I Got an Offer I Could Refuse

[Richard Wasserman]

I strongly disagree. My refusal had little to do with the money itself, and everything to do with the principle that photographers simply need to be paid for their work. Obviously I wasn't commissioned to take the photo, but it is mine, I own it. Also to a great extent the fact that many photographers who are more than happy to give their work away for free has caused the collapse of the market. Too many people are surprised now when a photographer expects payment, even though they themselves are being paid (sometimes handsomely) for their work.

Just so you know, I am not a complete newbie at this. I owned an unrelated business for 25 years, have had a book of my photography published in 2012, and am currently partnered with Loyola University, Chicago on a project exploring the ramifications of the use and misuse of eminent domain. When I owned my business no one came to me asking if I would work for free.

Co

Nobody asked you to take that picture so why should you be paid for your efforts? He's paying you a compliment by wanting to put your picture in his movie. That should be payment enough. I, for one (it seems) would gladly have agreed to let him use it, no charge.

He is still going to make his movie and prolly find another picture to use. You have nothing. Are you really better off NOW than you would have been had you let him use your image in his film??

[Jac@stafford.net]

Nobody asked you to take that picture so why should you be paid for your efforts?

So much for stock photographers, documentary photographers, creative persons exploring novel approaches.

My most profitable image was done for my own interest.
.

[Pawlowski6132]

So much for stock photographers, documentary photographers, creative persons exploring novel approaches.

My most profitable image was done for my own interest.
.

Good point.

I'm just sharing my perspective. I don't work for free either and am not advocating it.

But if someone thought one of my images were good enough to use in a documentary, and they were going to make a few bucks in the process, I don't have any problem with it.

I'm not as principled. More pragmatic.

[Jac@stafford.net]

I'm not as principled. More pragmatic.

Pragmatism is good. Today I wish some folks around here would take up show shoveling as an Art. I would happily let them do my walk and driveway for exposure - as long as they don't sign it by writing their name in the snow.
.

[Corran]

There are certainly abuses, such as asking someone to do a catalog shoot for free. That's ridiculous. However in that situation the photos is the primary means of communication between the retailer and potential customers. We all know how important photos are for selling items!

That's not the situation described in the OP though. Now I'm not advocating that you should've given the image, but, it sounds like something that was really not that important in the long run for the movie, especially if the movie was truly a simple not-for-profit production. Other mitigating factors would be if you knew the person or if you felt strongly about the production. The image probably would not make or break the production, right?

My point is that it's not black and white. For example I produced a CD last year for a local choir. I was also doing the graphic design for the CD cover art. I thought the director had some images in mind but she didn't. Long story short, I used a couple of images I had taken at the church years ago for the front and back cover art. Now I didn't get "paid" for the images, just the design, but I didn't squabble over it because it was irrelevant and I knew her and was happy to provide the images (especially happy to have them on-hand and not have to do extra work taking/editing images). I have done similar things for the college here - I gave them some images to use for an advertisement banner because I believed it was a good cause and a good usage of the image so I had no problem with it. They would've used a different image if I had not allowed that from the stock of images available from the university archives. I would gain nothing but a bit of animosity from the department.

But there are certainly times where you have to stand up and say "no."

[Richard Wasserman]

Except that this film is definitely being done for profit, ironically for someone who does business consultation work with photographers among others. Everyone would be making a profit but me. Doesn't strike me as right. I'm happy not being in a short video on a website that a few people will see and sticking up for my principles and other photographers—I'm not that desperate for a bit of lousy publicity.

There are certainly abuses, such as asking someone to do a catalog shoot for free. That's ridiculous. However in that situation the photos is the primary means of communication between the retailer and potential customers. We all know how important photos are for selling items!

That's not the situation described in the OP though. Now I'm not advocating that you should've given the image, but, it sounds like something that was really not that important in the long run for the movie, especially if the movie was truly a simple not-for-profit production. Other mitigating factors would be if you knew the person or if you felt strongly about the production. The image probably would not make or break the production, right?

My point is that it's not black and white. For example I produced a CD last year for a local choir. I was also doing the graphic design for the CD cover art. I thought the director had some images in mind but she didn't. Long story short, I used a couple of images I had taken at the church years ago for the front and back cover art. Now I didn't get "paid" for the images, just the design, but I didn't squabble over it because it was irrelevant and I knew her and was happy to provide the images (especially happy to have them on-hand and not have to do extra work taking/editing images). I have done similar things for the college here - I gave them some images to use for an advertisement banner because I believed it was a good cause and a good usage of the image so I had no problem with it. They would've used a different image if I had not allowed that from the stock of images available from the university archives. I would gain nothing but a bit of animosity from the department.

But there are certainly times where you have to stand up and say "no."

[BarryS]

Agreed, there's a fundamental difference between volunteering your work for a cause or organization you want to support vs. getting used by a commercial venture. The great thing about saying no to unpaid work is the word eventually gets out and most people stop asking you to work for free. One particularly galling experience was being asked by a high profile PR firm in downtown DC to photograph their holiday party for nothing. When I started to discuss my fee, they literally had nothing to say. So, tell me again why I want to haul a bunch of equipment downtown and spend all night working for well-paid strangers for free?

[Corran]

I agree with you Richard, I'm just saying there may be times where providing an image freely may in fact be understandable.

[Richard Wasserman]

Of course! I've done it myself to support organizations I endorse.

I agree with you Richard, I'm just saying there may be times where providing an image freely may in fact be understandable.

[gleaf]

The ledger of benefit to you is yours not theirs. Wonders of free advertising if I can use it for free... well I need to reshoot that.. Let me borrow your car, credit card for lodging meals and fuel.. and consumables and processing... right away you'll know their true value on free stuff. Are you glad you don't live in the phone returning to cradle with a slam era.