A bit of a rant
Wednesday, January 24, 2007 at 01:32PM I recently added a link to the blog, Joe Reifer - Words, Rambling about photography. At first, I added it simply because he had a link to my blog, but of late, I have added it to my personal list of daily places to visit. One of the reasons I did so was this article about how the anti-copyright lobby makes big business richer. I mention this as a backdrop to this post.
In the article the author, Sion Touhig writes, "...I'm a freelance professional photographer, and in recent years, the internet 'economy' has devastated my sector. It's now difficult to make a viable living due to widespread copyright theft from newspapers, media groups, individuals and a glut of images freely or cheaply available on the Web. These have combined to crash the unit cost of images across the board, regardless of category or intrinsic worth..."
Another type of activity that is conspiring to crash the unit cost of images is the photo contest most of which require the "winners" to transfer all rights to the winning photograph to the contest sponsor. The value of any monitary award associated with "winning" is a pitiful pittance when compared to what used to be the fair market value of such a transfer of rights by professional photographers before the advent of the so-called internet economy. Simply put, the contests are nothing more than an on-the-cheap copyright grab by corporations who are using the internet economy to drive yet another sector of the American economy out of business (if not actually out of the country).
I have recently been made aware of a photo contest that is little more than another coptright grab by a major corporation, in this case HP. The really nasty element with this contest though is that the photo contest is being promoted as members-only by an internet photo forum, NaturePhotographers.net - a site which claims to be concerned with protecting the copyrights of photographers who post on the site.
In this case, the copyright grab is rationalized by NPN's editor thusly; "I began to think about my own collection of photos, and how so many of them sit in a slide storage container - or on a CD - never to be seen again. Many of those forgotten photos, while of limited value to me, may be just what HP is looking for. He also wondered how "many superb photos by other NPN members meet the same fate."
So, the contest was born and in exchange for all rights, "winners" receive a HP printer, media and ink "worth" approximately $1,000 MSR. Approximately, my ass. First, the printer, media and ink can be had at discounted prices well below the stated MSR. Second, the actual cost to HP is well below the discounted cost to the consumer. Good deal - for HP.
It is intersting to note that the announcement of the contest was met with skepiticism on the first posted response, which questioned NPN's support of such a copyright grab. Another post mentioned that the contest "...sounds like a cheap way for HP to gain image rights. The issue isn't whether it is worth while to an 'amateur', it's a matter of getting what an image usage is worth regardless of professional status. In addition it undermines professionals who would have otherwise commanded much better usage agreements."
The publisher's response was "...Another way of putting it would be that HP is simply “looking for more cost-effective solutions to conducting business.” and, as for undermining professionals, he states that "...If this contest didn't happen here, it most certainly would have happened elsewhere - and perhaps with less favorable terms. " Wow, a genuine All-American champion for "favorable terms".
He also trots out the standard corporate-side free-market rationale that "the times they are a-changin'" Of course, the free-market-excesses apologists always leave out the part about how all the little squirrels on all their little treadmills just have to pick up the pace in order to keep up with the changes.
All of that said, the single most ballsy rationale of all is that none of the aforementioned matters because HP/NPN state upfront that they're going to screw you, and therefore, no one is fooling anyone. It's up to each indiividual to decide whether he/she wants to voluntarily bend over or not. Of course, if one chooses to get screwed, he/she can always take solice in the fact that he/she is screwing someone else in return.
Caveat - In the interest of fair and unbiased reporting, it should be noted that I was a contributing editor, forum moderator and frequent photo poster on NPN. I ended my participation on NPN after the editor had issues with me and I had issues with him. So, lest anyone perceive this post as a revengeful hatchet-job, it should also be noted that I have been a tireless frontline soldier in the copyright wars since my first days in commercial photography over 35 years ago.
Featured Comment: Joel Truckenbrod wrote (in part); "...Are "the times they are a-changin'"? You bet, but that doesn't mean that we need to be lemmings. What a shame. I can't think of any other art form where the artists are willing to part with their work for so little."
UPDATE 01/25/07: A minor battle victory in a losing war - Due to unpopular demand the HP/NPN photo contest has been withdrawn from NPN. A number of "minor" pro players on NPN raised enough of a ruckus to put an end to it. Curiously, all of the big players on NPN remained completely silent on the issue, although I am certain there was a good deal of back-board discussion going on.
Kudos to the minor players who kept the pressure on.
Interesting aside: HP, like all high-tech sector companies, are zealous in the extreme about protecting their intellectual and product copyrights. Apparently, where they live, that street has a One Way sign posted on it.
Reader Comments (9)
I stumbled upon this "contest" today before reading this blog posting and was caught a bit off guard. NPN according to most of the previous lurking that I've done there has generally seemed very much against this type of action. The "up-front" disclosure of the "terms" does not change the situation one bit in my way of thinking. While NPN certainly has every right to promote such a thing, I can't imaging paying a membership fee to support the cause. Are "the times they are a-changin'"? You bet, but that doesn't mean that we need to be lemmings. What a shame. I can't think of any other art form where the artists are willing to part with their work for so little.
The times are a changing, and I think people need to adapt. This type of contest seems crazy to me though. It especially seems strange in light of the intractable attitude that used to prevail at NPN.
Thanks for the blog link. The Landscapist is on my short list of blogs to read in the morning. The problem with some photo contests being a rights grab has been a problem for quite some time. The funny thing is that many of these contests charge an entry fee -- so people are paying money to give away the rights to their images!
Cheers,
Joe
Hey Joe
Lest we tar and feather all photo contests, it's worth noting that there are photo contests and then there are photo contests. IMO, the ones to avoid like the plaque, or at least be highly suspicious of, are those sponsored by corporations. Those are the ones that are most likely to be little more than thinly-veiled rights grabs.
Major pro/minor pro, funny how you enjoy/feel the need to compartmentalize everything and everybody
Yo'in
I compartmentalize almost nothing - that's the problem for which clarifying, in an attempt to create some order and understanding, is the fix.
ps - on the face of things here, you can hide behind anonymity but my stat counter tells me from whence you hail. There is no place here for the personal rancor that was/is tolerated on NPN. Please keep your comments civil and on topic or it's no soup for you.
<<<I can't think of any other art form where the artists are willing to part with their work for so little.>>
Isn't that unfortunately why places like istockphoto do so well...at the expense of the artists
The amount of free content of all kinds available on the internet is huge. Many internet users believe if its on the 'net its up for grabs. The blogging phenomena adds to this. Bloggers (myself included) are trying to attract eyeballs and readers, trying to form a community usually without thoughts of compensation. (The Thoreau Blog solicits contributions) I think the trick is to create something -- in this case images -- that are unique and, if possible, targeted to a specific market. And -- offered in a protected way that makes theft very difficult. To simply post photos to a stock or other kind of website is to enter the world of commoditized images.
True, but, especially with photos of public places, if like one of your photos, I can just go stand in that spot, and take the same photo. If the weather isn't as bleak as it is supposed to be in a Hobson photo, or if a person appears, a little photoshopping and I have what I want.
This is one of the challenges to an art infidel like myself when viewing photography - can't anyone with a camera achieve that?