Pierre Martin in Chavignol – December 2008A few weeks ago I received the following email from US importer of Domaine Martin’s Sancerre.
‘I was searching for photos of our newest Sancerre producer (Domaine Martin) and found your wonderful photo of Pierre (whose vines our cuvee is bottled from). We would love to be able to use your photo on the producer page for the Michael Skurnik Wines website.
I know that you own the rights to these. Would you be willing to allow us to use this photo? We would credit you for the image of course…
Let me know what you think.
Thanks.
Also, I just want to let you know that your website is quite impressive. Very informative and interesting, especially for us Loire valley wine geeks…’
The domaine in Chavignol is now run by young Pierre Martin, who is doing a good job. I replied that they could, of course use the photo with a credit, but there would be a charge of £60 for its use – had I been properly commercial I would have quoted according to size wanted and placement in the website. To this day I have not had the courtesy of a response. I see that they have used copies of the labels instead.
The domaine in Chavignol is now run by young Pierre Martin, who is doing a good job. I replied that they could, of course use the photo with a credit, but there would be a charge of £60 for its use – had I been properly commercial I would have quoted according to size wanted and placement in the website. To this day I have not had the courtesy of a response. I see that they have used copies of the labels instead.
This is not an isolated incident. It appears that there is a widespread assumption that now that photos are digital they should be free. My experience of wine magazines in mainland Europe and I gather some magazines covering other subjects often decline to pay for the use of photos. Instead they expect the writer to provide or source the photos for free. The expectation being that writers will approach the wine producers they write about for pictures.
A few years ago I was asked by a leading UK trade title to write a news report on the Salon des Vins de Loire as well as to provide a few photos. When I sent in my invoice covering both the text and the photos, the deputy editor was scandalised. ‘It’s outrageous that you are charging for a few snaps.’ Incidentally the price I charged for the photos was the same as I had previous invoiced this title a few years previously when it was under different ownership. Fortunately the editor had a different view and the invoice was paid in full.
Do people think that there is no cost in taking digital photos? Once the camera, including the memory card and any lenses if using an SLR, have been bought, it is true that there is no further cost in physically pressing the shutter unlike when film was in use.
With a moment’s thought, however, that this is far from the end of the story.
Let’s take my picture of Pierre Martin in Chavignol. I took it when researching a story for Decanter on red Sancerre. This involved a trip over from Touraine. Although my accommodation was funded by the Bureau du Centre, I paid for the transport costs: petrol and motorway tolls.
It takes considerable time to download, organize, catalogue and display photos. As a self-employed writer and photographer, this is unpaid time. I took a number photos of Pierre Martin, so that I could select the best, which are filed on a separate hard disk and backed up on another. Further costs, although disk storage is relatively cheap today.
I now have a large and ever expanding library of photos, especially from the Loire. I’m delighted to be asked for photos but if it is for commercial use there will be a charge. They are covered by a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.5 UK: Scotland License. I have to make a living.
I’m sure that Domaine Martin’s US importer does not give their wines away for nothing not even if their customers promise faithfully to pass on their business’ details if their friends enjoy the wines.
17 comments:
Hear hear! We are regularly infuriated by commercial websites that use our photos. Their aim is to make money - why should we offer our photos for free. Equally infuriating is that it doesn't matter what you put on your photos regarding usage rights, they will get used anyway by people who don't even have the courtesy to ask (or in one case, ask after they had already put three of our photos on their website).
It's not just the photos - someone's probably stealing your words too. As a college teacher, I confront this issue regularly. Many students today seem to believe that "origninal work" = "I cut and pasted it myself." Apparently they leave school and become salespeople.
I'll never forget being poo-pooed at the EWBC, when I talked about being infuriated by others stealing my images - some even with the bandwidth. I was pretty much laughed at. One guy even said, "Boy, your images must be really good to have others want to steal them." Regardless of their quality (and I've been hired for my images since the early 1980s), taking someone else's work without paying for it is stealing. Everyone believes the Internet should be free. We've all got to get over that.
the internet should be for free..... it's the content that should be charged for.
