Photo Contest Discontinued

Due to the negative feedback and concerns expressed by our members, we have discontinued the HP photo contest. If better terms can be reached, perhaps we can try something like it again.

Thanks for your feedback shared below - it is appreciated!

Assigning full rights and the copyright for ~$1,000? I'm surprised that NPN would support these terms.

Given that the site has such a mix of amateur and professional, I think leaving the decision to enter up to the photographer, while still supporting the contest is a fine thing to do.

Sorry for the back to back comments - but I want to point out that everyone should read the contest article before posting (which I failed to do). It talks about why and how NPN is sponsoring this contest.

...everyone should read the contest article before posting (which I failed to do). It talks about why and how NPN is sponsoring this contest.

Exactly! This contest is unique in that the terms are "front and center" - it's all clearly spelled out what is involved.

I also agree with David 100% that it should be up to each member to decide if they want to participate. While full time pros may not want to due to the recurring income they may lose from that photo, the typical amateur/advanced amateur - who does not use photography as a source of income - may decide that trading full rights/ownership of a single photo in exchange for the printing package being offered is worth doing. We encourage everyone to read the article!

I'm sorry to have to disagree with this contest. it sounds like a cheap way for HP to gain image rights. The issue isn't whether it is worth while to an "amateur", it's a matter of getting what an image usage is worth regardless of professional status. In addition it undermines professionals who would have otherwise commanded much better usage agreements. Remember too that whoever wins this competition is going to have to pay taxes on the $1000.00 prize. That means real money from the photographer - cash.

Paul

Hi Jim

I just read the article and have to say I think you've done a great job with this (as usual ). The terms you've negotiated are much fairer than so many of the photo contests out there, particularly since no rights are assigned to HP unless your image actually wins. I've given up on most photo contests since they all seem to want unlimited rights to an entrants images just for accepting them as a submission.

Once again you and NPN rock! Keep up the good work.

As a stock photographer, I would never enter a contest like this myself. But I'm smart enough to understand that to the vast majority of NPN members, this would be a very nice prize to win. Rights-grab contest go on all the time - the vast majority of which, you give away the rights just by entering. I admire Jim for sticking to his guns and demanding fair terms for those who enter. And kudos to HP for listening to the concerns and conducting a fair contest. They just as easily could have walked away from Jim's requests and ran an all out rights-grab contest.

I'm interested in everyone's opinions on this contest...please keep posting! I still consider myself an "advanced amateur", having only made a few VERY small sales. I have no time to spend marketing my photos, and no equipment to print them myself if I did. My inclination at this time is to enter the contest, but I want to make a reasonable decision and value everyone's opinions. I certainly think Jim did a good job here and I appreciate his hard work!

Paul, thanks for taking the time to offer your POV.

“It sounds like a cheap way for HP to gain image rights.”

Well, I guess that would be one way of putting it. Another way of putting it would be “looking for more cost-effective solutions to conducting business.” The way products go to market continues to evolve as technology advances. With the emergence of the Internet (and “how-to” sites like this one), digital capture and an ever-growing competence in “all things digital,” the average hobbyist photographer is now producing photos that rival – or perhaps surpass – those of the pro. How long before this rapidly-expanding supply outpaces demand and causes the inevitable effect on prices? In a market where there is such a huge and easily accessible supply of usable product (good images), innovation and "adding value" will be key to survival.

“In addition it undermines professionals who would have otherwise commanded much better usage agreements.”

I have heard this before in the plumbing and heating industry, of which I have been a part of for over 3 decades. Before the advent of the “Orange Box” and other home improvement mega-stores (along with all of the DIY shows on TV), plumbing and heating supplies all flowed through P&H wholesale distribution, which caters primarily to the professional tradesman. When those same supplies became available at the new breed of HI center to the home owner, many wholesalers and tradesman cried foul. But those who complained failed to recognize a very important point – the market, and the way product goes to market, was rapidly changing. As of today, P&H wholesalers and tradesman alike have had to become innovative and offer more value for the end user in order to stay in business. I suspect that the pro photographers who would be hired to produce photos for a client like HP will need to do the same. Just as the "Orange Box" brought heating boilers direct to the home owner, the Internet, digital photography and sites like NPN have made superb imagery readily available from sources other than Corbis and Getty. No doubt about it, we are witnessing some dramatic changes in the way photography goes to market. In that regard, I do not consider this contest an endorsement of this change, but rather an expected - and perhaps unavoidable - consequence of how the market is evolving. If this contest didn't happen here, it most certainly would have happened elsewhere - and perhaps with less favorable terms.

