Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Nature Conservancy Photo Contest - A Warning  (Read 20459 times)
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 4995



WWW
« Reply #60 on: December 18, 2009, 12:38:17 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: SteveAlley
... Back to that nugget -- just because I never intend to sell it does not mean that it has no value.  Why is this not also true of images?
Because nugget is a commodity and images are not? Commodities have unifying characteristics (i.e., gold is gold), as opposed to qualitative differences for non-commodities, i.e., "every picture tells a (different) story".

Quote
... Why should it be any different for a photograph which has real value in the marketplace...
A photograph submitted to a contest usually has no easily-determinable value in the marketplace. If that photo has never been sold before, how do you determine its value? You can not even argue that it is worth the same as similar photos sold by microstock agencies, i.e., typically a few pennies, because even those agencies have admission criteria. Just because you snapped something and sent it to a contest does not mean it would be accepted by a microstock agency or that someone would ever buy it. At best, you would end up with a worth of a few pennies.

Quote
... Non-exclusive licenses can, in fact, diminish the value of an image, regardless of the "professionality" of its maker...
True... but if you are at a pro level where you aim to sell exclusive licenses, you should not submit it to amateur contests like these. If you are, however, an amateur firmly believing you just created a masterpiece that someone might discover one day and offer an exclusive license for it, by all means hold on to it and do not send it around ... just sit tight and wait to be discovered.

Quote
... you should be credited (including tax-credited) accordingly...
Hey, thanks for the tax-tip! Not a moment too soon to reduce my taxes for 2009. Say I have a picture I sold once for a couple of hundreds... all I need to do before year end is to submit it to a dozen contests (heck, given the number of contests around these days, why not say "hundreds") and voila!... I just created a tax deduction in the amount of tens of thousands of dollars!
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
SteveAlley
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 23


« Reply #61 on: December 21, 2009, 09:59:45 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: slobodan56
Because nugget is a commodity and images are not? Commodities have unifying characteristics (i.e., gold is gold), as opposed to qualitative differences for non-commodities, i.e., "every picture tells a (different) story".

Not so.  While gold certainly has a base value, anyone who sells a large nugget for the straight price of gold has been taken, and hard.  Large nugggets are sold for a negotiated value, since they are by definition unique, and they are collected for those unique values.  Just as in artwork and photos, every nugget also "tells a diffferent story."  Depending on condition, shape, and history, nuggets can bring anywhere from 125-200% of their weight-based value on the collector's market.


Quote
"A photograph submitted to a contest usually has no easily-determinable value in the marketplace. If that photo has never been sold before, how do you determine its value? You can not even argue that it is worth the same as similar photos sold by microstock agencies, i.e., typically a few pennies, because even those agencies have admission criteria. Just because you snapped something and sent it to a contest does not mean it would be accepted by a microstock agency or that someone would ever buy it. At best, you would end up with a worth of a few pennies."

True...but if you are arguing that you have helped an organization by giving them an image which you admit, above, is worthless, you have in fact given them nothing.  According to your logic, is it possible to price any image for first-time sale?  If it's never sold before...it has no value because you cannot determine one for it?


Quote
"True... but if you are at a pro level where you aim to sell exclusive licenses, you should not submit it to amateur contests like these. If you are, however, an amateur firmly believing you just created a masterpiece that someone might discover one day and offer an exclusive license for it, by all means hold on to it and do not send it around ... just sit tight and wait to be discovered. "

My point is that by valuing images according to who created them (ie pro images are worth more than amateur images), we devalue photography as a whole.  A nugget is a nugget, regardless of who found (created) it.  Devaluing the work of an amateur *solely* because of the photographer's status does not make sense.  I've seen plenty of "professionally" produced images that are crap, and plenty of work produced by amateurs that is absolutely spectacular.  Images should be judged on their individual merit--which means that all iamges should be assigned some value.  Granted, crap images may be assigned a value of zero, but that value should not be assumed simply because of who produced the image.


Quote
Hey, thanks for the tax-tip! Not a moment too soon to reduce my taxes for 2009. Say I have a picture I sold once for a couple of hundreds... all I need to do before year end is to submit it to a dozen contests (heck, given the number of contests around these days, why not say "hundreds") and voila!... I just created a tax deduction in the amount of tens of thousands of dollars!

Funny guy.  This is actually a great illustration of why contest entries should be entries for a contest (a specific use) and not considered donations.  The terms of the contest pointed out here and elsewhere essentially create a donor relationship with the photographer, with all of the benefits going to the organization and none to the artist.  Donations (which, again I do not oppose) should be made and recognized as such; this requires, just as in a sale, a negotiated valuation of the work, and acknowledgement of the receipt of such value by the organization.  Specific licensing is the tool we use to make sure that this remains a two-way street; and it is the absence of both of these processes which invalidates the value of the "contest entry-as donation" for tax purposes.  Will a contest like this draw a bunch of crap images?  Of course.  Will it also draw some fine work?  Again, of course it will.  Which work will the organization use?  By obtaining that work under shady pretenses, and for free with no acknowledgement of its value (and a defacto value of -zero-), the value of any similar work that exists--regardless of who produced it--is reduced.

Steve
« Last Edit: December 21, 2009, 10:02:38 AM by SteveAlley » Logged
Wally
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 64


« Reply #62 on: December 21, 2009, 01:26:45 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: SteveAlley
My point is that by valuing images according to who created them (ie pro images are worth more than amateur images), we devalue photography as a whole.  A nugget is a nugget, regardless of who found (created) it.  Devaluing the work of an amateur *solely* because of the photographer's status does not make sense.  I've seen plenty of "professionally" produced images that are crap, and plenty of work produced by amateurs that is absolutely spectacular.  Images should be judged on their individual merit--which means that all iamges should be assigned some value.  Granted, crap images may be assigned a value of zero, but that value should not be assumed simply because of who produced the image.

The difference however is that no one is forcing anyone to enter any contest or to place a value on anything.

If I want to enter a contest that is up to me, my selfworth or the value I place on my photography is not changed or harmed in anyway. In fact if I win I would say it would go up.

Photography is vastly different than gold nuggets. In todays digital world one can easily make millions of copies of an image if you so wish and they would all be exactly the same, yet you would have a hard time making millions of gold nuggets.

For millions of people who enjoy photography as a hobby making money by doing so is not the goal. I make photographs because it is fun, since I also enjoy the outdoors doing Nature/Landscape Photography is 2X the fun.

If I somehow devalue all photography in your eyes by giving images away for anyreason I see fit so be it. Perhaps to you making money is the end game, for me it is not.

Also if you are not going to value Photographic Works value based on who shot it what do you base it on? If I pay say 20 or 50 grand at auction on an original Ansel Adams print of Moonrise Hernandez the reason it has that value is because Ansel shot it, and Ansel printed it. The same acution might have other prints that sell for $50 that would look just as pretty hanging above my sofa. The only difference is who shot it.
Logged
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad