Menu
#634. Monday Post (21 Aug 2017): Unsplash – death to sales?
By Adrian | Monday Post
A few days ago, I came across this article on PetaPixel, entitled “the future of photography”. The article is written by Mikael Cho, the founder of a website called “Unsplash”, a social networking photo sharing website on which users to give away copyright free high-resolution photos.
I read it with a profound sense of unease as the article set about explaining why giving away photos for free benefits photographers, and by the end it left me annoyed and depressed.
Before I launch into an apoplectic rage about why I think giving away work for free really isn’t good, it’s probably important to give some background to my photography. Through a chain of events and relationships that are probably too convoluted to describe here, about 7 years ago I started to photograph physique sports competitions in South East Asia. For those who may not know, “Physique Sports” covers bodybuilding and physique modelling, the latter having a less extreme and more fashionable body type that can often be seen on the covers of fitness magazines. Over the years I started to specialise in physique sports photography together with travel, since although the genres have little in common, it allowed me to combine travel, friendship, and competition schedules.
Panupong Prateep, bodybuilder, Thailand
With the increasing popularity of social media in Asia, Facebook became a platform for me to network with athletes, find details about upcoming events, and keep in touch with distant friends. It also became a convenient way to distribute competition photography, and I have spent considerable time curating a Facebook page to market my physique photography and to help build relationships with athletes in many countries, in the hope of being able to commercialise it.
Jevit Ukum, model physique, Thailand
One of the problems with many social media platforms is that they don’t really respect content creators, because making it as easy as possible to upload and share things – even other people’s work – allows those platforms to grow, fueled by user numbers, clicks and advertising. Instagram doesn’t make it easy to download other people’s photographs, but Facebook in all its guises certainly does. Although features are available to “share” content, the mobile phone Apps in particular make it far too easy to download someone else’s photo to your phone and then post it again yourself.
So, what is the relevance of all this to free photography?
Let’s continue with further discourse. Recently I read another article on Petapixel where a skateboarding photographer talked about problems with a particular brand of clothing who had used his pictures on their corporate social media without asking permission or making payment. He was well known and well connected in the sport, and had relationships with other companies in the sport who paid to use his work, but he recounted the exchange with the company who had infringed his copyright.
“Arm”, bodybuilding, Thailand
It was a litany of half-baked excuses: social media isn’t commercial use; they just wanted to show support for their athlete; it was free advertising for the (uncredited) photographer; they were a small company who couldn’t afford to pay; and finally, when they took the photo down they therefore thought there was no need to pay.
Why is this relevant? I’ve had almost exactly the same experiences with athletes and sports nutrition companies, who think it’s ok to copy and repost my photography to their social media, usually without any credit, and without asking permission or offering any financial compensation for commercial use. Sports nutrition is very profitable, and the companies who produce it thrive on social media exposure for free advertising.
Pornchai Tramasangwarn, men’s fitness, Thailand
The underlying problem is complex and varied, but essentially digital photography and particularly smart phones have “democratised” photography, because now anyone can do it, all the time, and instantly upload it to social media. Further, social media and the internet has “democratised” the distribution of photography, so that it is made so easy and effortless that content creators have almost no control over whatever they choose to share online. Finally, most people and many companies have no understanding of copyright and intellectual property, and therefore think nothing of reposting someone else’s work without any need to recompense a copyright owner beyond taking down content that was used because implicitly they thought it gave them some financial gain.
So what is the point of all this diatribe against the evils of online?
In Mikael Cho’s article, he extolls the virtues of his social media platform for free photography by rolling off a number of arguments which seem painful in their familiarity.
Firstly, they started it because they are artists and they wanted to share their work with others for vague philanthropic purposes, because it was better than the few hundred dollars they could make selling those images. We will come back to the “few hundred dollars” later, but apparently by the 250k members sharing photos freely, they have inspired others with lots of creative acts. So, if I allow others to use my work for free, it’s for a collective artistic benefit, like living in a 1970s hippy commune of, like, creativity, man.
Chris Ng, model physique, Malaysia
The second claimed benefit of Unsplash is that it allows artists to find an audience, rather like all other social media. It’s true that it’s why many of us post images to social media platforms or blog about our cameras, but the reasons for doing so are wide and varied. Some like to show their work with friends and family, others probably enjoy the feedback of garnering “likes” or praise, and others because they want to show their “art”. Mikael Cho says that artists need to find an audience, and goes on to give examples of authors and musicians who have distributed their work for free to get recognition or because traditional avenues were not open to them.
The final comment on this from the rapper Chance is telling: “I make money from touring and selling merchandise, and I honestly believe if you put effort into something and you execute properly, you don’t necessarily have to go through the traditional ways”. So, he gives away music for download because it finds an audience who will pay for a ticket to a concert or buy a t-shirt. As photographers, does Mikael Cho think should we should be selling tickets to our latest blockbuster exhibition, with an exit via the gift shop where our devoted art-fans can buy a postcard?
Fanni Fu’adi, men’s physique (“muscle model”), Indonesia
He talks passionately about the size of the Unsplash community and the volume of photos and visitors it generates, but the argument is no different from any other social media platform – it let’s you find an audience. In theory. As many who use social media will know, finding an audience and generating traffic to your work is not easy – you don’t just upload some photos and then sit back and relish in the glow of praise, feedback and followers. I’ve worked hard on the Facebook page I manage for 2 years to achieve just over 5000 followers, although one of the issues with Facebook pages is that content on them isn’t put in front of other users as much as from personal Facebook accounts, and increasingly Facebook monetise your content by taking payment to get it in front of an audience. I chose Facebook because it was the platform that most of the people who appear in my competition photos also use, and many other social media platforms aimed at photographers such as Flickr have no groups for some of the work I produce.
“Toey”, men’s fitness. Thailand
Mikael Cho goes on to argue that Unsplash is good for commercial photographers too. I’m all ears: I want to know how they can help me make money from my photography. He points out that revenue from stock sales is in decline, but that cameras are getting cheaper. Rather strangely, if you asked most photographers they would probably say they don’t feel cameras, lenses, computers and all the other equipment needed to take high quality photographs are getting cheaper. Mikael concludes this issue of costs with the claim that as the megapixel count of smartphones has increased, everyone with a phone is now a professional photographer. Errr, right. So Mikael starts his article by saying that he gave away 10 high res photos instead of “a few hundred dollars” selling them, but later comments that stock sales revenues are in constant decline.
None of this this is news to anyone who has ever tried to sell stock. I wish I know where I could sell 10 images for stock and get a few hundred dollars. The “micro stock” libraries that have taken over the market pay a tenth or a hundredth of their established rivals such as Alamy, and are full of photos taken with phones of dubious technical and artistic merit. With licensing charges in some cases below a single dollar, it makes me wonder if there is any point in spending time finessing images from a professional camera in an attempt to sell. In the good old days you could probably make a living from a few hundred sales; with micro stock, you need to sell hundreds of thousands of images to make any significant income.
Ahmad Mathuridi, Bodybuilder, Malaysia
So far we have a great deal of stating the obvious: social media allows you to find an audience; giving away work for free finds you an audience; stock sales values are declining and everyone has a phone. Mikael Cho says “the photo licensing business model doesn’t fit”, so I’m waiting for the big reveal to understand how Unsplash can help me…
Don’t hold your breath.
Unsplash can help you find paying clients, because some of their 250,000 members have received bookings or have even been flown half way around the world for a paid photo shoot. People react to imagery, so Unsplash helps you make a connection. Oh, and lots of people don’t have the resources to pay for images, so they can use Unsplash to get something free – but if they do want to pay for something later, they can go back to the photographer that the free photos came from.
So, putting work on social media can help you find clients – nothing new there – but giving away high-resolution images means people who would have downloaded something from the web (illegally) can now download something from the web (legally), and perhaps might one day pay for some work – although the latter is entirely unsubstantiated, it’s just Mikael’s hunch.
Bell Deto, bodybuilder, Malaysia
From time to time I get asked to supply high-resolution copies of my competition photos. It is generally athletes who want to use them for marketing purposes, as most work as personal trainers or gym owners and want to make a poster of their success to help promote themselves. I could give the pictures away for free, with my name on them, because it would help me find an audience, but I don’t – because I know that not one of the potential “audience” for those images will ever lead to a paying client. The athletes don’t want to pay, because if I ask for a fee then they will simply go to the next best photographer and ask the same until they get what they want – it’s just a race to the bottom for whoever will provide something for free. The nutrition and clothing companies won’t pay either, because they are used to endless free publicity via social media where everyone with a camera phone will snap them and tag them and effectively give away their rights for corporate use, therefore eroding any ability that photographers may have to try profit from their work.
He concludes by talking about “the future value of photography”, although apparently he doesn’t really know what that is because they are trying to figure it out because it is evolving. The industry is full of photographers trying to find an audience and make a business in a culture that puts little or no value on photography.
Tanawan Vetsaphan. men’s physique, Thailand
Given my own experience, I can tell Mikael the answer to giving away high-resolution work.
It’s a big fat $0.
I would be interested to hear other people’s views on giving away copyright on high resolution images? Am I a dinosaur trying to own my own work for potential profit? Does the new economy of internet sharing bring new business and income from online fame? How does one balance online publicity with control of copyright to create a sustainable business?
Competition photographs in this article were taken at “Mr Thailand 2017”, “14th South East Asian Bodybuilding and Physique Sports Championship”, and “Men of Steel” (Malaysia) with a Sony A6000 APS-C E-mount camera and Sony FE 70-200mm f4 G OSS lens between April and May 2017. Bell Deto’s portrait was taken with a Sony A7R2 full frame E-mount camera and Zeiss Batis 85mm f1.8 OSS lens. The photo on the main page is of Nathakorn Pinno, a men’s fitness athlete from Thailand, and the header photo of this article is Pornchai Tramasangwarn a men’s fitness athlete also from Thailand.
I hope to follow this with an article about physique portraits I take “in the field” whilst travelling, if it is something that would interest Dear Susan’s readers.