“Remember too that whoever wins this competition is going to have to pay taxes on the $1000.00 prize.”

I think that is pretty much true of anything won in any contest.

Paul, thanks again for your thoughts – all good ones IMO!

Jim,

This seems like a fine opportunity for many NP members. Thanks for negotiating this. But if a photographer is already very successful its probably not so great. So Ð donÕt enter!

I sold an image on a stock site for $35 and it was used in an annual report of a not-for-profit. They needed an inexpensive image -- I was thrilled by the sale. Yes it was cheap but I am still happy with it. So this would be a step up for me.

Another thought is that HP has its requirements calling for super sharp, dramatic images. I'm in short supply of those, I think. Mine are nature photographs taken in my New England town that is like its inhabitants -- modest and quiet -- for the most part. But I'll probably submit some images anyway.

BTW -- normal rules apply -- right? So the judges will be looking at images from small files. Will they want to see high res images at some point (say for finalists)?

Thanks,
Frank

BTW -- normal rules apply -- right? So the judges will be looking at images from small files. Will they want to see high res images at some point (say for finalists)?

Yes, exactly. They will make the initial selections based on the photos uploaded to the HP Contest gallery. When an image is selected a hi-res file will be requested, to be sent by the member direct to HP for further evaluation (they want to see how it looks as a print from one of their products). If they decide not to use the photo, the release form (and all rights) are returned. If the photo is used, the member receives the printer package.

I'm not sure if HP will wait to the end of the contest (March 24) to make all of the initial selections or if they will do so incrementally over the 2-month period.

For a hobbyist and contest junkie like me this is GREAT.

Thanks to Jim and HP for working out what I think are fair terms for a contest like this.

Cheers,

Jim,
Thank you very much for this. I can understand the viewpoint of some stock photographer here but I don't build my life on photography and I really appreciate this possibility. Despite of the prize it could be, for many of us, a good news to add to our CVs.

It is my opinion that if the "amatuers" want the enter this image right grab bag contest, that they might not be doing anything to hurt themselves, but they still could do damage to the "professionals" that make their living from stock sales.

I am just glad that I don't have to weigh the ramifications about entering.

It is my opinion that if the "amatuers" want the enter this image right grab bag contest, that they might not be doing anything to hurt themselves, but they still could do damage to the "professionals" that make their living from stock sales.

It is my opinion that if "home owners" want to buy the supplies at the home center and install their own heating systems, that they might not be doing anything to hurt themselves, but they still could do damage to the "professionals" that make their living from installing heating systems.

That small change of words is exactly what many heating contractors said! They then had 2 choices - continue to complain and blame their troubles on everyone else, or adapt to the new reality.

The contractors who continued to do well learned how to sell and install even better. Sure, the average homeowner with average mechanical skills could install that heating system, but not nearly as well as those professionals who attended seminars to learn how to do the job better and sell more effectively. And they learned very quickly not to belittle those homeowners who wanted to give it a try themselves, and found new market opportunities fixing homeowner installation mistakes.

The smart pros continue to flourish and will be around for a long time. The rest of them get jobs at the Mega Home Center. I'm sure it won't be much different in the photography biz.

Hmmmm. Even as an amateur, I am not so sure about this. Unlimited rights, does this mean that my/your image could be in a folder within the HP software bundle and printed out (and potentially hang on someone's wall) when anyone buys a new HP printer?

Unlimited rights, does this mean that my/your image could be in a folder within the HP software bundle and printed out when anyone buys a new HP printer?

Will, good question. Yes - the photo, if used, would become HP's property and they are free to use it as they see fit.

Then essentially Jim, back to your scenario, we are buying a new heater, cloning it, and installing it all over the neighborhood.

You can count me out.

I'm still following this with interest. Since I'm not a professional, and have never made any sales over $50 per photo (one use rights, I retain the copyrights), I am curious as to the terms that you (those of you that object to this) would require for your photo. If you had a chance to sell one of your images, along with the copyright, to someone like HP, how much would you expect for compensation? Or would you do it at all? I've never make that kind of sale so have no idea what reasonable terms would be.

