Self Employed

[jtk]

Lazy, fearful purported photographers don't even directly contact potential clients to get assignments...they blame their failure on the internet.

 

[jtk]

George Eastman's suicide note. "...my work is done"

 

[removed account4]

Let’s not overlook Nicole Boening McGrade, Valerie Yaklin-Brown and Suzanne Revy.

... and many others never active on this forum.

YES!

 

[JBrunner]

One thing I remember doing when the business started to change because of the technology was sitting around waiting for things to get back to normal. It wasn't until I abandoned that idea and embraced the fact of a new normal that I was able to move forward again. People talk of folks they "can't compete against" and the answer to that is, don't. Do you really want those low paying un-discerning clients? I know I certainly didn't. Photography now is stratified more than ever. Which strata you inhabit is up to you, and your savvy, and your ambition, and your skills, and your talent. But I'll tell ya, it doesn't just fall out of the sky, you gotta work at it like a job for it to be a job.

 

[grahamp]

We have been house hunting (N. California, but this probably has a fairly universal application these days, based on what my sister was seeing in the UK in the last year). So we have been looking at lots of pictures of staged houses, drone overheads, dusk shots with the lights on, interior/exterior light balance, wide angle views that make a closet look like it can seat six... And some incredibly low-resolution cell phone shots that were not braced or aligned with the walls (shudder).

Guess which ones make you feel like viewing the place more? Some of the work is done by realtors, some by staging companies, and some by people specializing in this market. It is all digital, naturally - it will be going on the web, and to short run printed flyers. And this does not include the true video or panned stills that are used. It was not so many years ago that the best one could get was a frontage view and a description.

 

[CMoore]

yes its is harder than ever.
but this is nothing new
people have been appropriating forever.

I think we all got off-topic..... except for YOU

I believe what that guy in the videos was talking about was stuff like Copyright and Fair Use Laws that are or have worked "against" a photographer.

 

[jtk]

One thing I remember doing when the business started to change because of the technology was sitting around waiting for things to get back to normal. It wasn't until I abandoned that idea and embraced the fact of a new normal that I was able to move forward again. People talk of folks they "can't compete against" and the answer to that is, don't. Do you really want those low paying un-discerning clients? I know I certainly didn't. Photography now is stratified more than ever. Which strata you inhabit is up to you, and your savvy, and your ambition, and your skills, and your talent. But I'll tell ya, it doesn't just fall out of the sky, you gotta work at it like a job for it to be a job.

I especially agree about "up to you."

 

[jtk]

[QUOTE="grahamp, Some of the work is done by realtors, some by staging companies, and some by people specializing in this market. It is all digital, naturally - it will be going on the web, and to short run printed flyers. And this does not include the true video or panned stills that are used. It was not so many years ago that the best one could get was a frontage view and a description.[/QUOTE]

Some of the best work appears online, marketing this and that. Much of the worst work appears on Flickr.

 

[awty]

For me Google is by far the best means of advertising, I have had a web page for about 10 years, worked on my profile by using facebook and any other free means of internet advertising as well as paying for yellow pages online advertising. I have a 5 star rating and if you google my profession in my area my business shows up near the top of the first page and highest for someone who actually lives in the area. My advertising costs are less than a third of what they were and enquirers have trebled over the years. I still see other businesses relying heavily on expensive print media, which nobody under 60 reads. Trade off is you get a huge amount of spam mail and marketing phone calls......and annoying customers who ring you when you are trying to have a Christmas holiday.

 

[removed account4]

I think we all got off-topic..... except for YOU

I believe what that guy in the videos was talking about was stuff like Copyright and Fair Use Laws that are or have worked "against" a photographer.

thanks !
yeah basically you put your work infront of eyeballs, its fair game for people to do with it what they want.
look at the work of sherrie levine and richard prince

i don't really think it is copyright working against photographers in the case of california. its just that when someone is "staff" someplace the someplace owns the stuff. and it doesn't matter if it is negatives shot, coffee drinks or other "stuff" /IP invented or anything else, and that's what its like when you are staff

 

[CMoore]

thanks !
yeah basically you put your work infront of eyeballs, its fair game for people to do with it what they want.
look at the work of sherrie levine and richard prince

i don't really think it is copyright working against photographers in the case of california. its just that when someone is "staff" someplace the someplace owns the stuff. and it doesn't matter if it is negatives shot, coffee drinks or other "stuff" /IP invented or anything else, and that's what its like when you are staff

That is what the guy in the video was implying.
Has that law changed, or has it always been that way.?
Does Life Magazine own all the Negs/Photos that were shot by Gordon Parks and all those people for all those years.?
I thought "The Photographer" automatically owned the photo source(s) unless they signed it away.
Thank You

 

[removed account4]

That is what the guy in the video was implying.
Has that law changed, or has it always been that way.?
Does Life Magazine own all the Negs/Photos that were shot by Gordon Parks and all those people for all those years.?
I thought "The Photographer" automatically owned the photo source(s) unless they signed it away.
Thank You

the law has been that way forever.
the difference is, if somene is a FREELANCER like gordon parks &c the freelancer owns the work.
what it seems is happening in california is the ph'tog is freelancer for 34 gigs, but after #35 the photographer is "on staff"
so the company owns the images post #35.
with regards to the social media platforms>>they claim they own whatever is uploaded to their sites nothing has changed there either SSDD

 

[awty]

[QUOTE="grahamp, Some of the work is done by realtors, some by staging companies, and some by people specializing in this market. It is all digital, naturally - it will be going on the web, and to short run printed flyers. And this does not include the true video or panned stills that are used. It was not so many years ago that the best one could get was a frontage view and a description.