#981. Friday Post (20 March 2020) – The Write of Spring
#958. Monday Post (27 Jan 2020) – Galleries, projets, pics of the month, challenges and a few thoughts following comments
#947. Monday Post (30 Dec 2019) – Last post! (for the year)
#936. Monday Post (02 Dec 2019) – Of Workshops, Resources and Online Galleries on DearSusan
#921. Monday Post (28 Oct 2019 – Workshop update: the Layer Cake effect
#909. Monday Post (30 Sept 2019) – Memory lanes and October Challenge
Session expired
Please log in again. The login page will open in a new tab. After logging in you can close it and return to this page.
Hi Adrian,
My ‘condolences’ for this … it’s become a really hard world in which to *make a difference*.
The tectonic forces that regulate content creation and consumption have profoundly evolved over the past years and what you are describing is everywhere to be seen.
It used to be that musicians made their fortunes with albums. Now, they mostly pay to get their songs in front of a spotify audience and make what living they do on the road.
It used to be that professionals consultants found clients via white papers and organic search. Now, they pay 200 000$ to companies such as Advantage Media Group to get books onto the NY Times bestseller list, just as a form of authority marketing for their services.
Nowadays, content producers often *pay* to get their stuff in front of their public. They don’t get it there for free, let alone get paid for it.
And the second shift is related to how few platforms are left for actual distribution. One by one, all the media have fallen into the trap and relinquished their influence to a handful of social giants. Sick transit …
How do you win, in such markets ? Mostly, you don’t.
Some do.
Some get there first. That’s what Luminous Landscape and Steve Huff did. They got there first, built influence within a community when similar offerings were so scarce and worked hard to keep it and monetise it. Likewise on Facebook, Twitter, Vine, Periscope … the early bird usually gets the spoils, until the place shuts down, at least. At least Lula and the Huff have built email lists rather than rely exclusively on the lure of free.
Others learn the rules of the market and pay their dues. Literally. By understanding early on that there is no free lunch and that it’s a lot easier to scale paid media than organic, some learned the (really difficult) rules of advertising on these platforms to get their stuff in front of as many eyes as possible.
A last category become recognised as interesting artists, lucky bleeders. You have no idea how envious I am 😉
But mostly, you don’t. That’s why I hate this new business model so much. It’s made the success peak much more narrow. It creates so many losers and so few (big) winners. Billions of users feel short-term happiness and long-term burnout / disillusionment. Quality independent platforms struggle to survive. And a handful of digerati war lords buy super yachts they’ll spend a couple of days a year on. Who exactly has truly won, here ?
My guess is Unsplash is just hoping to grow big enough to become a dot on someone’s radar, be acquired and move on. My guess is it won’t succeed. Because, as you mention, other than a warm fuzzy feeling of being a part of something noble, what’s in it for the content creators ? The USP is way to weak for Unsplash to grow in any significant way (250k users is soooo very very far from critical mass in an economy of free). Plus, no one really cares about good photography these days. Good enough is plenty. Most of the photographs on Unsplash end up on corporate websites as diffuse backgrounds that look modern but don’t attract attention. Some of the unsplash collections are actually built specifically for that purpose : disappear. Great marketing, right ? Plus the platform doesn’t even require attribution by the user of the photographs. Totally unconvincing as a marketing platform.
So how do you win the content game ?
I’m not sure you can, in a world producing so much of it and really, deeply, consuming so little (a like doesn’t count).
Still, my money’s still on building and serving a community. Take DearSusan. When we did Ze Workshop in Paris, it took a couple of posts to get enough people interested to make the event worthwhile. We have zero digital clout (our sharing buttons dont even work) but, inside our small community, some people trust enough to follow us 4 days in Paris. But when we tried to sell Insight Guides, well … beer money, at best. Unless the brand is super strong with the masses, no one pays for content these days.
Maybe you can sell something else than content? Behind the scenes b-roll ?Interviews, anything that would get 100-1000 people really interested and willing to pay a subscription ?Or teach ? Online courses are a real opportunity. Use your photographs in a course on physique sports co-created with some of these champions / trainers … Transformation is a strong promise. Content in itself no longer is.
Also, build it so that members of the community have a strong vested interest in its success. It’s not that difficult to do if you know what people are really after. That’s what I’m currently trying to do in a new company I am building. I have no idea where that will go but it’s a lot more fun, ethical and promising than anything I’ve seen following the parasitic burn-cash-and-other-people’s-resources-to-grow-at-all-cost model.
My overlong underinformed 2 cents Adrian 😉 Impressive photos, BTW (Bell Deto is actually really great). That, in itself is a form of reward, right ?
Pascal, you touch on so many interesting and well informed points that I would like to respond to, but I will try to keep it brief!
Firstly, you are right that as with many things in the “new economy”, gradually the numbers thin until only a small number of large players survive. For social media that’s Facebook, for search it’s Google, with a few others hanging in their who may or may not have the critical mass and momentum to monetise themselves for the long haul.
Regarding paying to get in front of people (on social media), I have yet to be convinced that it leads to business and financial results for those in “content creation”. Of course, advertising works if you have a product to sell etc, but for artists and individuals, I fear it is spending money chasing the dream rather than generating any short term or long term financial benefit.
You are right that some people had that “early mover advantage” and worked hard and smart to make it work for them – but I don’t think what they did is repeatable now, in spite of the endless supply of eager amateurs and the odd professional who blog or vlog in the hope of gaining a following. Obviously much “blogging” has now move to video, which I personally dislike as it takes 20 minutes to say what could be summarised in a few bullet points, but I accept that’s where the potential money is these days.