Terrible idea - and I am suprised that NPN has subscribed to it. So everything is upfront. So what? Instead of a terrible clandestine idea, its a terrible transparent idea. Sorry, no atta boys here.

This, solely on its own merits, is harmless. Its fun. But collectively, this gimmick and others like it, is killing the profession - and NPN is aiding and abetting.

Even if you are NOT a professional photographer, I would urge you all to boycott this "promotion" based on principle alone.

Alice - it's a moot point; It's unlimited. I just don't think it's fair for anyone purchasing a printer have the potential ability to duplicate my images, whether it's a print(s) or cards or whatever. I can't answer your questions, but I would consider this if limits existed. Limited to advertisement, packaging, web use, etc.

Jim, I was going to send a private note regarding my first question, but have other comments so I'll just post it here.

I work for HP (not affiliated with digital imaging/printing however.) Are employees excluded as in most promotional contests like this? It's not spelled out in the terms. Just curious as I'm not likely to enter.

Coincidentally, I have won several cameras from HP internal contests, been published internally on many occasions, including a calendar in which I (by default of entering) granted HP unlimited usage, but did not surrender ownership or copyright.

Although it has been pointed out several times, I will emphasize that you're not just giving HP rights, you would surrender complete ownership and the new owner, HP, will grant back to you, the right to display on your own website.

Also, it should be clarified that there will be TEN (10) images selected requiring the copyright ownership release, not one. Only one wins the printer yes, but nine others surrender their rights. Read the terms again. By "surrendering" ownership to HP, they now are in no way obligated to even give you photo credit for the image (when it's being test-printed in thousands of printers at Best Buy, CompUSA, Circuit City, etc. etc.)

Having said all that, by no means am I against NPN or HP hosting a contest of this nature. It's up front and a widely used practice for corporations (non-profits too) to get quality images for advertisement, brochures, whatever. In addition, there is always a starting point for budding photographers to get their first publication... that first "high" and validation their work is worth something. I also understand, appreciate and respect those who make their living at supplying images for profit. I once had a number of images published in a local magazine for $200 with the hopes for future work, getting my name out, etc.... Very satisfying. They loved the work, wanted more photos for a future issue.... and offered $40 an image. I turned them down.

As Jim eluded to, this is not a blockbuster contest that will change the professional photography business in the least. I think it's a legitimate way for those perhaps that have never been published, won a contest, etc. to go for it. And has been said is an individual choice.

Good luck!
Lon

Although it has been pointed out several times, I will emphasize that you're not just giving HP rights, you would surrender complete ownership and the new owner, HP, will grant back to you, the right to display on your own website.

That is correct.

Also, it should be clarified that there will be TEN (10) images selected requiring the copyright ownership release, not one. Only one wins the printer yes, but nine others surrender their rights.

Incorrect. Ten winners, ten printers.

Hey Will... if you won the contest, or was in the top 10, no one would be duplicating your image.... because it wouldn't belong to you anymore, that's the point.

Alice, to your questions, there's plenty of stuff on stock photography on the web, but there are terms like "unlimited US rights," unlimited worldwide rights" usually for a term, like 1 year - forever. Or "limited" rights for specific publications. Rights can be specified in great detail and the prices go up and down accordingly. The vast majority of these "rights" are being granted from you, the owner of the photograph TO the potential buyer/user. There are many, many uses that would pay less than a $1k; a non-cover calendar shot, one-time use corp brochure, 1/4 page magazine insert, etc. So, the value of the printer is worth considering.

Jim also makes a valid point: I've got 10's of thousands of slides that have been in slide pages for up to nearly 20 years that in reality I will not likely ever, ever sell. This is an opportunity for recognition, exposure and a step in a direction that many, many folks aspire to head.

Lon

I am reading with interest all of the different viewpoints here.

Jim,,,,,,I applaud your efforts in negotiating what seems to be a fair deal.

Richard,,,,,I respect your opinion and your stake in this as a professional. But exactly which '"principle" should I base my decision on? I really do not see the difference in entering this contest or selling an image for the same price.

Regards,,,,, David

And this is the same NPN that is promoting its membership as place for photographers to offer their images for marketing?

I would think this would be a place to support and educate about the value of your work and photographer rights.

