Given that I cover ACC sports in the Raleigh, Durham, Chapel Hill area, and that there is an immense amout of interest in those sports by those who blog, I frequently find my photos being ripped off and used in blog entries. For the most part I have not really taken action against those who steal my work even though I have rights to seek damages against them. Although, what I have always found ironic is bloggers hate it when other bloggers steal their work, especially when the original writer is not credited. Yet these same bloggers seem to forget these rules when the comes to photography.
Today I was pointed to one of the most egregious acts of a blog stealing photos (although in this case not mine). Here is a quote:
People are always complimenting us on our photos. The quality of the photo work shown on The Consumerist mainly stems from our preternatural ability to steal images from Flickr. [source]
Wow. All the more reason that I keep my photos off Flickr. A few months ago I was floored when a client of mine said they were going to search on Flickr to find some UNC Basketball photos to use. I said ‘ok’, but warned them that people post photos they don’t own on Flickr thereby putting themselves and my client in copyright peril. Not to mention, the only people who are going to have photos decent enough to to use in a publication aren’t going to be giving them away for free.
Because of all the poaching that was occuring on my website, I began watermarking my images to deter theft. I hated doing it as it takes away from the photo viewing experience of the honest viewer. But, if I am going to protect my intellectual property and how I make my money, its a necessary evil. Unfortunately, my photos appear (legally) on other sites like gopack.com, si.com, espn.com, cbs.sportsline.com among others where my photos are not watermarked and easily stolen by poachers.
For just a soapbox moment, I wanted to write about why photographers charge for images. People don’t understand the value of the photos we produce. People get frustrated that I won’t email them an image; parents get mad at me because I won’t burn a CD of images of their son/daughter that I took when their kid played soccer. They see the only cost I occur as the cost of the CD which is admittedly minimal. But the costs of me producing a photo are actually enormous. First, in order to have the skills to produce a photo, I invested so many hours in training that I lost track. For about four years I worked in Washington, DC at the MCI Center (now Verizon Center) working for a professional photographer. I worked my day job from 9-5 then I took the subway to the MCI Center and worked 3 or 4 days a week there for another 6 hours. Then I worked weekends too all for no pay, but it was my apprenticeship and I learned skills that can’t be taught at school and skills that few have. Beyond this training is all the time I spent training myself to use Photoshop and other advanced photography techniques. So the first cost I incurred to produce a photo was all the time I put in to learn the trade. The second, and more tangible, cost I have is the enormous amount of money invested in photography gear that produces professional level images. I have spent more on photography gear than a brand new Toyota Camry costs, even with all the bells and whistles. I have to produce income to afford all the gear that is necessary for me to do my job. Additionally, digital cameras are expensive to maintain and replace. Should one digital camera break, it can cost a minium of $250 just for the camera manaufactoer to even look at my camera. Heaven help me if the repair is complicated.
So, given all the time and money I invest to work in the trade I do, I of course expect to be remunerated for the photographs I produce. Think of a doctor or lawyer. If they spend one hour talking to you, they don’t occur any marginal costs do they? But they are, of course, going to charge you because you tapped into their skills that they spent time and money developing. Same here.