Some of the best work appears online, marketing this and that. Much of the worst work appears on Flickr.[/QUOTE]
All the professional and semiprofessional photographers I know probably don't use Flickr but they certainly use Instagram and Facebook as well as a fancy website. The more you can get your name out the better the advertising is. Recently Google has become a bit old hat, younger people use more modern site listings, which is based on getting "likes".... its just the way it is.

 

[CMoore]

For me Google is by far the best means of advertising, I have had a web page for about 10 years, worked on my profile by using facebook and any other free means of internet advertising as well as paying for yellow pages online advertising. I have a 5 star rating and if you google my profession in my area my business shows up near the top of the first page and highest for someone who actually lives in the area. My advertising costs are less than a third of what they were and enquirers have trebled over the years. I still see other businesses relying heavily on expensive print media, which nobody under 60 reads. Trade off is you get a huge amount of spam mail and marketing phone calls......and annoying customers who ring you when you are trying to have a Christmas holiday.

Wow..... Good For You

...... some years ago (it was probably 10) on a radio program, they were discussing schools for law and medicine. And the pitfalls of each profession. For law, these people were of the opinion that (usa) we should put the breaks on graduating lawyers, as there were "Too Many" of them.
I am all for freedom, but you would hope schools would give their students a reality check concerning employment in their chosen field.
I have taken a few photography classes at my local college. Every semester, the number of 20 year olds (that i met) that said they wanted "To be a photographer" was staggering.
I suppose all of The Arts are this way. It is something that is fun to do. People become (understandably) very passionate about it, and would love to do it for a living.
Anyway..... the school has a 2 year "Certificate Program" for photography. It is just a community college, so i do not think you can earn any meaningful degree there.? But i wonder what that "certificate" might mean to a young person.
I have rambled. The point i am trying to make is, in the last 3-4 years, just at my little college, i met Dozens and Dozens of young people that "Want to be a Photographer".
They are 20 years old, live with their parents. Friends and neighbors tell them how great their photos are. A relative hires them for a wedding, a neighbor hires them to take pictures of their show car, they make a few hundred bux, pretty essay, and they feel on top of The World. Like a kid that plays a few gigs, make some money, and then "Wants to be a Guitar Player". It is easy to get carried away.
It applies to ANY job skill, but especially The Arts..... There are A LOT of people doing it, and A LOT of them are very good. It can be hard to make a living

Good Luck to ALL the members that are Photographers. I hope you have a success that is similar to our member Awty.! .

 

[CMoore]

the law has been that way forever.
the difference is, if somene is a FREELANCER like gordon parks &c the freelancer owns the work.
what it seems is happening in california is the ph'tog is freelancer for 34 gigs, but after #35 the photographer is "on staff"
so the company owns the images post #35.
with regards to the social media platforms>>they claim they own whatever is uploaded to their sites nothing has changed there either SSDD

Ah..... OK. Right.
He did say that.

 

[Paul Howell]

I think it has become more difficult to make a living, to the point that most photographers have to have a day job. I saw the trend coming in the 80s with point and shoot cameras, folks who would have paid for a wedding photographer or go to portrait studio began to ask friends or relatives to do a shoot. Quality, who needs quality when it's free. I attended a wedding a couple of weeks ago, this was church wedding, shot by a friend of the groom with a smart phone. The death of newspapers, news mags, that fact that nearly everyone has a smart phone, just so much content for free why pay?

 

[rorye]

It does seem to get increasingly harder and I take that as a challenge. I've had to learn digital work, then motion, then drone work to stay relevant. While my passion will always be film photography I'm happy that I've managed to keep the lights on making images.

