Note from Jonah: This is the first post in a discussion concerning comercial usage of Flickr photographs. Read the second, follow up post here.
My friend emailed me yesterday, asking advice on a photography related question. He writes:
Hi Jonah — So some rando sent me a message on flickr saying they wanted to include some photos of mine in an in-flight magazine for Air Canada. The email checks out with a media-production company whose clients include air canada. From the message it seems they’re offering photo credit, some copies of the issue, but no mention of money. Think I should do it?
While random emails looking for photos are normal, I had not heard of people using Flickr as a means of finding free photographs and exploiting photographers. The company’s circumnavigation of the photography industry made me want to share this with any and all photographers and business people.
Here’s how the situation unfolded.
The following emails came from Flickr mail. All names have been changed to not put any individuals in a bad light — I’m just questioning the ethics and integrity of the companies involved.
Hi,
My name is SUZY Q and I am photo researcher for enRoute magazine (Air Canada’s in-flight magazine).
In our December 2010 issue, we are going to be mentioning the Ice and Snow Festival in Beinjing. During my photo research for the piece, I came across some fantastic photos of the area that you have posted on Flickr.com. We would maybe like to possibly use one of your photos and are interested to know if:
a.) they are yours/you took them/own the rights to them and
b.) if you would be interested in giving us permission to print them. We would credit the photos to you and would send you a couple copies when it is launched.We are working on a bit of a tight deadline. If you could let me know if this is possible, I would appreciate it.
The image that we would like to possibly use can be seen here …
Thank you in advance. I hope to hear from you.
Regards,
SUZY Q
This is when I got the email from my friend. I thought about it for a couple minutes before I came to the conclusion this is simply away for the airline, media company and in flight magazine to save money. There were clearly hundreds of professional photographers at this event, and this method which is probably more common than I would like to think, completely circumnavigates the photography industry.
In the unusual circumstance, these were the only existing photos of the event, I would understand this method of research. However, this would also make the photographs valuable. I encouraged my friend to inquire about payment.
Hello SUZY Q,
Thank you for contacting me about the photos. Sorry for my late response; I just noticed your message today. Is there any possibility of payment for the photos you use?
Thank you,
TINY TIM
Relatively quickly, the company emailed back:
Hello TINY TIM,
Unfortunately, we do not pay for those images. We give credit to the photographer and we hope that this is a chance to be shown through
onAir, Air Canada’s e-zine, by 2.5 million people monthly.Hope to hear form you soon.
Thank you,
SUZY Q
I’ve left SUZY Q’s signature out of the email. However, I would like to point out that she is an intern at enRoute, Air Canada’s in flight magazine. This makes me even one more degree disgusted at the business ethics of the companies. Not only are they clearly doing something with dodgy ethics — they are making interns do it.
It would be unfair to suggest Air Canada and this media company are the only companies doing this. I’m sure it is common, but I would like to make a suggestion to photographers not to take work from companies doing this and a plea to amateurs — your work has value of more than “a couple copies” of a publication. Especially, as SUZY Q points out — one with an audience of 2.5 million people a month.
I have no problem with businesses using Flickr as a tool of finding photographs. However, if they are targeting hobbyists and amateurs their motives are clearly the bottom line. I’m sure enRoute is a beautiful magazine filled with the best free photos they could get their hands on.
Please spread this around on your social networks to create more awareness in the photographic and business communities.
8 Responses to “Air Canada trolling for free photos on Flickr”
Richard says:
This may be a silly question, but um, what’s wrong with a professional for-profit magazine using FlickR photos, properly credited?
I’m not a professional photographer, but if they find good value out of one of my FlickR photos, they’re welcome to them: that’s the spirit of openness that makes the Web a great place.
Jonah says:
No silly questions Richard – only silly people.
I’m sure many people share you feelings. I believe in sharing and free information as well, online, pending on circumstance. Circumstance is the key word here. It greatly depends on the site or place you are sharing it with. For example, if a photography Web site wanted to highlight a photographer or their work, that might be ok. As long as its a cross promotion of information. i.e. your Web site/work/ideas/photo is linking back to your site generating traffic back to your site and giving contact. Let’s say this Web site had a paywall, then in no way would I be ok with it.
Here’s another situation, let’s say I had a picture of an airplane (this is a true story). The company sees the photo in a newspaper and likes it enough, they wanted to use it for advertising and for their company calendar. They are clearly using my intellectual property for individual or corporate gain. The photo cost me money to take — I had to buy the camera, the lens, pay for a college education to learn how to use it well. I have to pay for insurance for the camera and myself. In this case, I am actually in harms way. Then, I have to use my time to go take the photo.
Myriad other factors, also exist. Does anyone else have this photo? Is this photo of value to other people or just this one company/publication/organization? Is this photo so common, that the company can find someone who is willing to give it away?
This brings us back to enRoute and SUZY Q and TINY TIM’s situation. Let’s examen an inflight magazine. They fill the magazine with content, and then sell advertising around their content. They also sell plane tickets, booze, gifts/air-mall through this venue. Really they are using your image to sell a product — and not giving any of that money back to the photographer. It seems to me, in this specific situation, the company is just trying to gain free content, because they can — and then gain all of the profit for it.
