Pay the writer

If we've all finished dogpiling over there in that other thread... I thought this clip of the writer Harlan Ellison was quite amusing, and appropriate to some of the licensing/payment threads we have popping up on here regularly.

The irony of his interview being used for promotion of the film on a free video sharing site does not escape me, I wonder how much he got paid ??

There's some robust language in here.

I'd already seen this in reference to photographers, writers, etc. always being asked to work for FREE.......And I think his response is right on target despite the colorful language.

I sure don't think the YouTube replay is going to help DVD sales of the mentioned movie......But then again I NEVER have bought a DVD. I'll rent, borrow or even wait until my library has movies I want to watch before buying one. But maybe I'm atypical that way....

I DO think his points should be burned into every photographer's brain. Mainly because as you get good you certainly will be asked to provide content for FREE.

Pretty funny....

dhaas

P.S. - I don't think he got paid for his DVD "extra" interview and wouldn't let them use it for FREE. Which is the point of this YouTube video commentary.

Ha! That's hysterical because I know that I've heard those exact same words out of Dave Haas' mouth in past phone conversations.

The movie industry is the WORST to do business with. They expect everything for nothing and take 120 days to pay their bills when they do pay for anything.

I got a call from Without a Trace Productions and they did the same thing. They faxed me a form that I was supposed to sign to give them permission to use six of my images in one of their episodes for no compensation. I sent them an invoice and they coughed for a while, but when all was said and done I collected $900 for their use of three of my images. When the episode aired the images were in the background and hardly recognizable even to me. But it was fun to be a movie star for a couple of seconds, even if nobody else knew it.

When I worked making television commercials in the UK we had a golden rule: Never mix with amateurs. Now I work in the UK diving industry and to my eternal heart-ache, I am always competing with amateurs. I'm fed up with saying, "The only credit a professional wants is in his bank account."

If the diving industry was truly professional, it wouldn't be in the eternal mess it was in. Give up your day job if you want to be taken seriously!

Hi John and all,

Well it is not all the dive industries fault! (although I often wish that it was more professional)

I was involved in two TV projects last year-both were aired on prime time, but when I sent my invoice in, both production companies tried to haggle over the bill. In both cases, they used the arguement that they could " include me in the credits" and both were a bit suprised when I said I wasn't bothered and when could I expect payment!!!

The media industry seems to have a slightly over inflated opinion of the value of a bunch of words on a screen-I haven't yet found a way of eating them!

All the best

Adam

This is a fascinating debate,

John B makes the point that you should "never mix with amateurs.. I'm always competing with amateurs." I guess I fall into that category, I'm an amateur, but at what point do I become professional? Here's a few more questions to muddy the waters:

How many years do you work until you are professional?

How much do you have to get paid a year until you are professional? Or is it based on the number of payments you have received?

If you have a full time "main" career, does that mean everything you do in this world is amateur?

There are loads of other questions that muddy the waters further, but from my perspective, I guess the point is, that while there are going to be more and more photographers out there, taking outstanding photographs, they will be looking for a forum to get them published. And while they build up a clip file they may be prepared to let them go for nothing just to have a photo credit. At some point they will be in a position to demand payment, but until that point, they will have to work really hard to build up a reputation. I guess it also depends on what their goals were, if it is too make money, then they are in the wrong world, if it is to share their photographs, then they may continue to do their "work" for nothing.

I'm now in the position where I would expect and demand payment for any of my work to be published. Twelve years ago, I was just thrilled to see it in print. Saying that, the rate UK magazines pay hasn't changed much in a decade, but that isn't why I do it, this is my "hobby," I get a lot of satisfaction from it and I'm proud to be associated with the diving media. And the reason I'm an amateur competing with professionals? Because I can!

best regards and warm wishes to all, amateurs and professionals

Brendan O'Brien

This is a fascinating debate,

 

John B makes the point that you should "never mix with amateurs..

Brendan O'Brien

That is a rule in most professions. However, since the leisure diving industry is essentially amateur, that rule is not possible.

In the professional world your esteem is measured more or less by demand and cash is the main criteria of success. When I started as an advertising photographer I asked for top fees that put me on a par with other top photographers. I got a few commissions but it took 10 years to build a reputation and become regularly in demand and even then people called it an overnight success. Even when successful, we all knew we were only as good as our last picture. If I had asked for lower fees I would have attracted lower quality commissions and I would never have progressed to the first division. In the amateur world you are simply as good as you say you are. (...and I am very good of course!) but you rarely have to prove it.

Therefore we have many walking the walk and talking the talk but do they consistently produce the goods? Magazines pay very poorly so they are often not too choosy. I see a lot of the material that comes in and it is often subject to a lot of rewriting of substituted photographs. Someone once told me that he was the only writer DM had that provided work that did not need editing. I was shocked when I saw his original material and realised he had never compared it to what was published. He is still a highly regarded (by himself) author!

I know I'm going to make a few enemies with this position, but ultimately the market will determine what is worth what.

I live by the opinion that something is only worth what someone else is willing to pay for it. And for professional photographers making a living, it is getting more and more difficult as the market is flooded with relatively high quality amateur photos. What this means is that the service provided must be above and beyond in order to justify the cost.

