[Leica] Professional Tourist

[tedgrant at shaw.ca (Ted Grant)]

Frank Filippone offered:
Subject: RE: [Leica] Professional Tourist


> The other side of the coin.....
>
> So Ted goes to Rome to take professional pictures and finds there is a ( 
> really high, way too high) fee for each exposure he takes
> as a professional using the photographs in a professional way.  Ted 
> decides to not pay the fee, but alternatively to act like a
> tourist and get the pictures he wants, and uses in a professional capacity 
> anyway......
>
> Doesn't anyone see a problem with this approach?  Isn't there some 
> professional ethical problem here?
>
> How is this different from the guy that steals Ted's photos and uses them 
> himself to get an advertisement layout and not pay Ted a
> dime?
>
> Or did I misunderstand Ted's actions and intentions or professional 
> photography ethics?
>
> Where is BD when I need him?<<,


Frank,
You don't need B.D. :-) I can speak for myself! ;-)

You're talking about something you have no idea what you're talking about! 
That is unless you are a professional stock photographer! Which I doubt or 
you wouldn't have posted this stupid piece of drivel!

First of all paying the original fee was beyond anyone's wildest 
imagination! I mean over a $100,000 dollars for a one day selection of 
pictures with no absolute client to purchase? The wildest stock photography 
shoot of speculation at any time! Are you that wealthy you'd be prepared to 
lay out $100,000 dollars on speculation that "MAYBE YOU MIGHT MAKE A FEW 
DOLLARS FROM THIS PHOTOGRAPHIC OUT LAY?"

We're talking about "stock photography" not a solid guaranteed paid 
assignmenet, a shooting of speculation that one of the photographs may or 
may not garner a $75.00 dollar fee, a $250.00 fee! Or on occasion higher?

There wasn't any ethics involved, nor was circumventing the stupidity of 
bureaucrats who think every photograph garners a fantastic sum of money 
because one is a professional photographer. Besides a tripod is no guarantee 
the user is a professional!

Heck amateurs who have the smarts sell their pictures later make far 
more..."free income" under these conditions simply because they walk in as 
amateurs, shoot a bunch of frames and walk out. Sell later for undisclosed 
amounts!

We who are honourable and admit we're professionals get screwed by the 
system and are penalized because we're truthful! How dare you question my 
honesty as a professional photographer admitting the truth!

>>> How is this different from the guy that steals Ted's photos and uses 
>>> them himself to get an advertisement layout and not pay >>> Ted a 
>>> dime?<<<

A major difference idiot!

First of all, my creative ability to see a different looking imageis the 
first condition!!!  My seeing is quite unique compared to the artefact lying 
there for thousands of years doing nothing while I make it look interesting!

Me? I'm making an interesting photograph that will bring thousands of 
tourists to the area to spend multi-thousands of dollars for bureaucratic 
welfare.  Mean while my interesting photograph, "if bought and used," may 
bring folks to their area spending dollars. While I may or may not re-cover 
my cost outlay!!

Imagine at no cost to them! Think about that aspect!

I'm basically giving it to them for free! And given I've spent the cost of 
flights, hotel, meals and sundry, purely on speculation, they should be damn 
appreciative I've given my time and income to help their economic cause for 
free!!! Think about that my friend!

And the ridiculous assumption of the bureaucrats who think everyone who is a 
professional makes thousands of dollars from their pile of rocks? Bull shit!

Get real Frank, it isn't TV! It's real life!

ted