Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/07/03
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]At 10:37 PM 7/3/2004 +0200, you wrote: >But Tina, I assume that all of the named photographers entered into >whatever agreements they have with Getty voluntarily. So I still do not >see what is bad or immoral about these sales. Sure, from yours or Ted's >point of view it might be better if no print ever changed hands for less >than $500, but photographs, even fine art ones, are a commodity whose >price is set by supply and demand. There is nothing inherently moral or >immoral about that. > >Nathan No, not necessarily voluntarily. Getty bought out several stock agencies without any input from the photographers in the agencies. Many photographers lost all rights to their photos that were in the agencies' libraries because of fine-print clauses in their original contracts. Royalty Free has been terrible for photographers. It has almost destroyed the stock photography business and may yet. Instead of getting paid for every use of a photograph, some photographers sell all rights without a thought for the future. Advertising agencies have begun to realize that it can be very embarrassing when two competing companies end up using the same royalty free photographs in their advertising campaigns, but many businesses are going for the cheapest possible photographs which are usually the RF disks with many photographs that can be used often for any purpose. ASMP, APA, Editorial Photographers and other professional photographer associations fight against the use of RF photographs. Tina Tina Manley, ASMP www.tinamanley.com http://www.pdiphotos.com http://www.workbookstock.com http://www.newscom.com http://www.americanphotojournalist.com