Tweet

Share

Note from Jonah: This is a follow up post to a discussion from last week concerning comercial usage of Flickr photographs. Read that post here.

Within 24 hours of last week’s blog post titled “Air Canada trolling Flickr for free photographs,” I received an (understandably) angry email from enRoute’s photography editor. I told them I would give them a chance to give their opinion on the matter, and asked it they would answer a couple simple questions to help make the situation more clear.

About a day later, the editor of enRoute took over. Although they have sent me a letter, they did not answer all my questions concerning their practices with Flickr — and after a small amount of investigation some discrepancies in their official practice have come to light. The only real clear fact I’ve gotten is both the photo editor and managing editor are blaming the intern for giving false information.

Here’s a sequence of quotes that show the morphing opinions from enRoute:

1) INTERN: “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.”
2) PHOTO EDITOR: “We often do compensate with a fee.”
3) MANAGING EDITOR: “We pay for these photos with a fee comparable to the same quality stock photography.”

This seemed a bit confusing to me. I asked enRoute to provide me with a Flickr user they had used and paid. They refused citing a privacy policy, which I though was strange given that photographers have bylines. However, after a quick search on enRoute’s Web site, I found a photo they had sourced from Flickr and contacted the photographer via Flickr mail. She says:

4) FLICKR PHOTOG: “Basically they didn’t ask. I think it’s an awful article and no I’m not happy about it. I’m a fan of Andrew Keane and his wonderful book “The Cult of the Amateur” and I believe this sloppy behaviour from corporates is putting professionals out of jobs. – Some may argue that my behaviour in publishing content online is doing the same, so there’s fire in this argument!

I know Air Canada and their agency have not used the image incorrectly from a legal perspective, but morally, this is pretty bad. It’s just nonsense copy wrapped around a few images from Flickr. The copy doesn’t really even make sense. It’s insulting to people who share their content for the community – (in my case the artist community at Mediamatic who the photo is about). This article is sadly earning Air Canada money from the ads they have wrapped around it. However I’m sure it’s not strengthening their brand with anyone who reads this sloppy journalism.

If I was Brand Manager at Air Canada, I’d be disappointed in this output from the Agency I’d hired.”

So according to enRoute’s editor “It was her error. She’s an intern and has been in our office for a couple of weeks.” This makes sense. A nascent intern decided to make a budget decision without the advice or instructions form a supervisor and in fact, the policy of the company is to pay all Flickr photographers as the managing editor says. This seemed strange to me given the Flickr photographer’s response. Things weren’t really lining up with the companies statement and their emails became more defensive, offensive and uncooperative. Nonetheless, to be fair to the company I would like to print their official statement. It reads (verbatim):

Hi Jonah,

I’m the editor-in-chief of enRoute, and I wish you had taken the time to contact us directly before posting on your blog. My photo editor has reached out to you to resolve any issues you may have with enRoute or Spafax, which publishes the magazine for Air Canada, but you continue to misrepresent my team and the creative work they produce.

One of our core values at enRoute is to promote the work of writers and photographers. Our stories are a curated collection of what we feel are the most interesting people, places and ideas circulating through the world at the moment, including profiles of artists and photographers. It is one of the most award-winning and respected Canadian publications, in fact.

You are reducing the efforts of an entire creative team down to a single correspondence with an intern, which was never verified with anyone else at the magazine, regarding a tiny photo in the back pages of the magazine.

Flickr photographers are usually compensated with a nominal fee, comparable to what we pay for stock photography. The advantage, of course, is that their work is shown to over one million readers, and some people are happy to have their work showcased to our influential readership. This is absolutely in keeping with industry norms. We never violated anyone’s copyright and, in fact, ended up using a shot available from a tourism board, which is why a fee wasn’t offered in this case.

We commission almost all the visuals in the magazine from some of Canada’s (and the world’s) best photographers and illustrators. To suggest otherwise shows that it is unlikely that you’ve ever read one of our issues.

We use a small amount of pick-up, from Flickr, photo agencies and other sources, like virtually every magazine on the planet. In all cases, we credit photographers for every photo, including websites where requested.

Again, my team at enRoute works very hard to put an engaging magazine in our readers’ hands, so I’m not sure what “corporate machine” you are referring to. It’s also available free of charge, in hotels, spas and restaurants across the country, and on our website, enroute.aircanada.com

Perhaps it might be worth taking a look.