Of course I am sure the management here has to make a living also

Incorrect. Ten winners, ten printers.

Thanks Jim, my apologies for the mis-statement. I should practice what I preach! and read the entire contents. But as someone on another post discussed, I read what I wanted to read....

I also don't want to be entirely discouraging and don't have an issue with the contest. I just know of several first-hand experiences of folks not understanding what they were or are giving up and just want to make sure others are aware. I've given away work and refused work, and understand both sides.

Lon

> Richard,,,,,I respect your opinion and your stake in this as a professional. But exactly which '"principle" should I base my decision on? I really do not see the difference in entering this contest or selling an image for the same price.

David, go ahead and sell your image if HP wants it. But you would not be selling unlimited rights to an image for a $1000 printer.

Principle. Its why I buy from local merchants, not Walmart. Could I save hundreds, maybe thousands each year if principles didn't guide me? Sure. That goes for the foods I eat, the products I buy, and where I invest my money. You folks can do whatever you want. I am going to watch.

Richard,,,,,The internet is not the ideal medium for conservation, so I apologize in advance for my misunderstanding. But again, how is it unprincipled to participate in this contest? And if I'm not selling an image for a printer, what am I selling?

Regards,,,,David

Just to get people thinking:
If stock photographers sell ALL exclusive rights to an image for large advertising campaigns ( in other words give up all future licensing rights to the image) the fees usually start at a minimum in the range of 20-25K! and can go much higher. Very few photographers will give up all rights to an image unless they are very well compensated. A thousand dollar printer does not even come close. HP is the only real winner here.

But collectively, this gimmick and others like it, is killing the profession - and NPN is aiding and abetting.

I strongly disagree.

First of all, I sincerely doubt "the profession is getting killed." Evolving, changing - yes. That's reality in any business though, whether you sell stock photos or water heaters. And some will survive and others will not.

"Aiding and abetting"? Then so are all of the pros conducting workshops, all the websites that instruct, all the books that show how and all the camera companies for selling "pro gear" to non-pros. Afterall, anyone with "pro gear" who can take "colorful, sharply focused photos with emotional appeal" is a pro, yes? They should give up their day jobs and go into the stock photography biz?

Professional stock photography is just like an other "profession" - it's much more than knowing how to take a good photo. It's also about being able to sell, to negotiate and adjust when needed to changing times. It's knowing how to work with unrelenting trends to best effect instead of trying to swim against the tide. It's a matter of being able to see what's coming and be prepared for when it arrives.

The HP Contest on NPN did not cause this - the high cost of stock photography and the huge supply of equal quality (or better) amateur photos at lower prices did. We do our part in educating our members as to the value of their work, to always be cautious and never give it away - that is why our Photo Marketing forum is as busy as it is. This contest is intended soley as a service to our members - we tell up front (and in depth) what "the deal" is and leave the decision to participate or not up to each person.

If stock photographers sell ALL exclusive rights to an image for large advertising campaigns ( in other words give up all future licensing rights to the image) the fees usually start at a minimum in the range of 20-25K! and can go much higher.

Stephen, if you can get that much for any of my photos, I'll give you 80% of the proceeds! (Oh, wait a minute, that's what I'd have to do if Getty and Corbis sold it, right? And that's after I pay them to list it?)

Make no mistake who is REALLY getting rich in the stock photography biz (hint - it isn't the photographer).

Think I'll add something else to this. First off, no one is being required to enter this competition. For those of you who are strongly against this (and presumably any and all other competitions) don't enter.

As to the prize(s) being offered, are there really that many of you out there who are getting $1000 per image? Really???? I have sold and do sell a number of images. I've also won competitions including Nature's Best. A group of 10 $1000 (retail value) prizes is really pretty good IMO.

The third complaint I've been hearing is that there would be unfettered use of your image. With the advent of the web and all of us here posting images I suspect there is a lot of uncontrolled use of our images out there anyway and unauthorized downloading. Is having an image selected by a major company when you've volunteered it and been given something in return for the rights to it such an amazing thing?

Lastly, I agree with Jim's analagy about the heating contractors. Photo competitions are a fact of life and have been around for a long time. Most require that you surrender your rights just by entering. Jim has negotiated a much better deal wherein unless you are "paid" by winning a printer your image and the rights to it stay exclusively yours. I don't see that this will put any professional photographers out of work. While I can't say this for certain, I'd bet that HP does hire pro photographers for all sorts of work and that they really do use more than 10 images in any given year.

