| Sign in: |
| Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features. |
|
|
|
|
|| SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board
David Burnett's Story - an important point
John Harrington, Photographer
 |
Washington | DC | USA | Posted: 10:40 PM on 04.04.06 |
->> One of the things that always amazes me is how people in general (and photographers are not immune from this) will hold in admiration a colleague who is far more advanced in their career than they are, and how they would seem to do just about anything to spend time with them, learn from them, or possibly be mentored by them. Sometimes they write and ask for advice, othertimes, they talk during the down times of a lengthly assignment, yet, when they see the first opportunity to leap in and "replace" that photographer who's objected, in principle, to taking an assignment for a really bad deal, how they see nothing wrong with it.
I excerpt David's comment:
"...Torino for me was one of those times. I came THAT close to working out a credential and shooting situation for the Winter Olympics in Torino, Italy. But in the end, the client wanted way too much of my flesh, in addition to the pictures, and I decided to be a grownup about it and just watch, read, and mouse around my own version of The Games like the other six billion unaccrediteds in this world. ...
Someone DID take whatever bad deal David was offered. Someone sold out, continuing the downward spiral of photographers' rates and hold they maintain on their rights. More than likely, they did it for a cool assignment, one which David really wanted to cover, but he stood, on principle, and did not. Whomever took the assignment, by NO means REPLACED David, they were: 1) an also ran -- the client really wanted David, not them, and 2) produced what I am sure were "also ran" photos. Few photographers can cover the Olympics (or any event) as David has, and would have.
That "also ran" photographer more than likely has seen David's work, and, if they don't aspire to produce work as good as his, they aspire to produce work as good as David's peers, whom certainly hold David in high regard.
This has happened throughout the years with other photographers (P.F. Bentley comes to mind) who are well respected, yet those whom have that respect are so willing to step in and do the deal when those they respect have said no -- for respectable reasons. Why is it that that respect and regard does not extend to saying no to bad deals? I can't understand it.
It's like being friends with someone, until you can screw them, and then you do, and think nothing of it -- in fact, you think it's just fine. That is, until someone does it to you in a few years, and the downward spiral continues.
Perhaps no one has conveyed to David their appreciation for not giving up his flesh and giving in to unreasonable demands for rights that are his. I thank David, and appreciate his principled stand. Perhaps those who respect and hold him in high regard will refrain from becoming the "also ran", and stand on principle too, and not sell out.
John |
|
Caryn Levy, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Ponte Vedra Beach | FL | USA | Posted: 9:17 AM on 04.05.06 |
| ->> Well said, John. Unfortunately, this is VERY common. I have always said "no" to bad deals & haven't looked back. Your "good" clients will respect you & your "bad" clients...well, who wants them anyway. Thanks David, for saying "no" to bad deals. While many may think that turning down an assignment like this is crazy, it IS the right thing to do. It will set you apart from your competition & most importantly, you will feel good about yourself (maybe not right away, but certainly over time). There's nothing worse than shooting a job that you feel is a bad deal. It can affect your performance as well as the "goods" you deliver. Thanks John, for bringing up a VERY important thread. |
|
David Harpe, Photographer
|
Louisville | KY | USA | Posted: 9:33 AM on 04.05.06 |
->> Market dynamics
Good article, and good to see someone like David saying no to a bad deal. There will always be people who will let you work for free or at a loss, so don't worry about taking a pass on something like this.
I worry that we are fighting an uphill battle. Individual sacrifices will only carry us so far. I don't see a way to change the tide without significantly changing the market dynamics. Any ideas? |
|
Alan Stewart, Photographer
|
Corydon | IN | USA | Posted: 9:39 AM on 04.05.06 |
->> I don't really have a dog in this hunt...but:
Do either of you know what the deal was? If you don't, then I believe it's a little irresponsible to trash A) the deal; and B) the photographer who wound up going.
If someone offered me five bucks to shoot a wedding, obviously the answer would be a quick "no" (after I got up off the floor, laughing). If the price and what they asked of me seemed somewhat more reasonable, then I'd have to think about it. My take is if Mr. Burnett was "THAT close" to agreeing to the deal, at least he saw SOME sort of positive in it. |
|
John Harrington, Photographer
|
Washington | DC | USA | Posted: 11:27 PM on 04.05.06 |
->> David --
You ask:
>>>I don't see a way to change the tide without significantly changing the market dynamics. Any ideas?