Thanks,
Ilana Weitzman

While the above contributor wasn’t paid or asked according to her, in a different situation Flickr user Old Shoe Woman says: “Yes, they asked for my permission. I had to send them an invoice with the agreed amount for the photo. They told me I would get credit. They actually did give me credit. I just couldn’t find it at first. I emailed, and they told me where my name was located. They paid me $50 for the picture.”

So perhaps there is some inconsistency involved in their practices, where some photographers are being paid and some are not. Regardless, my point is the same. Amateur photographers: your work has value. If a commercial enterprise such as enRoute wants to use your image in a magazine (even if its a “a tiny photo in the back pages of the magazine”), you should be paid for it.

The discrepancy in voices between the editors, the intern and photographer is certainly suspicious in my mind if there is an actual policy — or the policy is simply, try to get it for free. Based on the tone and voice of emails I’ve received its hard for me to trust them.

Thoughts from industry professionals

I thought it might be good to get a few more opinions from industry professionals on the matter. A creative director at a major Asian stock imaging agency (being kept anonymous) writes:

“Sourcing images from Flickr or public domain isn’t something new, and Getty Images even has a partnership with the former. Although the biggest difference here is that Air Canada is a big corporation trying to source images for commercial purposes without compensating the photographer (a credit line isn’t compensation in my book, no matter what). As far as I know, Getty at least compensates hobbyists for licensing their work through Flickr. I personally think that if a company considers an image good enough to be published in a magazine read by millions of readers, then it’s good enough to pay for doing so.

In all our years, we have never accepted a credit line as means of payment. We advise all photographers who sign with us not to accept this as well, because it undervalues not only their own work, but the work of other photographers who make a living from photography. The only exception is when images are used for charities or NGOs, with the content provider’s permission.”

Another European agency writes:

“Hi Jonah

Interesting debate! The stock industry was the first to monetise hobbyist and amateur content with the growth of microstock companies.

From where I sit I see the stock industry has utilised Flickr to source new talent. Getty Images has partnered with Flickr to source talent for its Royalty Free and Rights Managed collections. Giving hobbyists an opportunity to move straight in to the previously somewhat ‘closed’ macro market. Those represented are renumerated on sales of their images like any professional would be. http://www.flickr.com/help/gettyimages/

There is no doubt many companies are seeking ‘cost’ driven content and to a large extent this is satisfied by the volume of content available in microstock. However the photographers whether professional or hobbyist are paid royalties.

From a personal perspective I believe photographers (hobbyists and amateurs included) ought to be paid if their work is being used. Large corporates can certainly find the financial muster to offer something!

A professional photographer whose work and experience has spanned large portions of the globe says:

“As a professional photographer, I am very careful about how my work is used and for what purpose. This is because I feel my images have value.

The perceived value of photographs taken by an amateur may differ from that made by a professional, but an amateur’s photographs still have value. They may not realise it but they are hurting the professional photography industry if they give images away for free.

At the end of the day, every photographer deserves to be compensated for the use of their images, whether they are professional or amateur. A byline is never enough”

While I can’t seem to come to a conclusion of what’s actually happening at enRoute, beyond veterans shamelessly blaming a newbie, a couple things are clear:

1. Industry professionals agree if a photo is good enough to be published, it should be paid for.
2. A credit line, is not compensation.
3. Cost driven content makes amateur photographers a great target for publications looking to save a buck.
4. Giving away photographs to commercial clients undervalues not only your work, but the work of other photographers who make a living from photography.
5. You will not be seeing my byline in enRoute.

RELATED: Journalist Tom Spender just sent me a link to a great NYT article titled: “For Photographers, the Image of a Shrinking Path.” Worth a read on the industry and its use of Flickr.

Tweet

Share

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.

Sound woes, worries and wonders

A couple weeks ago, I mentioned I was making a short movie with the goal of visualizing China’s economic growth. I wanted to show people in the West and East how fast things are moving here, and at what expense.

While this short movie is done now, I still can’t release it after having one the least professional interactions of my life with a band called “Tortoise.” I made the movie with a song of theirs in hopes of them (a) having a thread of philanthropy in them or (b) a thread of capitalism and they would license the track at a reasonable price considering the medium … Or perhaps, they might be interested in some exposure in the world’s largest and fastest growing Internet market …

Over the course of a month we exchanged 24 emails, with varying responses ranging from “we’ll find a price on licensing” to “we are going to pass.” Had the band said ‘no’ to begin with, I wouldn’t have wasted a month trying to communicate with them. While the person who manages the bands intellectual property ignored emails, and strung me along for a month before giving the finite answer of no, along with no explanation, I had a lot of time to think about the Chinese newspaper industry in regards to intellectual property.