 

[awty]

Wow..... Good For You

...... some years ago (it was probably 10) on a radio program, they were discussing schools for law and medicine. And the pitfalls of each profession. For law, these people were of the opinion that (usa) we should put the breaks on graduating lawyers, as there were "Too Many" of them.
I am all for freedom, but you would hope schools would give their students a reality check concerning employment in their chosen field.
I have taken a few photography classes at my local college. Every semester, the number of 20 year olds (that i met) that said they wanted "To be a photographer" was staggering.
I suppose all of The Arts are this way. It is something that is fun to do. People become (understandably) very passionate about it, and would love to do it for a living.
Anyway..... the school has a 2 year "Certificate Program" for photography. It is just a community college, so i do not think you can earn any meaningful degree there.? But i wonder what that "certificate" might mean to a young person.
I have rambled. The point i am trying to make is, in the last 3-4 years, just at my little college, i met Dozens and Dozens of young people that "Want to be a Photographer".
They are 20 years old, live with their parents. Friends and neighbors tell them how great their photos are. A relative hires them for a wedding, a neighbor hires them to take pictures of their show car, they make a few hundred bux, pretty essay, and they feel on top of The World. Like a kid that plays a few gigs, make some money, and then "Wants to be a Guitar Player". It is easy to get carried away.
It applies to ANY job skill, but especially The Arts..... There are A LOT of people doing it, and A LOT of them are very good. It can be hard to make a living

Good Luck to ALL the members that are Photographers. I hope you have a success that is similar to our member Awty.! .

Just to clarify I'm not a photographer, I have real job.
Was just relating my experience. Hardly successful its just what you need to do to stay afloat when you are self employed. Running your own business is a lot of work, especially in the first few years, most businesses fail in the first few years, and if you don't keep up with the competition you will fail later on. Gold posts are always moving, need to constantly adjust to suit. You can be the best in your field and still fail if you don't have a good business plan.

Young people usually start off with high ambitions, then reality sets in and they take what they can.

 

[MattKing]

Having been a self employed photographer, as well having been (at other times) a self employed lawyer, I can assure you that awty is right about self employment!

 

[CMoore]

Having been a self employed photographer, as well having been (at other times) a self employed lawyer.......!

OK... Good.
I realize it can vary from one place to the next, but lets say London or NYC in 1970.
If you are (lucky enough to be) David Bailey or Richard Avedon, and you work for Vogue,,,,,does the magazine own your photos.?
Or did they just work AT Vogue and not FOR Vogue.?
But anyway, all those big names. Was somebody like Annie Leibovitz not actually an "employee" of Rolling Stone".?
They were just what we call a 1099.... an independent contractor.?

Thank You

 

[MattKing]

In most of the world, copyright in the photos stayed/stays with the creator of the photograph, unless it is explicitly signed over to someone else.
Until recently, in Canada, the rule was reversed from that - if you were retained or employed to take a photograph for someone, they owned the copyright in that photograph.
Canada now falls in with the rest of the world and the copyright belongs with the photographer, unless it is explicitly signed over to someone else.
That being said, almost every contract - whether of employment, or otherwise - between photographers and their employers or customers will deal with copyright, and frequently assign those rights to the employer or customer.
As for Annie Leibovitz, who knows? I expect that there were some, if not all rights assigned to the magazine. And her "employment" status may have not been formalized one way or the other for some time.
Somewhere out there is a great photo of an early staff meeting of Rolling Stone. Everybody looks like they belong in the late 1960s - which makes sense given the time - except Hunter S. Thompson, who appears to have not left the 1950s.
I doubt Jann Wenner ignored things like contracts, but it wasn't likely exactly a hotbed of order and routine.

 

[CMoore]

Interesting.
OK..... Thanks Again

 

[foc]

In the past, photography was considered highly technical (film speed, aperture setting, exposure reading etc) but with automation and other technological advances that knowledge is no longer required to achieve an image. The camera phone can do it perfectly so why employ a professional?

However, the artistic eye can not be automated and that should be the professional's forte.
Wedding photography, for example, has changed in the last few decades from a formal posed style to informal. I have heard many of my fellow professional photographers complain that anyone with a camera can now photograph a wedding.

They are missing the point mentioned above. The professional eye will see the composition in the informal style, they will know the correct moment to press the shutter and most of all they will capture the emotion of the moment.

If the client just wants a record of their wedding, then they should employ the guy with the "camera phone" (don't mind the quality, feel the width)
If the client wants some memorable moments captured skillfully, then employ the professional.

 

[BradS]

OK... Good.
I realize it can vary from one place to the next, but lets say London or NYC in 1970.
If you are (lucky enough to be) David Bailey or Richard Avedon, and you work for Vogue,,,,,does the magazine own your photos.?
Or did they just work AT Vogue and not FOR Vogue.?
But anyway, all those big names. Was somebody like Annie Leibovitz not actually an "employee" of Rolling Stone".?
They were just what we call a 1099.... an independent contractor.?

Thank You

I know that as an engineer/scientist in the USofA, the company owns any and all intellectual property that the individual creates while in the employ of the company. Often, this even includes anything created after hours, "on your own time". This is always the case when working as a contractor too...the only exceptions are those ideas that are explicitly excluded in writing up front, before the contract is signed. This has been the case for my entire 35 year career.

 

[wyofilm]

Is anyone here going to be negatively effected by California's gig law. I don't know much but I as I understand it freelance writers and photographers can get paid for only three articles of photographs per year without forming an LLC. Very restrictive.