Let me explain. My day job is working for a consulting engineering firm. We are one of the most expensive consulting companies in the world but what we provide is top quality. So while we don't get a lot of contracts from people looking for mediocre and cheap, we do have a few select repeat clients that are willing to pay top dollar. I think that pro photographers have to be in this same realm. They have to provide something which the amateur can't, whether it's repeatability, quality, etc.

You may make enemies with that comment, Mark, but I agree with you.

A professional should be able to differentiate himself from amateur work though the quality of his products and services. If he cannot, he has himself to blame, not the amateurs. The only thing amateurs are guilty of is being naive at times. The true causes of problems are greedy profiteers and pros who expect to get paid what the market doesn't support.

Remember, an amateur is under no obligation to withhold his own product to increase the value of that produced by pros. Personally, if an organization wants my work so that they can get paid, then they will have to pay me. If they aren't trying to profit off my work, then I may donate to them, but I don't concern myself with the impact I may have on working pros. If they can't compete with me then there's a serious problem!

Photography, like any fine art, has no reason to justify arbitrarily high pricing. I have nothing against photo pros earning a good living nor do I think they are entitled to it. I'm neutral on the earning power of artists. That all said, it may be the case that the market for this kind of photographic work may not grow or may even shrink as a result of the growing body of high quality amateur work. I see no reason to regret that.

Is the title Semi-pro just a made up name for those who cannot afford to give up the 'Day job' then...which at the moment is me....I consider myself in that title...But am I correct...

To be honest who gives a shit (sorry Drew)...As long as your happy...

I've recently made the huge dastardly decision to let 5 secs of my footage go for zilch...Long story but one I'm, for this time only, i'm happy with...Another time I supplied footage to a BBC prog called springwatch and was given the choice "we mention your name on screen or you can have payment"...Guess where i went with that...Barclays

I'm on the ladder and learning fast.. But if a good deed leads to better things great if not I learn from it...

Dive safe

DeanB

"we mention your name on screen or you can have payment"

That reminds me of:

Where would you like your byline printed?

Right after where it says "Pay to the order of"

That was my point. If you are in diving, you are in an amateur world.

I was a guest lecturer at Plymouth College (I think it was a Tech then) at their school of photography many years ago. They did an underwater photography course. I used to tell the students to enjoy the course but don't be misled into thinking there are jobs for underwater photographers when you leave. Unfortunately the College sussed me and I was no longer invited!

The other point is that a professional isn't just paid for camera work. He's paid to make a preconceived idea come to life. Stephen Speilberg didn't just hang about waiting for a man-eating shark to turn up.

That's why I tell people that I used to be a photographer. I just snap what's there now, same as everyone else. In fact, one of my contemporaries, from the old days, dryly observed that all underwater photographs look the same. An element of truth in that methinks.

There is simply no correlation between results that can be achieved by a professional versus an amateur, just because a professional chooses photography as his prime source of income. There are many amateurs on this site whose results in my opinion are superior to some of the professionals, and the market proves this as more and more amateur work is chosen for commercial use. Declining to mix with amateurs is a reflection of snobbery rather than competence. The field of photography is full of excellent examples of 'amateur' work, equal in quality to those shown by professionals. To the frustration of folks like John, there is nothing about being a 'professional' photographer that gives the professional any advantage over an amateur except that professionals as a rule will spend more time on the endeavour by choice and necessity. Amateurs have the same access to equipment, knowledge resources, and certainly may have the same or more innate talent than a professional has. This applies in all the arts.

This is unlike professions such as medicine, accounting and law, where being a professional requires access to the appropriate schooling and licensure to practice. (Though even in these professions, innate skill is not guaranteed.)

My definition of a professional photographer:

A photographer who genuinely attempts to make a (real) profit from photography.

This includes "semi-pro" and I'd suggest that the same criteria could be applied to photography as farming in the UK. If a farmer consistently makes a loss (i think its for 5 or 7 years) then the farming is considered to be a hobby for tax purposes (ie no set-off of losses against other businesses). I've probably stirred up a hornets nest as by this definition there are very few professional underwater photographers.

Being a pro has very little to do with 'superior' results (whatever they are) and far more to do with providing an appropriate service when required to do so. The 'innate skill' of a professional photographer is probably reflected in his/her survivability in the market place which is very competitive. I would however point out that probably one aspect which generally differentiate a professional photographer from an amateur is versatility - it has to be these days!

Excellent video, interesting discussion. I have to agree with pgk on this one. There's an old saying: the amateur practices to get it right once, the professional practices to never get it wrong. Corollary is, the professional does what pays. If you're a professional and amateur sales put a serious crimp in your business, find a different business - otherwise, you're either a lousy photographer or a lousy businessman.

When someone must have results, they hire a professional, simple as that. If they can afford not to, people don't ask their cousin with a dSLR to shoot their wedding, and Sport Diver doesn't hire amateurs for the same reason. They're not buying your pictures, they're buying your results - they give you a job and you do it. If you as a professional can't deliver results faster, better, and cheaper than me with my D80, amateurs aren't going to steal your business, other professionals will. I like the word pgk used, "versatility" - to me, that's code for "what pays."

That's why I'm not a professional - I want to shoot what I want to shoot, not what someone will pay me for. Well, that and the pay is terrible . And that's why I understand professionals who don't want to mix with amateurs - they've usually got two completely different agendas.