I am seeing that fewer and fewer graduating photographers are willing to do freelance work under a WFH agreement, for example. While the non-photo-school graduates still are content to accept whatever scraps of assignment terms are thrown at them. And, for the photo school grads who are doing WFH, they atleast know they're doing something that's not so good.
We have a generation in place currently that did not have the "WFH is bad" mantra conveyed to them, and not it's pro forma acceptance of unfair terms. A continued dialog and outreach to up-and-coming photographers will help to be sure.
Alan writes:
>>> Do either of you know what the deal was? If you don't, then I believe it's a little irresponsible to trash A) the deal; and B) the photographer who wound up going.
Deals are relative, of course. However, if someone you respect and hold in high regard says no to it, then the deal should either be equally unacceptable to you, OR, you should learn that that type of deal should be unacceptable, since the person whom you aspire to be a peer of holds it as such.
I refered to the photographer as an "also ran", which has a basis in fact, since Burnett was who they wanted, and only after he declined, did whomever did it then become a considered photographer. I don't see that as "trashing" as much as I see it calling it as a spade a spade.
When you said
"...My take is if Mr. Burnett was "THAT close" to agreeing to the deal, at least he saw SOME sort of positive in it."
Close counts mostly in horse shoes and hand grenades. He came "that close" but it fell through. I'd wager that it was mainly a rights issue, and that for what they wanted, the compensation was not commensurate with the rights package. Surely positives were: A) going to the Olympics (again for David), B) expenses covered (this should always be a given), C) some form of a fee was paid per day, but perhaps not all the days, but David could make that up with other work once on location. Perhaps the deal was an "Olympic Official" pass which would give David access everywhere, and his expenses would be covered, yet no fees, and David felt that that was workable until the IOC then demanded non-exclusive all rights, diminishing the value for David to make up the lost assignment fees with stock sales. However, in the end, there was clearly a deal-breaker, and 90% of the time it's over excessive rights demands, or fees that are not in keeping with the rights packages. |
|
Jean Finley, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Iowa City | IA | USA | Posted: 12:04 AM on 04.06.06 |
->> John - But the "deal" would include things like overhead and relative value. I may (or may not) have the same expenses as another photographer.
Without more information from Mr. B., all we know is the deal wasn't a good one for HIM. |
|
David Wang, Student/Intern, Photographer
|
Philadelphia | PA | USA | Posted: 12:12 AM on 04.06.06 |
->> You can't argue against supply & demand. A deal has been offered, and it sounds like even Burnett had a hard time turning it down. Whoever took this is had been given a chance to shoot the Olympic games, something not too many shooters will ever get to do. Whoever did take it faced an opportunity that was simply too much to pass up, even if it did mean a sub-par package. People spend extremely large sums of money just to see the Olympics, nevermind shooting them. Heck, I feel extremely privileged being able to shoot for a college paper. Sure, I definitely agree that this type of practice hurts everybody, but I would have to at least somewhat sympathize.
John - I would also have to disagree with you when you say that
"if someone you respect and hold in high regard says no to it, then the deal should either be equally unacceptable to you, OR, you should learn that that type of deal should be unacceptable"
If this was true, then by definition, only the elite shooters would have work, since the work they would agree to take would have first been offered to them, and any subsequent work would be 'unacceptable', thus nobody else should take them. There must be an understanding that the better photogs can be, should be, and will be more selective. However, I ABSOLUTELY agree with you that when basic issues such as image rights, etc. are in jeopardy, we need to strive to protect ourselves, and that means as a collective whole. |
|
John Harrington, Photographer
|
Washington | DC | USA | Posted: 12:59 AM on 04.06.06 |
->> David --
you write:
>>>If this was true, then by definition, only the elite shooters would have work, since the work they would agree to take would have first been offered to them, and any subsequent work would be 'unacceptable', thus nobody else should take them.
Actually, "by definition" that would not be true. The "elite" photographers would have the same work they wanted, and when they were unavailable either because they were so booked, or there was a booking date conflict, or they were comfortable enough to limit the number of days they shot, then those assignments would be available to others. The terms would (should) remain the same.
So, since you're an inexperienced photographer, you should be more amenable to a bad deal? Bad deals are almost always about rights, and then secondarily about low pay.