While I’ve worked in newsroom’s in Africa completely built on bootlegged software, China seems to be way ahead of other parts of the developing world when it comes to software legitimacy. However, it is still very much a wild west of intellectual property, and in terms of images and sounds — its pretty much a free-for-all. Had one of my Chinese colleagues wanted to use the song mentioned above, there’s a pretty good chance there would have been no conversation with the band, no disappointment from their lack of cooperation and you’d be watching a neat video now instead of reading this diatribe. To make things more complicated for Westerners, there’s seemingly very little you can do to stop this. In the case of state media (all media in China), your law suit against Uncle Hu and China wouldn’t get you so far. This makes things very frustrating when trying to respect people’s property and to set a good example, to be denied by the band without an explanation.

I’m sure from Tortoise’s point of view, they see no value in creating public awareness and would not consider the usage to have a philanthropic purpose.

So while back at the drawing board, I thought I would share with you some useful resources for when this happens. Here are some useful stock sound, loop and music sites I use for multimedia purposes, that don’t include dealing with a record company called Thrill Jockey Records or any band named Tortoise:

• “Soundsnap is a community driven online sound library. It features 100,000 high quality sound effects and music loops from Hollywood sound designers and cutting edge music producers. Last year, more than 3 million people visited Soundsnap from all over the world!” I’ve been using this service for years now and have found them to be very useful, especially for sound effects and finding appropriate ambient noises.
• Royaltyfreemusic.com “has 12,000 royalty-free music tracks and over 12,000 sound effects that can be previewed without a subscription and can be purchased as a single or album CD format. You can also download royalty-free music and background music right from the site in MP3 or WAV format.” This site certainly has more junk you have to sort though but it is relatively expansive. Be ware of their horribly annoying audio watermark on sample tracks.
• Neosounds has a large variety of sounds including some useful commercial sounds ranging from 1930’s music to filmscores. Best off, the service allows you to download Lo-Fi versions for testing purposes and to show clients.
• Partners in rhyme “started out as a group of composers working with former Devo leader Mark Mothersbaugh’s Mutato Muzika in Hollywood” that designed sound for commercials, games, cartoons and TV series. Although they also have some horribly annoying audio watermarks, the site is useful.
• Audio Micro has a “database of over 300,000 stock music and sound effects tracks” including a library of free sound effects, free sound clips and ringtones. This site seems to be doing better in the social media realm of a community as well as giving users an easy outlet to sell sounds and tracks.
• Shockwave Sound has some impressive collections of sound, plus some options of customized tracks. Check out their testimonial page and their blog as well.
• Premium Beat uses “musicians [that] come from eclectic backgrounds but all have been dedicated to their art for many years. Their work has been featured on television, radio, films and on the Internet for hundreds of clients, including General Motors, Volkswagen, Bell Canada, Ford, Molson, Sony, Gatorade, The National Film Board, Nagano Olympic Games.” There site is professional with a great search engine, searchable by category, keyword, artist or collection.
• One of the more expensive collections of stock Pond Five also includes stock video. There collection includes 382,293 Video Clips (5540 fresh this week), 6,018 Music Tracks (135 fresh this week) and 28,132 Sound Effects (68 fresh this week). A very nice interface and site, this is certainly a good resource.
• Stockmusic.net “represents the music of world class composers from all over the planet for licensing in everything from television, film, advertising and new media applications to on-hold messaging and background music.”
• Perhaps the most unique site on this list, American DJ, singer-songwriter, and musician Moby actual has a ‘gratis‘ page with lots of free music available for non commercial uses. Moby says:
  

  “this portion of moby.com, ‘film music’, is for independent and non-profit filmmakers, film students, and anyone in need of free music for their independent, non-profit film, video, or short … the music is free as long as it’s being used in a non-commercial or non-profit film, video, or short. if you want to use it in a commercial film or short then you can apply for an easy license, with any money that’s generated being given to the humane society.”

  Huge props to Moby for his music, his genoristy to film makers, students and even commercial peoples, donating the money to the humane society. If only Tortoise had his attitude …

Hopefully I’ll have the new movie (sans Tortoise) done in the next couple days. Stay tuned …