free images in reverse

hello every1,

i found it very interesting reading opinions from fellow photographers about giving away images for free. i am not a pro photog, so my opinion is not so important at this point, but must say that i totaly understand and appreciate many statements about NOT giving free images.

just for a quick introduction, i am general editor of croatian scubadiving magazine.it is rather small bussiness oriented only on ex-yougoslavia region, some 10000 copies, published quaterly. infact my second bussines, because im running dive center in area.

so, what we do in magazine is that in each issue (10 so far) we publish portfolio of more less famous uw photogs worldwide, consisting of 5 images chosen by author, one more image of author himself, and textual part usually written by author, (or by me in some cases).

we do it on "non payment" basics, so we do not compensate authors with any financial arrangement. of course, most important is that we do have permit of each author, and infact me personally contact with each, discussing about images, choosing them etc. so, no any copyright violation whatsoever.

so i would like to hear opinions of photogs about my philosophy of this arrangements, where we as the publishers clearly benefit with attractive material to publish, but also think that author also benefits with promotion and "penetration" to our, though small, part of worlds market. ( i found here on forum clear statements that only benefit for some photogs is the benefit in the bank account, and i must say i agree with that policy)

but, in this case, what do you say, is it "fair game"? do both sides benefit equally? thanks in advance for opinions

Maybe you could send a copy of your mag to every wetpixel member? That would be very good promotion.

Sounds like something for nothing to me..

For the very few 'promotion' type freebies I have allowed to be used, I think precisely zero additional income can be attributed to the decision to give work away in this manner.

Its an activity that strokes the ego of the photographer. The higher profile the magazine, the more the ego is stroked...but never beyond that. In my experience at least. My ego likes a positive bank balance.

I think this is an editorial use that promotes the photographer - not so much the shot. If done with permission, it's a nice bit of free advertising. It's up to the individuals whether it's of value.

Jack

I haven't seen the magazine, but if you are selling advertising space, then I'd agree - it is a case of something for nothing. Unless you're producing the magazine "out of pocket", you're not on a level playing field with the folks that are supplying the content. I'd argue, if you are selling ad space, then you should be paying for content. Otherwise, you're taking income from the people you rely on to be able to produce something advertisers want to spend their money on.

I also get the fact that a lot aspiring photographers want/like to see their work in-print, and there will always be some willing to take "exposure" over cash. I guess in the end, Jack is right - individuals can decide for themselves what's fair trade for their work.

Lee

thanks every1 for the feedback. i appreciate it, and it certainly helped to clear some points. (my points of view)

hope we can conclude it with Jack saying "individuals can decide for themselves whats fair trade"

So would this be the publication in question?- http://www.scubalife.hr/index.php

I've seen smaller publications make the exchange between contributor and publisher go beyond just attribution, even if it was only

a modest payment. Do contributors that write articles receive more of an exchange than their name as the author? If so then why not

an image contributor? Images in a publication, unless of course bad, can only enhance a publication and are equally as important

as the written word. It is after all a visual medium.

The publication does seem to have advertising and product/service reviews. So would be generating some income. My personal view

is I'd never contribute for free to an endeavour that creates revenue, Unless it was a strictly Not For Profit organization and working

towards something I personally valued.

Cheers,

Jim.

yep, that is the magazine. and yep, we generate some income. (allthough peanuts compared to western publishers, but thats not the issue here)

i am pro diver (not pro photographer) and also running the magazine. So not strictly publisher in bussiness sense from my point. With that i wanted to say

that im in favour of divers-photographers, and care about their opinion. That is the reason i raised the question, and the answers certainly helped me to

clear things, and change the approach. therefore, all the views stated here are very appreaciated. Thanks guys