As you say, the odd artisan gets lucky and gets discovered through online media.
I share your sentiments about Unsplash. There is no need to attribute use, and most will end up “invisible” in the background of corporate use. I can only assume that the Unsplash owners are aiming to get enough traction to create a platform they can sell for their own profit. As you ask, what in it for the content creators?
$0
I think you are right that finding a market and serving it is a way forward. It was the theory behind starting to specialise in physique (and other things). I know of a few photographers who earn money serving a market they serve or have created. Some sell some form of “stock” to existing clients or those interested in their genres, others teach or sell tours etc. There would be no point in spending time uploading competition photos to Alamy, because the people who might buy would never pay Alamy rates, but there could be a market for direct sales because you are a known and trusted source for that work. I would love to form some “community” with interviews or other content, but an international presence creates real problems with language as English often isn’t well spoken or understood.
Thank you for you comment about the photos – as I commented to “Pete”, I think male physique can be difficult to share compared to female boudoir work, for example. Bell’s portrait was difficult because I was told afterwards that he “had problems”, so sometimes “keeping it simple” works best. Given I often have no opportunity to plan locations and there needs to be a certain amount of quick planning and improvisation, I often look at the results once the post production is complete and feel satisfied, which is a reward. I hope to write a future article about some of those “in the field” portraits, if it interests others.
Adrian, I feel for you, really I do. I am afraid however that this is (probably) a losing battle. You have not mentioned another segment of professional photography, that of weddings. How many pros have lost opportunities to so-called “uncle- Bobs”, meaning amateurs-with-a-camera? All of them, and more than once. How many times have I been asked to “Uncle-Bob” something or other? Many times. Do I do it? Sometimes. Mainly for clients (paying clients, that is, who, unless I stepped in, would use totally worthless pictures, and leaving the client in this self-inflicted condition makes me cringe).
Because, as you rightly put it, the fact is that, with smartphones, there is a camera in every pocket, and the ability to charge evaporates.
Unless, that is, the quality of your (the talented professional’s) work is so much better that it immediately shows, and reflects on the subject. That is not easy to achieve on the low-res Internet, and the quality of the images taken by garden-variety equipmeent keeps improving. The soon-to-arrive AI-managed pictures will take that one step further. That is our challenge.
Or, should we fail, high-quality professional photography will die, swamped by the mass of low-quality, ubiquitous, free images.
Our work is cut out. I say “our” because, even though I am not a pro, I am on your side. Work deserves pay. It is that simple. One aspect of Cho’s position which you did not point out is that the value of a Wesbite is traffic. By offering free high-res images, essentially something-for-nothing, Cho’s site gets traffic, and therefore increases in commercial value. So Cho’s getting you/others to work for free is making him wealthier. And he asks you to willingly cut your throat for his benefit. Does he really think you are that daft?
Philbert, thanks for your thoughts.
To deal one of your final points first, I was going to write about Unsplash effectively monetising other people’s photos to grow their website. However, I took a look and there was no obvious advertising or other commercial content – therefore if they are making money, I don’t know how, unless they are selling their members data.
I completely agree that camera-phone photography and what you call “Uncle Bob” is eroding many photography markets, particularly for any kind of “event” that the public attend. If I was a journalist or photo-journalist I would we worried to as increasingly content from the general public makes it into credible news sources and reports.
I also agree that it’s hard to differentiate yourself on a small screen, where your work may get paused over for one second before moving on. Jason Lanier has made similar points. Although he is often disliked for his persona and his work, he speaks with passion, and has pointed out that if you have camera equipment you have to use it in ways that make your work look much better than someone with a camera phone. One example he gives is the use of high speed sync flash, to balance subject and background, commenting that even some professionals don’t know how to use it. Another example he gave was at a recent workshop he and another photographer were taking pictures of the same model doing the same poses at the same time, but he used portable lighting for his shots and therefore they just looked better.
I would like to believe that “quality”, flair, or creativity would differentiate work from camera phones. I am always flattered that many athletes like my photos, or ask if I have pictures of them at events, but turning that into money is difficult. At some events there are “official” photographers or agencies, but I can only assume someone is paying them to be there because if they do sell, the rates are so low that even in South East Asia it’s hard to imagine how it could cover the cost of having maybe 5-10 staff there, plus equipment costs, travel etc. In Singapore, the situation is even worse as the local branch of the organising federation expect photographers to pay for a media license that only allows them to sell their work via the federations own website! This shows a profound misunderstanding about the photographic business and also shows no respect for photographers and their work.
In lots of branches of photography, the traditional sources of revenue are declining, or it’s becoming harder to get work. I don’t know what the answer is, but I do know it’s not giving away something of high quality for free, to help line Mikael Cho’s pockets in the future.
In answer to your final question, he clearly does think we are stupid.
