The Tatters of a Once Proud Profession

For the last ever so many years,photographers have been debating, bemoaning and otherwise discussing the state and fate of the industry and one of the key points of discussion revolves around how one should sell/market one's images. The predominant model, of the past few decades, has been that of licensing one's work for specific purposes and specific time periods, while retaining ownership of the copyright. It is a valid, strong and controversial model. It is also one to which I subscribe and actually have done for my entire career. The other side of the coin is, to my way of thinking, a self defeating strategy, whereby, the photographer relinquishes all his/her rights,in perpetuity, for a set fee, that generally, is the least amount they are willing to accept and is dictated to them by the client. It is a sort of take it or leave it,or we will just find someone else who will,scenario.

Now I have been doing this for a long time and though that is only for historical context, this is not, photographers have no one to blame for the current mess/state of affairs,but themselves and that is my historical observation. For over 40 years, I have watched photographers consistently give away more and more and more, on the consistently weak excuse, that if they don't, someone else will. As a group, we have never stood together and said enough,we are the creators of this industry and without us you have nothing,so here is how it is going to be! We own the images, you pay to use them and you pay, based upon how you use them not,how you think you may use them,or want to use them, at some point, in the future. Throughout those years,only small handfuls of us have ever stood our ground and said enough and every time we have done so, we have won the day. We have won the day and then squandered the victory by allowing the industry and our colleagues to circumvent that victory,usually by dilution.Now at this point, many will say that the solution is to educate those colleagues to the error of their ways. Education about the issues,has to be backed up by the weight of the community. Everyone has to toe the line and those that do not, need to see that there is a price to pay for undermining the collective strength of that community. That price, should be/have been, sanctions. The offenders should not have been ostracized, which is totally counter productive, but rather excluded, or limited, from receiving the support of the community. Few if any of us would, ever, have made it, in this field, without the support and mentorship of our peers.

I own the copyright to all but a tiny few, of my images, in those collective files, are images for General Motors Corporation, Torstar, B.F.Gooderich, Ford Motor Company, The New York Times, National Geographic Society, Goodwill Industries,The Robert McLaughlin Art Gallery and a plethora of small businesses, individuals and charities. To my knowledge, I am the only photographer to own the rights to their images of/for General Motors Corporation. Every single one of these clients understood nothing about image rights and usage fees, before I sat down with them and we discussed the issues. I am sure, that the corporate attorneys understood the issues very well, but the rank and file people did not. Once they did, they were understanding, cooperative and supportive. The bean counters and the lawyers were won over by the simple logistics of economics,don't pay for what you don't need and will never use. Did they have to trust me, that I would honour my end, especially, if it included sensitive material and exclusivity? Yes, of course, they did, just as I had to trust them to return my originals or my scans and honour our contract,knowing full well, that I, probably, could never afford to enforce it, in a court of law. My point is, I am no super photographer, based in NYC, or LA and a world renowned name. I am and always have been, a small time,hard working, shooter, with as many nickel and dime clients as large corporate interests. I am not a contract lawyer,a suave, silver tongued, negotiator,or a gifted scion of the wealthy and politically connected. I am just a regular working guy, from a middle class background who owns my image rights. I had a mortgage and a family and an expensive divorce and the best way I could see to support all that was to keep control of my images, my only income stream.


Things today are no different than yesterday,if you place a high value on your skills and abilities and you are fair minded, flexible and actually care about your client's welfare, they will return the favour. Good clients, educated clients,understand the importance of maintaining a good relationship with their suppliers,industry partners and customers, they want you to be successful, because they do not want to deal with failures either. Once you get past the bravado and the legal department smoke screens, it all comes down to helping them be the most successful company they can be and in return you stay, equally, as successful. If someone understands a process, they will be comfortable with the process.
The other side brings up a lot of valid points, that we all face daily, but I still contend that, ultimately, all the client really wants are great images, that achieve their goals, for a fair price and that holds true for Mary Jane, from down the lane, corporate America and politically correct, corporate Canada. It isn't that they do not care about ownership issues, it is that they really, do not understand them and therefore do not want to, have to, deal with them. We can either help them understand and ultimately prosper, or we can give in and ultimately fail.