John |
|
David Wang, Student/Intern, Photographer
|
Philadelphia | PA | USA | Posted: 2:35 AM on 04.06.06 |
->> If the only jobs the experienced find acceptable are high-maintenance weddings or pro-sports, then, should those who respect the experienced shooters aspire only to shoot the extravagant and ignore Aunt Marcy's request for a shooter for her husband's birthday? You say 'bad deal', but to me, it sounds like you are referring solely to rights. Perhaps in the case of Torino, rights outweigh payment in importance, but I doubt that this is so for the everyday shooter.
While I agree with your argument that some shooters severely step in the direction that hurts the profession, and that these shooters need to understand that their actions are both unnecessary and unwanted, I disagree with your categorization of photographers based on their abidance by the same expectations and standards as their "idols".
So to your last question, my answer is a "probably, yes". Nobody can say whether the photographer 'should' be more amenable to a bad deal, but to expect him to go about his business with the same standards as those shooting at a level beyond his is asking too much. If we are to judge them, it should be on a case-by-case basis, and I personally feel that not enough information was provided about Burnett's "replacement" to judge him. |
|
David Brooks, Photographer
|
San Diego | CA | USA | Posted: 3:18 AM on 04.06.06 |
->> To add another David to the conversation-
I should expect and only accept D.Burnett rights and money for my D.Brooks experience? Hey, I think my phone's ringing! |
|
Primoz Jeroncic, Photographer
|
Kranj | SI | Slovenia | Posted: 3:54 AM on 04.06.06 |
->> Well things are not so clear as you might think John. I guess noone except David knows background of his deal, so we can't discuss what did he refuse and why did he do it. But on other side you have to count that nowadays there's not just USA and nothing else. It's global world which means you can get photographer (probably as good as David is, and I don't want to be disrepectful here) for much less money, when this photographer is not from USA. You have to count that people around the world have different salaries and also different living standards. Just imagine that in some countries of East Europe normal month salary can be less then $500. Person from there would, be extremly happy if he could cover Olympics for let's say $1000 or $2000, while noone of you (and I can say me neither) would even think on flying to Torino for money like this. On the end for him $1000 is like $10.000 for you, while it's still just $1000 for employer. And it doesn't necessarily mean his photos would be any worse because of that. So nowadays everything is more global then it was few years back, and therefore is sometimes easier to get cheaper deal for employer. And even if it hurts all of us on the end, I guess we have to get used to it... it won't get better anyway.
PS: I don't mean in David's case it actually was like this, but it is one of options. |
|
Mike Brice, Photographer
|
Toledo | OH | USA | Posted: 8:24 AM on 04.06.06 |
->> One thing to consider is the client.
Sometimes they want A quality work and they are willing to pay A quality price for it.
Sometimes B or C quality work will do, and they have a budget to match those expectations.
You can't demand that clients always purcahse A quality work at A quality prices, that's just arrogant. A simple headshot for the web for a mid-level manager - C qualty is much better than the submitted photo. Now if they are taking a photo of the CEO, they have a budget for A quality work.
There is going to be a range of clients and jobs and a range of photographers to fill those needs. Hopefully, we can educate the client on the benefits of A quality work at A quality price, but until then there are a lot of B and C quality photographers who are learning and growing and have bills to pay. |
|
William Jurasz, Photographer, Assistant
|
Cedar Park | TX | USA | Posted: 8:44 AM on 04.06.06 |
| ->> John Harrington, when you say that "Deals are relative, of course. However, if someone you respect and hold in high regard says no to it, then the deal should either be equally unacceptable to you, OR, you should learn that that type of deal should be unacceptable, since the person whom you aspire to be a peer of holds it as such." -- think about what you are saying. I'm not as good as someone I admire. He turns down a job for $X, and barely turns it down at that. You are saying that I should not accpet the job for $X either, which is silly. If I'm not as good as the person I admire, then clearly I'm not worth as much money as he or she is. And if the case its folly for me to expect the same compensation. If $X was just barely too little for him, it might be just fine for me, especially considering that mine photography is simply not as good as those I admire. You get what you pay for. |
|
Luis Moreira, Photographer
|
Toronto | ON | Canada | Posted: 9:27 AM on 04.06.06 |
->> I don't know the details of the deal but it seems that a few of the above messages suggest that if you are not an "elite" photographer you can settle on a less than ideal assignment. Now I can see why someone would settle for less cash but there should be no exceptions made on the image rights. Regardless of your experience as a photographer.