Adrian, I do feel for you. I can not for the life of me understand why people do the kinds of things they do on social media sites. Have they never read the Terms of Service? I refuse to post any of my images on ANY social media site of any kind. I’m certainly not a pro or that good a photographer, but I simply won’t set myself up for the grief and aggravation of having my poor efforts stolen to enrich someone else. Luckily, I’m not driven by any need or necessity to make money form my photography, so I don’t need a website or Facebook page to promote my work. Reading your article just convinces me again that its not somewhere I want to go.
It is a double-edged sword that has been discussed here previously: some of us want to use social media to show our work (for various reasons), but the downside is that it makes it very easy for others to use or potentially benefit from it too. On most social media the content is still owned by the creator (there was at one point a bit of an internet storm based on misunderstandings that Facebook were trying to “steal” copyright, but I don’t believe that’s ever been the case), but managing that ownership is difficult when the platforms generally make it so easy to download or copy content. I’m not aggravated by social media per se – thought as you say, “beware!” – but I don’t understand the benefit to photographers or the photography business of a website that gives away royalty free high resolution images.
I think of this as “the Wikipedia complex”
Is wikipedia an amazing, valuable and well used resource?
You betcha
So why are they always asking for money?
Because when you make something great that’s free, it’s nigh on impossible to make money from it later
Photography pays best when you shoot what you’ve pre-agreed to shoot with a client, for a price that’s pre-set
Like weddings, family shoots, prenatal shoots, corporate events
In a world where stock imagery costs under £1 and a world where you can buy a fine art print from Ikea for £10, a world where the news is illustrated by viewers iPhone pics and videos, there’s very little scope for earning a living
You can use social media to try and tap into the celebrity culture, get a zillion followers and sell ebooks and teach workshops. And fair play to anyone doing this, but I’m not convinced that’s even photography anymore…
I completely agree. Getting a client booking for something has value, whilst stock, agency and the like is a constantly declining market. Unsplash just makes that market even harder by giving away something that in my opinion shouldn’t be free, as it just devalues photography further in the eyes of the general public.
A few lucky people have enough social media presence to build a brand and get enough exposure to make a living.
My intent wasn’t to “whine” about this in itself, but I was just dismayed by the linked article because it’s selling an empty dream to photographers and further devaluing their work.
I wouldn’t say you’re whining, and the Unsplash site which you speak of takes it to new lows, at least the ‘we buy your Instagram shots for $0.40’ companies have the “decency” (sic) to pay something
Well … If some artists hand out their work for free, claiming no attribution, is it really undecent for companies to use it in that manner ? I know I do and don’t feel like I’m cheating anyone.
I would not use this as a content producer myself, but if those who do feel that seeing their work spread is of service to them (exposure, feedback, self confidence, data on what works best and what doesn’t …), it’s a mutual agreement that’s apparently beneficial to all involved.
Adrian, a more conventional website through which I sold a few photos in the past is Picfair. It’s far more affordable than Getty or the likes, but still provides income for photographers (the average price for a photograph is 7£). If stock photography is the way you want to go, that may be a better solution than Unsplash.
Thanks Pascal, I will look into it.
Agencies are a potential source of income for all the travel photographs I accumulate, rather than physique work.
I have avoided the micro-stock agencies as I just can’t see how the sub-dollar rates they pay could ever add up to make the effort worthwhile. David Kilpatrick, a long-standing photographer and journalist who has been a Minolta and Sony user for decades, recently wrote an article about it in a very nice magazine he publishes, “Camera Craft”, where he lamented the pathetic rates even the Adobe owned agencies pay, and talked about the benefits of having his own channel to market and his client base (echoing what you earlier said).
I wouldn’t even consider Unsplash as I cannot see any long term benefit to me.
I think the “answer” to income from photography is trying to curate your “brand” and getting small amounts of income from wherever you can – stock, personal channels, subscription services, teaching, paying clients – because unless you are very well established or “famous”, you probably can’t live off one thing alone. I’m in a fortunate position that I have other work that pays for the photography, but having moved to a different work-life balance it would be nice to try and find ways for the photography to at least help to pay a little.
I know it’s quite pointless saying so, Adrian – but I detest those social network pages so much, I think they should be shut down. The lot of them. They pander to the weakminded and the trolls and the really nasty people in the community. I’m damned if I can see any point to them. It’s barely possible to describe the level of control the people responsible for each of those sites exerts over “content”. The dialogue is barely comprehensible – it’s like straying into a parallel universe, attempting to read much/most/practically all of it. It doesn’t surprise me in the slightest to be told it’s used as a means of theft of other people’s property. And from my own personal point of view, I flatly refuse to have anything whatsoever to do with any of them.
As to theft – it’s something I have to live with, as a result of events of 15 years ago. Some of you will have come across the image I use on the net, a tattoo of a dog. The dog in the tattoo is a long story, but to cut the crap out, it’s on my back – she was my first Dobermann – I loved her to bits – I couldn’t face losing her, when her life was drawing to a close and hit on a solution, which (hypocrite that I am) I “borrowed” from that hit song “together forever”, and so she was carefully painted onto my back shortly before she passed away in my arms, on the evening of her 10th birthday. The tattooist was, originally, an artist but was forced to flee from his country and found refuge here, and the only way he could earn enough to support his family was to turn to tattooing. Exceptionally, and as a special favour to me, and recognising the significance of the portrait to me, he signed the tattoo. The tag on her collar includes her name.