I really can't see how this is such a terrible thing. For those who want to enter this competition and possibly have an image used by HP (which would be a nice addition to most people's resumes) good luck. For those who appear horrified by this prospect by all means stay away. Whatever you chose to do, I still think Jim has done a really good job of negotiating this arrangement and getting access for NPN members.

I will now put on my flame suit.

I would have to say anyone who supplies a photo for this usage should receive fair market value for that photograph. It idoesn't matter if the photograph was the product of a new user with their point and shoot.

To support "contest" like this is totally disrespectful to the photographer. These images are worth thousands of dollars, no matter who took them.

To support "contest" like this is totally disrespectful to the photographer.

So, correct me if I'm wrong, you are saying that anyone who decides to participate in this contest is being disrespectful of other photographers?

Keep this up, this is getting really interesting! I would love to think I could command $20-25K for an image! But I would have no idea how to begin marketing them, and since I am relatively an unknown, my chances are nil. Heck, I would love to think I could command the $1000 per image!

"These images are worth thousands of dollars, no matter who took them."

Are photographers on average selling their images for "thousands" of dollars apiece?? If you are, please send me some tips. I may need to quit my day job and get busy!!

> changing - yes. That's reality in any business though

Jim, the change you speak of is not good for photographers or those who aspire to be photographers. That doesn't mean, however, that since you feel it's inevitable, you have to aid and participate in that change. Its like lamenting our dependence on foreign oil as you pull up to the gas pump in your Hummer.

This alone is not going to put any photographer out of business, obviously. But it is symptomatic of that change you speak of. HP is the real winner there. Its not even $1000 cash! Its their cost of the printers (maybe 1/2 that). So as HP gets richer, professional photographers continue to get poorer. This is a site for the benefit of photographers, right? Aspiring photographers??

Oh, by the way. Thanks for the opportunity to vent our opinions. No more from me.

Alice
The point is that you are giving up ALL rights to the image and all potential future income is lost. 20-25 K total earnings over the a number of years for multiple times of licensing the use of an image is not that far fetched. I have one image that has been licensed numerous times over the last 10 years , for one time use rights fees ranging from $300- $1100 a pop. The highest use fees come from advertising rights. This one particularly image has earned me close to $8K to date and I anticipate it will continue to do well.
There is a real battle these days in the stock industry particularly over Rights Managed vs Royalty Free stock. Unfortunately as Jim hinted, Stock Photographers are increasingly on the losing end. One hint: if you really want to earn money from stock shoot " lifestyle images", pure nature and landscape is very difficult to sell for top dollar because of the over abundance.

Thanks Stephen, that's the info I was looking for. All this is quite a lot to think about. Not sure if I'll enter...we'll see. I don't enjoy shooting "lifestyle" images...I prefer being out in nature and shooting whatever I find that's interesting. So stock sales may never work out for me. That's OK, I enjoy shooting as a "hobby". Thanks everyone for the opinions.

Thanks for the opportunity to vent our opinions. No more from me.

Richard, I hope you change your mind - it is this kind of exchange that is beneficial for everyone.

I understand the point you are making. Perhaps the changes we are discussing are bad for the future of photography. But then again, we have no way of knowing for sure.

For the past 12 years, I have conducted contractor training seminars to educate on effective heating system design, installation and selling technique (see my other business). I am not "anti-pro" at all - in fact, just the opposite.

Many of the contractors who have attended my seminars - which I have conducted from Alaska to New England - were in the same boat; loosing business to the lower-priced but yet less-professional competition. In order to remain competetive, we show them ways to step up their game and offer what the low price competition can not - expertise and product knowledge. Many of the participants have reported back that they are doing better than ever.

I have to think that the success of the pro stock photographer in the future will have to come about in much the same way - to learn how to offer more and sell better than the lower-priced competition.

Could it be that purchasing stock photography through traditional channels has become so expensive and so cumbersome that it is fueling its own demise? If so, what can the independent stock photographer do to overcome this?

I am betting that pro members like you have some ideas, and maybe already know that regardless if NPN runs a contest or not, that changes will have to be made. This, IMO, is what this thread is all about and I think that with the number of pros on this site, it could serve as a great place to see what's coming and create new ways to meet the challenge.

