Brands asking photographers to use their work for free – not all is black and white
Over the weekend, a photographer took to social media to complain about AIA Singapore (via their social media agency DSTNCT) asking to use his work for free. In this guest post, Laura Gordon suggests that since Zexun Tan is using a free platform to use promote his work he has little reason to complain, and may have missed a commercial opportunity.
I read with great interest the debate over user generated content being featured in client campaigns. The Zexun Tan vs. AIA/DSTNCT affair.
As an amateur photographer, I too was recently approached by a retail client, Asia Malls, to feature one of my images in a campaign. I was super flattered, and the ‘humble bragger’ in me would probably repost to all my followers when I saw the photo in-situ.
Shopping Mall Tiong Bahru Plaza asked Gordon to use her work for free
I thought it was quite awesome to be asked, and validated my efforts as a creator and publisher, that someone appreciated my work.
So the lens I would like to add (or should that be filter) is should a professional photographer be using Instagram to promote his work, which in essence is a consumer based social-platform, and not a business platform or website. And therefore should all users be treated, respectfully, the same.
Zexun Tan is happy to use Instagram – a ‘free’ platform – to promote his work, and is not having to pay for his audience/reach. So isn’t he also taking advantage of a system which he clearly exploits for financial gain? I assume that’s why he has an email contact address and is cross promoting via Facebook. So should @pandawithacam really be so pissed off? Perhaps he should pay some money to Instagram.
A smart way for brands to reward photographers (amateur or otherwise), would be to offer compensation, but not necessarily financial compensation: this could be in the form of loyalty points, entry into a lucky draw, free samples or product, discount codes etc… this would enable clients also to capture customer data, and provide a more engaged experience through rewards.
Anyway, it’s just an opposing thought.
Sometimes not everything, particularly photographs, are plain black and white.
Laura Gordon worked as APAC head of online sales and content for multichannel network Commercialize TV, and prior to that was regional integration director for Omnicom Media Group.
No, if a company wants to use an image from a professional photographer, then they should pay. Money, not barter. The stuff that pays the bills. Especially if they are using that same image for commercial reasons. Same argument for designers or any creative. Maybe you think lawyers should represent in return for supermarket coupons? Or doctors should treat people in return for a Facebook like? “Awesome” to be validated after all.
The Instagram argument is just stupid
ReplyHaha, are you for real, being flattered for having your photo featured? You don’t make photos for a living dude.
Hmm, I see you work as some content producer. How about being flattered when a company uses work that you thought of & created without paying you any single cent? Oh dear.
ReplyMichael –
I think there are a couple of challenges here for DSTNCT: distinguishing between a UGC account (ie a ‘me’) someone who would be quite happy to be rewarded with a ‘photo credit’ or, in my case ‘a tin of cat-food’ – and @pandawithacam who’s account is professional (or blend of personal/professional work).
Would that be a solution, distinguishing between the two? This would then clamp down on brands/agencies trying eek out of paying professional fees.
One thing I must say positively for DSTNCT: is that they have a protocol in place to make sure that the user had agreed to usage, so everything is above board.
I said yes, he said no. #NoFoul
DSTNCT were also, clear in which the context of the image was going to appear – social feeds – not in print or outdoor, maybe that would have solicited a different conversation.
But, I wonder if @pandawithacam would have taken offence, if a Brand had retweeted one of his photographs: again a form of social sharing, validation and reaching large audiences (AND without having to ask for his permission!) would payment have been warranted too.
As I concluded, I don’t think it’s black and white, but am in agreement that some compensation (in one shape, or another), should be offered.
ReplyOf course, because being multibillion dollar corporation like Instagram and AIA is exactly the same as being an independent photographer. Come off it! I would argue Instagram uses HIM for free and should be paying him for his work seeing as they make money off it through advertising. How many corporations should be allowed to make money off this poor guy before he gets to pay his rent. Instagram, AIA, anyone else want to pile on? The person that owns the copyright is entitled to do as they wish with their content, including putting hit up on Instagram, anyone else should pay unless given express permission otherwise.
ReplyI think the photographer is acting in line with creative commons that cover even non professional content created online.
Using social media to promote his shots do not mean he is obligated to give them away. So I am not too sure what is the point of this article.
ReplySo she suggests that since Zexun Tan is using a free platform to use promote his work he has little reason to complain huh? What is the difference between a movie and a photograph? Both use the usual channels to promote the work. Some paid, some influenced, and some free. But no, I don’t think the work of a writer, photographer or an artist needs to be stolen just because it is seen online. Is practicing a little integrity too much to ask?
The only commercial opportunity this photographer missed is another shit budget from a client who wants it FREE and FAST. Or another agency looking to mark it up to the client then pocket the difference instead of paying the photographer.
This highlights a common problem in Singapore now. Clients get too much shit for free already. They have their cousins doing shoots for next to nothing and the quality is almost always on the floor. Or, whoring your staff out for free just to get a job approved.
How I miss the days when all clients did was re-write our copywriters’ bodycopy. Now they art direct, re-touch and shoot. I can go on, but I won’t.
Any brand that thinks it can steal creative work just because some digital agency troll found it on Google Images is out of it’s fucking mind. Leave photo credit to the mags and newspapers. There is no honour in a photo credit if the poor guy is being ripped off. Credit will always be a home for photography in editorial work. But if you want to use it to sell your band, where you make money, you must pay for it. Using found art just to lower your ROI or to increase your margin on your digital agency spreadsheet is criminal.
This person suggesting that this is a missed opportunity for the photographer is obviously a suit and not a creative person that earns a living off of his or her craft. These are very sad times indeed.
Just because you found it online doesn’t mean it is public domain. No wonder nobody wants to go into creative jobs anymore.
ReplySpeaking as a full-time commercial/fashion photographer (and videographer) in Singapore, I’m going to out on a limb here (and most likely enrage my creative peers) to agree with of Laura’s points.
Zexun had taken a photograph and posted it for free for anyone/everyone to see on his instagram page. It wasn’t a client commissioned brief, but AIA liked it and asked if they could share it on their page and give him full credit/exposure – which is a helluva lot more than certain brands (who will not be named/shamed in this post) would do in this situation…. (but that’s not the point here).
I (like many creative professionals) post images (for free) on Instagram (@mattysturgess), Twitter (@MHSturgess) and my company website http://www.cps.asia I view these platforms as as marketing channels to promote my work/ideas – I share my images on these channels with the objective of hoping that people seeing my photos might like them enough to commission me to do some ‘paid’ work for them – I would never expect to sell an image after posting it on a social platform. (although I’m absolutely willing to have the conversation) 😉
There are plenty of sites (like 500px) that offer people the ability to submit/ license images online for commercial purposes – but in this instance these photos were on a free to air SHARING platform.
Now, (to be clear) I would NEVER do a ‘client directed’ shoot “for exposure” because I have bills to pay and (many) mouths to feed. Full-time photographers should NEVER do work for free (and brands and their agencies shouldn’t ask), but in this instance – we’re talking about some cute street photography shots posted in the public domain on a sharing platform for everyone to appreciate – it doesn’t look like there were any paid models/makeup artists/studios involved… just a “panda with a camera” walking down the street and taking some shots…if he felt they had commercial value he could have put them on a commercial platform. (assuming he had a talent release form signed by the subjects in the picture).
I (for one) would be rather happy that a brand as big as AIA liked my image/s and would absolutely agree to their request to share my images on their instagram page PROVIDED that (a) appropriate credit for the image is given and (b) my approval would be conditional to first meeting the client (or their agency) face 2 face to try and find out what (paid) work I could do for them ? To Laura’s point: it’ was an opportunity to start a conversation; Getting all stroppy and calling “foul” on a brand (via social media) is a bit of a rookie move and will lessen the likelihood of getting paid work from ‘other’ brands.
ReplySame thoughts. It’s completely overboard, and out of context. I wrote my own thoughts on my FB profile, linked.
ReplyI have to lol when anyone posting any random pic to instagram is now called a creator and a publisher….thanks for the laugh.
ReplyI mean, isn’t the conflict of interest just shouting out?
Laura Gordon worked as APAC head of online sales and content for multichannel network Commercialize TV, and prior to that was regional integration director for Omnicom Media Group.
Pay nothing for content, charging clients millions….??
ReplyAIA asked nicely to simply repost a photo. If the Zexun didn’t like it, he could have simply declined. Of course he didn’t, and went on social media and wrote a lengthy post, bashing conglomerates (because all of them are rich and evil, right?). And then following up again and again to post up screenshots.
If this isn’t attention-seeking, I don’t know what is.
ReplySo according to this “big company, this campaign they are running should genrerate revenue, should also be paid in favours? Ie, paying my insurance via exposure instead of $300 a month?
ReplyI support Zexun’s position. Even if AIA’s agency ask nicely, AIA wants to use the photo on their social platform and that is already a form of commercial use as most corporate brands use their social media platforms for promotion and marketing.
@ Jim, technically anyone who publish online can be considered a creator and publisher, even those who post their pet and baby photos. You may want to refer to what creative commons cover and do a check with YouTube/Google on their stand on commercialising UGC.
ReplyAgreed with ‘Everyone is a photographer now’. While I support Zexun’s stand, he could have just declined. Unless AIA was being a corporate bully, there was no need to go around with the screenshots. Zexun would have been a bigger person if he stopped at his first post.
ReplyHave your say