you should get a premium. I

f the dive conditions themselves are considered a significant risk, yes again, added compensation.

Compensation because it required more equipment to get the shot (scuba and housings) yes.

Regular diving no, I do not see the added risk that needs compensation. Asyou said if many do it without it being considered a risk, is it? If I am not mistaken a 5 year old can dive on SASY.

I think we are agreeing here just wanted to clarify my previous post.

The donation of UW photographs debate...

As a professional marine photojournalist my feelings on the subect are almost parallel to those of Murray. The reasons are listed below.

Underwater photographers; whether pro/am are preyed upon by just about everyone expecting things for free.

The big problem has been that UW photographers in the past have been to eager to see their work in magazines or the like, and give it away as though the magazines are doing them a favour. It's an ego thing - a phase everyone goes through, but at the end of the day the photographer adds to a growing number of 'sucker's' seeking 'limelight', from people with another agenda. This has almost ruined any potential for a professional to earn a reasonable living or amatuers seeking to increase their personal income. For arguements sake: A true professional brings back the information that will be useful to countless others. Not everything underwater is 'Pristine' as some might have you believe.

I only donate images to non-profit organisations that strive for the protection of specie, such as the shark trust here in UK. www.sharktrust.org

Magazine editors seeking freebees disguise their intentions by promising ghost promotions in the future or offering their pages for a 'portfolio' - Again, the photographer gets nothing.

Editors of all magazines are looking fot the easiest and cheapest way to attract advertisers to buy space and make money: Which, is ok, but they should not take the piss!

Topside: Editors pay well and rarely expect something for nothing. The BBC for example tell me what they need and what they will pay for it up front. In return I know exactly where I stand from people with a respect for all contributers like me.

Sit down and work out just how much a single presentable image from a typical trip costs you...

Trip: $2000.00

Film Stock: $ 300.00 (50 rolls - 1800 frames)

Equipment costs based on depreciation per trip

ie. Nikonos $2000.00/6th trip = $333.00

Digital $6500 inc microdrive strobes and housing - $1083.00

Processing $ 350.00

Time consumed editing/processing based on lowest salary:-

20hrs @ $10 = $200.00 (Digital 100 hrs (inc. cheating) - $2000)

Now you can work out the cost of each useable 35mm/digital image:

Good/mountable images figure is usually around 20% (Pro 35%) (Higher if subjects are inanimate).

Images worthy of publication or public showing 0.25-2% (Pro 10-25%)

So based on the above worse sanario each image has cost you...

35mm - $3183/1800 = £1.76 per potental image. If only 0.25% are worthy

Then each image has cost $71.00 to produce.

Digital (not inc. $1500 laptop/PC)

Each image based on the same assumption would be $5083/1800 taken

= $2.82 (1st trip almost $7.00) or $112.00 per saleable image.

You can now understand why professionals don't snap at just anything and why digital after 10 trips becomes more economical (unless you flood it and have to begin again), and why you would be foolish to give away your work.

However, having people consider the 'risk angle' is unfair and not really relavent; No one has to do it. The risks involved are purely self imposed, and if you are silly enough to want to jump into a six foot sea with a $5K system one may need to justify one's sanity, cap one's ego cravings or have a very good relationship with your insurance company.

Try getting lowered down a 1000 foot cliff face in a harness upside down to capture an image of rare chicks before the parents (birds of prey) return and offer you scars and concussion for your efforts. Justified in that instance due to scientific importance.

Hope this is of some use to a debate that would otherwise become arguementative.

Shark Trust :freak:

I may be over simplifying this but for me personally (I admit I have never taken a photo that I would rate as being of sufficient quality/interest for publication and definitely no photos in the league of some of you guys) I take photos for personal enjoyment, I bought the equipment so I could "entertain" myself and expand my hobby of diving.

I freely give away all of my photos - to fellow divers - to instructors who have used them on their websites (not very good ones!) and I even gave 3 gigs of photos to a dive company who wanted to show their local area species on their web site. I did all of this for the kick of seeing my photos used - I do not need monetary recognician, I did it for myself. Even if a magazine wanted (in my dreams) to use a photo of mine on their cover, I would willingly give it free of charge - just for the sheer buzz of ME seeing MY photo on a magazine.

Similary I would give these people free photos if I thought they would be put on public display - ESPECIALLY if it were in an aquarium or facility that was actively promoting the undersea world - who knows someone could see it and it may just give them the impetus to go for DSD on their next holiday in Fl. and then they could be a poster here also - a convert to the underwater realm.

Would'nt it give you just the biggest kick to tell your freinds that one of your photos was on dispaly at the National Aquarium - surely the work of the National Aquarium must benefit the underwater world through the education of children (?) and adults alike - is that not a good enough cause to "giveaway" an image - surely an image by its very nature of being an image needs to be shared and seen by others?

As for photo professionals - well they took their descision to make it their livelyhood, and lets be honest if they are good enough to do this then their pics should be so darn better than mine they will always have a market for their "product" - but I take photos and snapshots, I do not take "product" - my snapshots (even a good one) are for people to look at and hopefully for myself and the viewer to get enjoyment from that.