Hotels get away with murder on internet when the pub down the road does it for free.
Have to agree. I have been approached a few times for photos in the same or similar circumstances. My answer is pretty much as yours, ... although I need to raise my fees a bit!
One other thing missing is that there are people who specialise in photography who also need to make a living. They do not need their clients switching to using 'free' amateur photos just because we are there for a broader range of reasons with other possible sources of income.
It's an important issue, thank you for upholding the standards for commercial photography use and explaining the issue so clearly. As a commercial and editorial photographer specializing in wine & travel (www.andreajohnsonphotography.com)
I often encounter the same scenarios from publishers and corporations that should know better, and from new writers that haven't been educated on the standard practices of the industry. This erodes the value of professional imagery and writing for everyone involved.
Thanks for the great post. Just the other day a magazine contacted me to use my photos to 'promote' my work. That was the fee they were expecting I would be thrilled about. And in my case, I shoot film so there are expenses on top of equipment, creative time, etc.
How do we change people's minds that creative work is still work that should be supported. If we're not paid what's there to promote?
Many thanks to all for the supportive comments. People's perceptions need to be challenged.
I think one of the most important things you're saying (important to me anyway) is that you charge for COMMERCIAL use. If I wanted to put one of your images in a free blog, your CC license generously allows me to spread information about this Martin fellow.
But if I charged people to access my blog or sold a magazine or book with the photo in it, you'd charge me to use the content generating that income. Fight the good fight!
Hi Ryan! Yes if you want to use the photo of Pierre Martin on a blog where you have no commercial interest then there would be no charge.
On the other hand if you wanted to use any of the photos I took of you during EWBC10 on your site or blog, then there would be a charge as if would assume that you are promoting you, your vineyards and your wines.
Gregory. I agree with you about hotels. Often it is the expensive ones that charge for access, while some budget hotels don't.
The problem is that we're in an oversupply market with everyone being a photographer as a result of the digital age. The consequence is that not only is it driving prices down but also the quality. The general public has become more accepting of lower quality imagery. The plus side is that for magazines and businesses to differentiate and 'stand out' from the crowd, my belief is that some will choose to revert back to better quality imagery. It is this message that has to be sold hard by all visual media folk! They must also appreciate that images are being duplicated across the internet and therefore can be 'brand' damaging. Not sure everyone is aware of this.
Agree Jim. Most enquiries I receive regarding use of content or images expects to be able to give credit and little else. I ask for a fee similar to the one you quote for images although I am sure I have nothing like the bank you have. Many just use text and images assuming if it's on the internet they can just use it without even asking, never mind a fee. Copying and pasting makes it so easy.
As for text, recently updating a profile of a Bordeaux chateau, I noticed I had a date wrong (I had written 1564 instead of 1654). The number of snippets published by online retailers, using this incorrect date, none of whom even credited Winedoctor as being their source, reached double figures before I gave up counting.
Couldn't agree more Jim. I was asked by a wine producer for images of biodynamics. "It's only for an in-house mag for US lawyers who are doing a wine promotion," was the plead. I emailed some images and a price list: one image = £80, two or more images £60 each. I was never given a reply. I doubt a US lawyer would work for free for me, so why should I work for free for US lawyers (my images were shot on black and white film, hand processed, then scanned = lots of time....)? If I ever discover they used my images without permission I'll...er hire a US lawyer and sue them!
Thanks Chris and Monty. It is a widespread perception and problem.
Chris. A fair number of photos true but not properly sorted. A task for part of the next month or so I hope!
Another point to bear in mind is that under Article 9 of the French Civil Code Pierre Martin has "un droit d'image" in the photo Jim has taken. It cannot therefore be used on other websites - commercial or otherwise - without Pierre's specific approval.
True Mark. I wonder how often that is followed.
Post a Comment