So why is this relevant? Because within a few months, several tattoo artists in other countries had re-published a copy of my photo, in professional tattoo magazines, claiming it as “their” original work. Be damned to them – the f***ing thing is signed, in the photo that they pinched the signature is visible, and it’s ridiculous for several different artists to claim the same work as their original work, anyway.
Unfortunately in this digital age it’s impossible to stop this nonsense.
The most practical solution I can suggest, Adrian, is that any photos you release on the net have such poor pixel counts that any attempt to reproduce or enlarge them is going to bomb. Enough to “share” your photos, but nowhere near enough to make it worth anyone’s while pinching them. Watermarking is a partial solution, but the thieves have worked their way around that – latest is a suggestion from Google that the watermark needs to be embossed (raised) to make it harder to remove it digitally in PSA or whatever, but it’s not fail safe.
BTW – love your photos – for several decades (until 1992, when I had my first heart attack), I was a regular at the gym – 6 days a week, moving a couple of tonnes of weight each evening – and every morning, an hour or so on a racing bike, before heading for work. Chest about 110cm, waist about 78cm, weight 83 Kg. Not massive like the guys in your photos – I trained more for fitness than bulk and anyway, that heads into a discussion about fast twitch and slow twitch muscle tissue which would make everyone else’s head hurt! After the heart attack I was banned – insurance companies won’t allow you on the premises under those conditions 🙂
If you want to give some of those guys a helpful tip, tell the ones who present with a two tone image that if they are going to use fake sun tan, they need to whack it on their face as well. It’s much easier to be a wog boy like me, with an olive skin and an easy path to sun tanning – these “white boys” want that tanned look for the competitions, but it looks seriously weird if it’s not “all over” 🙂
Hi Pete, I’m sorry to hear the story about you losing your dog, and the story about the theft of photos of your tattoo.
I’ve not actually come across any evidence of people using my photographs as their own work, but I do get frustrated that my work is copied and reproduced without credit. As physique sports is somewhat “special interest”, one of the reasons for concentrating on it and sharing it is to try and build a reputation in the field. Given the way that Facebook manages “page” contents (rather than personal accounts), it is very hard to get content in front of people – even followers of your own page – and therefore it’s all the more frustrating to see my work copied and reposted without credit.
I already heed your tip to only share very small and heavily compressed jpegs that limit use to online. Occasionally I am told they are too small, or asked for larger versions, and I am afraid my attitude has become quite hard – what you get for free from a public event is what I choose to give you, and if you want something else then it’s not free. In South East Asia the attitudes towards photography vary by country, but often the perceived value is so low that if something isn’t free then the person asking will simply ask other amateur photographers until they get something. I have to tread a careful line between having good relations with many of the athletes, but also respecting myself and my work. I’ve become more interested to photograph the “fitness” category, a type of gymnastics unique to Asian federations, because there isn’t really anyone else I know who photographs them in action.
Thanks for your comments on my photographs. I mentioned to Pascal previously that as physique sports is a bit of a “special interest”, it can be difficult to share the photographs as many people don’t react well to them. In general, I think in the male dominated world of photography, “boudoir” photography of women is much better received than physique photography of men. Most SE Asian athletes are very small compared to their peers in Eastern Europe and North America, though a few break through to international standard. The fake tans that many of the bodybuilders use are very old fashioned oil based non-drying products, and if not applied carefully can look terrible. In the “physique model” categories, which are more fashion led and often with younger competitors, they tend to use more modern products such as spray tans and other “dry” pre-competition products that give a much more attractive look. For those who don’t know, being darker helps to enhance the appearance of size and definition, if done well.
As for tanning and the sport in general, that’s a long conversation of little interest to most photogrpahers
🙂 I had decades of stupid remarks flung in my direction, because of my involvement in body building & weight lifting. All in the name of promoting ignorance & ill-informed self-opinionated crap, of course. The reality was that I don’t think I’ve ever met such a decent group of guys, anywhere else, ever. There were two exceptions, and they both got chucked out of the gym. The rest of them are best described & characterised by the term “gentle giants” – gentlemen to their finger tips – considerate, obliging, etc etc. I don’t think any outsider could possibly “get it”.
There was (“is”?) a “war”, of course, between the american contingent and the rest of the world. That was started by the Weider brothers and revolved around money in the sport. And got quite nasty. It resulted in the Europeans launching their own version of “Mr Universe”, and later, led to similar things in the middle east and in Asia, as you are aware.
But that aside – and in any large group spread all over the world, there are bound to be differences – they were “simply the best”. A special treat was occasionally meeting some of the greats – living in the world’s most remote capital city, it didn’t happen every day, but from time to time there would be a seminar with a visiting hero of the sport. And like the guys at my gym, they were also the nicest of people.
Kind of makes “prejudice” look ridiculous. Which it is, of course.
Dunno why I’m saying this on DS – mostly, I guess, in the hope it will help you in some way with your photography of the sport.
Imagine how much worse the “abuse” might have been if online and social media had existed Pete? Friends and acquaintances tell me about abusive comments, lewd messages, and one or two people I know became very upset when their parents didn’t want to them to pursue physique sports.