If the result of running this contest is 10 happy members and the pro participants better prepared and motivated to succeed in a changing environment, I will consider it a success.

Thanks again for sharing your POV and expertise with us.

"So, correct me if I'm wrong, you are saying that anyone who decides to participate in this contest is being disrespectful of other photographers? "

Jim,
I would say at one time this was a place to learn about more than where to point a camera. It was a place to learn about value and ethics. I would say that in most cases people who join such contest don't understand the value of what they are providing. I feel many people who understand the value of what they are providing would not choose to give that value to a public traded, for profit, corporation. Personally I would say people who are willing to join such a contest are not respecting the value of their own work.
To your point I would say that those who sponsor such contest don't have any respect for the people they are engaging.

Do I disrespect people who join such contest? No I don't feel any disrespect for them, I just feel it is a bad choice.

Thanks for the chance to share our views.

I would say at one time this was a place to learn about more than where to point a camera. It was a place to learn about value and ethics.

It still is.

I feel many people who understand the value of what they are providing would not choose to give that value to a public traded, for profit, corporation. Personally I would say people who are willing to join such a contest are not respecting the value of their own work.

Or perhaps they already know that if they were selling images for a living, that they should/would get more, but have made the choice to enter a contest because they have neither the time or desire to attempt making a living selling photos. Or they do make some part of their living with photography and feel that one of their images is worth trading outright for the merchandise offered. It is their right - and their right alone - to make such decisions. Whether you wish to "respect" those decisions is entirely your call.

To your point I would say that those who sponsor such contest don't have any respect for the people they are engaging.

FWIW, this contest is being offered for one reason and one reason only - for the benefit of NPN members. NPN is in no way profiting from this other than any interest the contest may generate in NPN membership. So far, you've done a great job to ensure that doesn't happen - no good deed goes unpunished.

I will stand by the merits of the contest and defend any member's decision to participate.

Thanks for the chance to share our views.

Thanks for taking the time to offer them.

I have heard the argument that keeping track of usage is such a hassle. That is a bunch of BS. HP has whole departments of people that keep track of usages and rights to many different media (music, video, photography, etc.) I don't understand why photographers are so ready to lay down and be doormats. It is beyond me why people under value their work so much.

When HP produces a video spot for broadcast, does it get run forever with no additional compensation? This is the same situation. It is a rights grab.

I have seen HP ads in National Geographic Magazine. Do you think National Geographic will take a printer in trade? Full Page ad in - National Geographic Magazine $167,310

NPN members are a very talented group. I am sure that professional members will see this for what it is. I also understand that if I don't like it, I don't have to participate. That is not the point. If your photography is good enough to published by HP, you deserve to be fairly compensated for each usage.

Respectfully,
Bob Ludwick

Mmm cheap photo rights. I sell a 60inch framed print for $1600 AUS. and never sold that image again it's worth the $1000.00 Hp is offering but I'm tipping selling say 20 of them. That image is now worth to me $32,000.00 Why would anyone trying to even sell a image want to give away all rights to any image for $1,000.00. If they had said we will select 2 Images and give the photographer a $5,000 spending spree with them the complaints here might be different. But to say we want 10 images for $10,000, with each photographer getting $1,000.00 is way to low for the rights they want..

I guess though for someone not selling images it could be good exposure if HP included their name on the image when they use it. I guess it might be good exposure if the unlimited use was say for a year. Meaning HP can use the photo how they like for 12months only then hand the image rights back to the photographer, but unlimited for good is a rip off

A very interesting discussion! I don't know anything about marketing or business photography. I have a day job that pays well as I suspect many on the forum do (everyone seems to use expensive toys) so I would rather enjoy my photography than waste time on the business end. However I am familiar with the work of pros in my area and feel that I have saleable images. I would not be comfortable 'selling' my best images for the prizes on offer. That a photo could be used without recognition of the artist irks me. I commend the management for negotiating this competition. Having seen the prizes in other competitions I think they are actually quite good. I could myself do with a nice printer. Anyway I intend to use the competition to my advantage. I'll enter some of my 'off-cuts' and see how they do, otherwise they'll never see light of day outside of my hard-drive.