What if the deal did come down to image rights. Is it then fine for a new photographer to sign away his or her rights because the deal was passed on by an established pro? |
|
Jeremy Messler, Photographer, Assistant
|
Cherry Hill | NJ | USA | Posted: 10:22 AM on 04.06.06 |
->> I am going to take another spin at this – The problem with what many are saying regarding level of abilities is their examples are not comparing apples to apples.
Yes “experienced photo-man” is going to have a higher premium, yes he is going to turn down work that might not meet his financial needs and yes “less experienced photo people” are going to get that work….but that is not to say the “less experienced” photographer should not bill out the necessary items – Rights are rights – and there is (should be) more or less an industry standard
The more photographers do not bill their clients for the necessary items – the faster the client will become accustomed to receiving more then they should – hence a bad deal.
What seems to be the main issue here is rights. It seems this job was turned down because something was fishy – the client wanted more then they were willing to pay for.
I think what Jon meant was that the job was turned down because the client wanted to pay for a beer but wanted to keep the frosty mug – ie pay for the photography but retain the rights of the photographs… Come on – they sought out a specific photographer – one would think they were prepared to front the photography bill – they simply did not realize that usage fees were going to be so high. (hello client – it is the Olympics – they only come around every 4 years)
If the guy who came through the door in the end had a lower shooting fee - “less experience” - but charged the client the necessary amount for usage – then I do not see a problem with this. The client ‘got what they paid for’ – basic supply and demand – BUT if the guy who took the job simply handed over the Olympic images then – well – shame on him. |
|
Jim Colburn, Photographer
|
Omaha | NE | USA | Posted: 10:32 AM on 04.06.06 |
->> "Someone DID take whatever bad deal David was offered. Someone sold out, continuing the downward spiral of photographers' rates"
Of course it could be something as simple as one photographer being willing to stand outside in the freezing cold whereas another one isn't on a been-there-done-that basis. |
|
jeff martin, Photographer
|
wellington | OH | usa | Posted: 1:51 PM on 04.06.06 |
| ->> Perhaps some of John's assumptions are not exactly right in this case. He did not make this post to flame whomever took the assignment; but to make a point. And that point seems to be a valid one. Instead of offering up a bunch of possible different scenarios, think about the point John is trying to make. It is something to worry about. |
|
david burnett, Photographer
|
Arlington | VA | usa | Posted: 5:12 PM on 04.06.06 |
| ->> Well at the risk of stepping on my own Domke bag, and tripping down the stairs, let me, without going into the gory details, just add a little bit of information to this discussion. More important than my case, I suppose, is the general concept of each of us finding a level of comfort with what we do, and that in the end, as a group and individually, we try and do deals which help promote ourselves in particular and the business in general. David Gahr (a $5 cigar to anyone who knows who this great photographer is ) once told me (I was 20 at the time) "never accept any job that won't let you grow as a photographer.." I have always tried to keep that in the back of my head, and even on those crappy miserable jobs that we all end up with, sooner or later, have tried to keep David's advice in mind, and MAKE some chicken salad out of it, even when chicken salad may not have been the first thing that came to mind. That said, the Olympic deal I almost had was definately more about Rights than it was about Money. I agree that there are times in this world when you have to decide when (as Howie Mandel says it..) it's "Deal... or NO Deal". Sometimes we take the money, sometimes we leave the money on the table in exchange for access, sometimes its a combination which, in this world of young Picture editors and Seasoned Lawyers, becomes a little TOO much about them, and their rights, and not enough about what we do as creators. What is true is that there will always be someone to pick up another photographers job, whether its a schedule conflict or in this case, one about residual rights. Let's be honest -- everyone of us has somehow benefited from someone else's unavailability (I got jobs meant for Dirck Halstead and Doug Kirkland years ago, and have happily tried to spin jobs to other photographers I know when I couldn't do them.) I guess the point is to always try and remain focused on the the concept of staying on your own personal target: aim high, and try to always set your own goals upward. I hope I will be working for these same folks again sometime in the future, and that by the time of our next encounter, I can convince them that it will be a good deal for both of us. |
|
David Brooks, Photographer
|
San Diego | CA | USA | Posted: 6:03 PM on 04.06.06 |
->> Thank you very much Mr. Burnett,
It is an enormous encouragement to read that you understand the perspective of the less experienced shooter and their desire to grab just another assignment in hopes that it will put them closer to the photographer they believe they can be.
David |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|