Overall, I agree with your comments about the people in the sport. I’ve certainly met a small number of idiotic, offensive or aggressive people, but they are in a tiny minority compared to the vast majority of people I meet in the sport who are very easy going, sociable, and welcoming. Of course, as I’ve discussed with Pascal previously, as it’s a kind of “closed shop” to which I am outsider, it can take time to build relationships and trust, so it’s always important to be respectful and professional until people know me and trust me and my motivations. It has been a strange pleasure to enter this mostly hidden world (in Asia) because I’ve met a lot of wonderful people and made new friends from many countries, which has been a motivation to travel to places that I may not have visited otherwise.
There is increasing politics in physique sports in SE Asia, mostly because some federations are trying to establish themselves in new territories, which is upsetting the established power bases and causing friction. I’m obviously not going to “name names”, but many of the national federations are run more like Roman emperors watching over their gladiators than as organisations with the interests of the athletes at heart, because SE Asian culture can be very influenced by status and “face”. The other negative influence I’ve seen in the last few years in the level of sponsorship, particularly from sports nutrition companies, who sponsor athletes and try to control them and the sport, but who are only really interested in the publicity (=sales) it can bring to their brands rather than any genuine interest in the long-term success of the sport. It’s my opinion that bodybuilding is a dying sport, because the level of steroid abuse particularly in the American industry has created something grotesque that is no longer inspirational to the general public. As a result, physique modelling is replacing it because it captures the general publics imagination more as something that is desirable and aspirational at a time when looks, image and self transformation are culturally powerful motivations in the age of social media.
I met the wife of a very successful Malaysian bodybuilder who had helped me with something, and when I thanked her she described the sport as “like a family”. In my case, the camera in my hand has opened new doors, although as with other branches of photography I think it’s also your motivations, attitude and demeanour that can open those doors. Adam said something similar in his recent article about street photography (just ask).
Trying to get our discourse back on topic, I often wonder if physique photography in America could more easily be profitable, as the industry is more mature and the market bigger – but then it’s also more commercialised and established, which may keep some of those doors closed.
Sounds as though the asian sport has followed the path of the Weider brothers in America. And yes, I have to agree about the drugs. Not everyone in the sport does drugs – in fact most don’t – but still, far too many are succeeding on chemistry rather than merit. And some of them truly are grotesque. The pity of it is, that only one person will win a Mr Olympia title – so all the wannabe’s who are trying to knock off the big title are simply putting their health and their lives at risk. All too often, they drop dead as a consequence of those drugs, within a few short years of almost making it. Travelling a lot on business, I was occasionally asked by one of the idiots at the gym to help him get some of the ‘stuff’ – I’ve never been into drugs, and simply wouldn’t consider doing anything of the kind, and told them it MIGHT make SOME sense if they were in the running for a world title – but to be “Mr Nobody’s Ever Heard of the Place Before”? Nuts to that!
One of the all time greats that I met was Serge Nubret – a European star, originating from Guadeloupe (a former French colony). His training methods were far more sensible, and I do believe that he succeeded on merit – personal effort – and not drugs. But of course although he had a natural physique, which he worked hard to enhance, he never achieved the peculiar shape[s] some of the American b’builders do. And he really WAS one of the gentlemen of the sport – a seriously nice guy! Comparing him with Weider’s star players, I’m not surprised to learn that there’s now a shift to what you refer to as ‘physique modelling’. I never did it to bulk up – I did it purely for fitness, and because it’s a sport I enjoy – I guess my version was more like what you’re talking about, than the muscle heads who get up on stage at the comps.
Why the Americans played this silly game with the Weiders dominating everything was the ‘business interests’ behind the scenes who were making obscene amounts of money out of the sport. That’d be harder in Asia, but not impossible. And like so many other sports, that kind of thing ends up wrecking the sport. Look how ‘big business’ looks after the players who get injured and can’t continue! They just dump them and ignore the damage their interests have done to these young guys – often, destroying their living standards for the rest of their lives. There’s got to be a better way.
And yes this is way off topic, but I don’t have your email addy so I hope the other members of DS aren’t too upset by it.
“Physique modelling” started in the federations in North America. Many of the western competitors have the type of upper body physique that bodybuilders used to have maybe 3 decades ago, before steroid abuse became so common. They are nearer the modern westernised “ideal” that is now common in mainstream media, in fitness magazines, or sported by some Hollywood stars as expectations about what is “normal” has shifted. It’s easy to see why general society finds them more attractive and therefore mainstream media finds them more acceptable. Many of them have good looking faces, unlike their bodybuilding counterparts who often have faces ruined by years of steroids.
American and European bodybuilders have mostly become a strange caricature of humanity, perhaps similar to the idea of masculinity found in American wrestling, where they resemble an exaggerated cartoon-like version of “man”.
I find the most visually interesting and entertaining form is “Fitness”, unique to Asian federations, that is basically gymnastics in a set piece show, performed in a fancy costume.
The idiots who want only a moments glory for probably some lucky image which they are only too willing to give away for free to see their name in lights have only succeeded in ruining the genre and taking income away from those who need to earn their living from it.
Photography is dead…!!!!!
