The day of being able to fully protect
copyright, and issue 'licences' is all but gone since digital imaging became
the norm, and the Internet became an integral part of daily life. Photographers
are still somewhat stuck in the past, where the cost of a shoot covered the
cost and small profit, in the knowledge that they held the negative and copying
was difficult to get done - and the money made on reprints was effectively the
'cream' on the cake. That slowly changed with the advent of new technology. In today's
world of lightening change in technology, the system of yesteryear is over and
done with, and we need to adapt to that reality NOW, if we are to have any
chance of survival.
There is a hardcore of photographers who still live in the absolute belief that
their work is so valuable, due mainly to their equipment and longevity in the industry
that they almost see themselves as Rembrandt. They may well be right - their
work may well be of such a high standard that they are correct in their view -
but, they are the only ones who subscribe to that view. They believe and rant,
that "we" must educate the public and force them to see things
"our" way.
Unfortunately, it is "they" who need to educate themselves, that because of the sudden and enormous change in technology, that their 'view' is redundant. They have to wake up to the fact that amateurs with a half decent camera and an 'educated eye', can and do produce images equal to, or even better than, what the mainstream professional can produce - why - because technology has made it possible and easier.
The public are not interested in, nor do they understand the photographers perception that they produce 'art'. So far as they are concerned, the photographer has produced at best, a stunning image. They have no need to understand "licensing agreements" - they have paid a high enough price for the image, and they see no reason to have to pay any more, because they can produce multiple copies without ever requiring the original file.
Bearing that in mind, the photographer must come to terms with that, and adjust their price accordingly to what the market pricing will tolerate. How the photographer achieves this, and comes to terms with the reality that for the most part, 'licensing fees' now belong to the past, is very much up to the individual. What they must acknowledge however is that the "gravy train" has long since left the station, and is never coming back.
Unfortunately, it is "they" who need to educate themselves, that because of the sudden and enormous change in technology, that their 'view' is redundant. They have to wake up to the fact that amateurs with a half decent camera and an 'educated eye', can and do produce images equal to, or even better than, what the mainstream professional can produce - why - because technology has made it possible and easier.
The public are not interested in, nor do they understand the photographers perception that they produce 'art'. So far as they are concerned, the photographer has produced at best, a stunning image. They have no need to understand "licensing agreements" - they have paid a high enough price for the image, and they see no reason to have to pay any more, because they can produce multiple copies without ever requiring the original file.
Bearing that in mind, the photographer must come to terms with that, and adjust their price accordingly to what the market pricing will tolerate. How the photographer achieves this, and comes to terms with the reality that for the most part, 'licensing fees' now belong to the past, is very much up to the individual. What they must acknowledge however is that the "gravy train" has long since left the station, and is never coming back.