Even at a basic level — how much did TINY TIM pay to get into the event of the photograph the company wants. How much did his point and shoot camera coast? Did he not work that day because he was at the event?
How much profit did the magazine make from this issue and was their intent to not pay for photographs by looking for amateur and hobbyist photos online. Is their goal to increase exposure to amateur photographers fueling their photography career? Or is their goal to save a buck?
More importantly — Is enRoute free to anyone who wants it? Are they giving it away on the streets — sharing back?
I’ve just received a response from enRoute via email. Once I am done communicating with them I’ll update the blog with their opinion on the matter.
Thanks for your comment Richard. Obviously, the views here are my own but I am happy to host a variety of opinions and discourse — weather I agree with them or not.
Jonah
Jenny says:
I’ve been working as an editor for small circulation community magazines in China that were always distributed free of charge, which was nice but that also meant that there was no budget for image purchases.
As a graphic designer and amateur photographer myself, that really pained me. I sent out many emails to photographers posting their works on photography websites, and all but one were very happy to agree to publication in turn for credit and hard copies. The one who didn’t was a freelance photographer who was making a living through photography, and of course that was understandable. I always wished for a photo budget – after all, there was always a budget for external contributions in the shape of articles…so why not in the shape of images, which are just as vital a part?
With a friendly, respectful enquiry, I was very successful with sourcing “free” images…but never felt good about it and always fought it; I would have loved to at least pay a symbolic fee. Oftentimes, I even had to remind the Managing Editors to add the credit to the image! They didn’t even see it as such a big deal!
I cannot at all relate to this incident you described and find it highly objectionable…after all as you made clear, these publications are operating on a whole different financial level than we are with our little mags! For sure “credit and a copy” is a lousy offer in this case in light of the ad sales and circulation numbers.
After living in China for nearly seven years now all I can say though is: at least they asked
And the photographer still has the last word. I also don’t take that for granted.
Thank you for bringing this important issue up, Jonah!
Richard says:
I work in the software industry. There are plenty of freeware apps that claim to do some or all of the function of my (paid) products. But I’m confident that my products are so much better that serious people won’t mind paying.
Doesn’t the same apply to photography? Your photos, I’m sure, are so much better than the free FlickR ones that any serious publication won’t mind paying. Otherwise, well, they get what they pay for.
Jonah says:
Its a very good point Richard. However there are a couple distinctions in these two situations.
First, the company, enRoute is in no way part of an open source community. If they were to use free content, and then give their product away it would be one thing. However, their magazine cost the price of the plane ticket, or you could buy it in the airport. Even if they were to give contact details for the photographer or a Web reference — that would ease my pain, a little.
According to enRoute’s press kit, a full page advertisement, ran in one edition only (i.e. it just runs in one issue) cost $19,900. If you want “premium” positioning it cost 15% more. But think — your advertising dollars:
So beyond not being part of the open source community, they are selling their product on both ends — to the consumer and advertiser. However, this doesn’t answer your question, and the answer isn’t exactly simple — but I’ll give it a go.
Does the same theory apply in photography as it does in software?
I think the key part of your statement is “people won’t mind paying.” I think you are right — people, will pay for a better product. However, the magazine, airline, publisher and media company — are not a person. Its a corporate machine and they don’t have the reader in mind — and this is why they are using an amateur Flickr photo, rather than a professional photo. I agree with you — 90% of the time, a professional photograph will be better than an amateur photograph. And this is my problem with the company. They aren’t looking to create the best product — they are looking to create the most cost effective product. And, they have a right to do that.
But as a photographer, reader and consumer — that shows me — these people are simply trying to create the allusion of quality and increase their ROI. In an effort to communicate with the photographic world, venues like this can help people understand who they are working for, what they stand for and what type of products they create.
To make things a little more complicated, the photography industry is in great flux. The emergence of high quality consumer point and shoot cameras has changed things a lot. Its very easy to take, a “pretty good picture.” The discrepancy between what a professional photographer and an amateur photographer produces has diminished significantly. For publishers with tight budgets this is great. They can fire photographers and give reporters a $200 camera and accept a sub-par product in exchange for a $40,000 salary with benefits.
I’m not going to go on about the rising cost of ink, the rising cost of transportation of products, craigslist’s effect on classifieds or the real-estate industry’s direct effect on the media industry — BUT, the print media industry is in a different place than the software industry. Methods like these are ones I want to know about.
Richard says:
Jonah, I understand your point about the need for people to get paid, but how much they get paid should be determined by competition, including from the amateurs on FlickR.
Note that there are plenty of for-profit open source software projects. Google’s open source Android, for example, competes with Apple’s proprietary iPhone. In this case, Google makes its money, not from the SW but from the ads they (hope to) sell after the software is sold. Maybe photographers will have to change business models too, perhaps moving to video or something that’s harder for amateurs.
sinisterpictures says:
I get loads of these through flickr, they all bugger off quickly enough if you mention money.
Best Online Games says:
Hello, I think your blog is epic. Congrats.