Thanks for your comment Bob. I hope not “dead” just yet, but I agree with your idea that some people who want a moment of notoriety may be lured into giving images away. Where I posted a link to this item on another forum, a couple of vocal anti – copyright members believe copyright is dead, the business model was dead, things change all the time etc – so basically don’t complain and find another business model. I half accept their opinion, but pointed out that copyright law still exists, it isn’t acceptable for companies to use media online without permission and payment, and asked what they thought the benefit of free high resolution images was to photography and the business. I suspect the owners of Unsplash just want to grow enough to sell their business for a tidy profit at the expense of everyone who’s given away their work.
I’m happy to not depend on commercializing my photography. I tried selling some stock on Getty for the last year and made piffling 90 €. Not worth the hassle with tagging, licensing, and exposing my privacy. However I found interesting what kind of images sell.
It’s such a relief to just do what I like, not thinking about sale numbers and social following. It’s such a corrupt game. You can’t make it (not even win) when you don’t cheat. Bots are favoring, following, and retweeting each other, even many amateurs buy into the machine with real money. People get stressed out, depressed, and burn out. For what? But companies seek for those influencers. No matter how good you are, if you don’t have the followers, they won’t work with you. Your skills and output doesn’t matter anymore. But this is also true for other creative outlets like music. Luckily there are still other guys out there for whom quality or education values. It’s just hard to find them.
Btw: Just yesterday, I stumbled upon Wesaturate, a website to download free, high-res jpgs and raws. Their pitch is: “It’s for photographers to learn from each others post-processing skills.” Therefore you upload your original files under Creative Commons Zero license that includes free for commercial usage. Although I don’t see any take-aways from just looking at others editing settings, one don’t necessarily need to upload raws under CC0 and instead use downscaled jpgs with all metadata included, and have it displayed right next to the image, like pixelpeeper.io does. Fun fact: Although you can do whatever you want with the user’s images, you’re not allowed to create a competing service 🙂
However there’s one personal, final thought to it: What’s the point of taking wonderful photos if no one sees them? – If you don’t care, then good. Keep them on your hardrive, family album, or wall. – But I argue that my photos can give something to people. Be it entertaining, informative, inspirational … I don’t/can’t make money with my photos but I can still do something for other people. The vast majority of people are just consuming, looking for their next travel location, are interested in certain subjects, look for camera and lenses, get inspiration for whatever … And even if they reuse it for their private blog, it’s OK. It’s not OK if this blog is the Huffington Post or high traffic travel blogs and news sites (as it has happened), but I won’t waste energy or time into this. They wouldn’t have paid it anyway. And at least they called my name.
In that regard, I’m selective where I post my images. I use Flickr because it’s a photo community not a general social media platform or a app-only thingy. And it’s not populated by trolls, haters, and fanboys. It’s actually quite calm – maybe too calm. I also started posting travel images on Google Maps because it’s there where people are looking for locations and inspiration. I heavily downsize and over-compress them, but it’s kind of fun to see the reactions there. Totally different from Flickr. I’m also thinking about contributing to Wikipedia. It’s not that I’m seeking for attention or name dropping. I gain nothing from views, likes, and followers. But I think my images are simply to nice to get dusted on my harddrive and I don’t need extra income to get through the hassle of commercializing.
I do what I want and if some people join my way for a while, I welcome them.
Hi Steffen,
I empathise with your comments.
Within a few weeks of actively using my Instagram account, I had messages offering services to gain followers. Naively, since my goal is to engage real people who are interested in my work, my initial reaction was “what’s the point of fake followers?”. Of course, you highlight the point exactly – having lots of followers gets you noticed elsewhere. It’s not really about skill, creativity or quality to an extent.
Learning from other people’s post-processing settings? Isn’t that just another example of people wanting to “learn” (find answers) online, without really developing skills or real understanding? I mean, if you copy someone else’s settings, you get good photos too, right? You need to learn what the controls do, so you learn when you need to use them and why, which isn’t the same thing. Or you need to learn where to find certain controls and settings, which also isn’t the same thing. Instead, people just want to copy what they way in a video about Lightroom without understanding why they are doing what they are doing, because they think it means that it makes their photos better and now they “understand” Lightroom. Sigh.
With regards to sharing, it’s a very personal issue. If people want to keep their photos on their computer or print them out and look at them at home or show them to friends, that’s good. Endlessly posting online seems a little attention seeking, or just becomes an extension of trying to garner “Likes” and followers as a pursuit in it’s own right. I don’t really like Flickr, I have always found their user interface a complete mess, difficult to understand and navigate, and after Yahoo lost 1.5bn users data and didn’t confess for several years, I treat with caution. The major problem with it seems to be that I find it very hard to get any engagement at all.
I completely agree that all the administration required to get images on stock sites seems out of proportion to the minimal return if any. I am mystified by people who claim to make a living frim it. Some reports suggest it’s a numbers game – the returns increase the larger your library, as you get noticed more. There are also formulas about return per image, which suggest you need tens of thousands to get a significant return. The admin required for that is simply mind boggling.
You just described all the reasons I refuse to use pre-sets. Whatever mess I make of my shots when I post-process them, it’s MY mess! And you DO learn from “doing” – whereas pre-sets aren’t much of a jump up from riffing through your catalogue, to find a shot that’s acceptable.