This discussion is interesting partly because it comes at a time of great change. Is it really possible for the average pro to expect $25K income from an image? People go to penny sites today for images. Getty and Corbis are in that game now, aren't they?

Personally, I will always be an amateur. I've sold around thirty images in the last couple of years not including a Conservation Trust calendar that I design and publish each year. The calendar sells for $15 and is full of photos that are unique to my home town. People in town like my images because they show Westford to be a beautiful place. People in Westford have been brought to tears over my photos, and strangely that makes me happy. But three years ago I had not sold a single image. IOW my photography career is just starting. Of course at 63 this makes me a late bloomer!

I feel privileged to be a member here. I thank Marc Adamus for introducing me to this web site. Its a wonderful site with a great deal of talent. Jim, you've done great things here.

I will enter this contest and if I win (doubtful) I'll feel a little uneasy about giving up my rights to a favorite image. But think what winning would mean to me! Not as much as the praise of my neighbors in Westford but it will mean a lot.

Now if I was an established pro -- I would not even consider entering this contest -- but there is no danger of that happening anytime soon!

Frank

Jim,

All will not agree, but I think you did the right thing in terminating the contest. NPN should be a place to learn about photography as well as its value.

Lori

Lori, though I had expected some "concern" from those members in the stock photo biz, I never expected the degree of backlash that this contest announcement precipitated. I will always 'fess up to a bad call when I make one, and this turned out to be a case in point.

In the end, the controversy it created was too detrimental to NPN as a whole. If we attempt something like this again, I will ask for input from some of our pro members to make certain it is fair and equitable for everyone.

Thanks again to all for your participation in this thread.

This has been a wonderful learning thread for me, and I think for all of us at NPN. Jim, thanks for your efforts, and considering the opinions I think you made the right call to cancel. I think however that you echoed my feelings when you said:

"Or perhaps they already know that if they were selling images for a living, that they should/would get more, but have made the choice to enter a contest because they have neither the time or desire to attempt making a living selling photos. Or they do make some part of their living with photography and feel that one of their images is worth trading outright for the merchandise offered. It is their right - and their right alone - to make such decisions. Whether you wish to "respect" those decisions is entirely your call."

I understand completely the feelings of the pros out there. But for us "amateurs" (for lack of a better word), we should be able to take advantage of opportunities that may gain us a little extra "income".

In any event, NPN remains a wonderful site, and we will all continue growing, whether amateur or professional, by being involved in it.

I'm, personally, sorry to see the contest go (not that I would've won or anything). I understand that Jim has to make a decision based on the entire site, for the good of the population at large. But I still have one question that keeps coming up over and over (on this site and others).

I see people write that photographers need to be aware of how much their images are worth, or that they shouldn't trade rights easily because their images are worth more than that, etc. In actuality, the inherent value of every photo I've ever taken is $0.

The value you may get for it might be higher due to demand (which you may create through name, marketing, etc.) - but if you aren't selling your work (like me) you aren't worried about demand. I personally would have loved to enter this contest. And I feel like there are a lot of people like me around. I don't want to be a pro, or work at selling images, and I don't think I ever will. I also don't really care what HP does with my image - in fact, I think I'd be very happy to see it as the demo image in Best Buy. I understand that if there are enough people like me, and the quality of work is high enough (mine is not), that it could hurt the current state of the photography business and photographers. That's unfortunate, but true. I don't want to give up my right to do what I want with my images for whatever compensation I want, just to keep alive a business model that is changing anyway. For the same reason, I've been upset when I've seen people get mad at someone for selling their photos too cheaply "because they are worth more than that". No, they aren't. They could be in the right hands, but they are worth whatever you get for them.

In this case, I was hoping one of my photos would be "worth" a $1000 printer (or even the lesser amount it cost HP to produce it.)

Not sure if I really said anything new, but it's my take on it as a "newbie" (about 1 years experience) amateur.

Jim,
I want to applaud you for making the change. I feel that act shows the true value of NPN.

I don't want to give up my right to do what I want with my images for whatever compensation I want, just to keep alive a business model that is changing anyway.

David, your points are very well taken and obviously, I agree with them or otherwise the contest never would have been offered.

But now this coversation moves beyond a contest on NPN to the real issue at hand - the way the market continues to evolve and how that change is going to impact all of us.

Going back to my P&H story (a very real one, BTW), when the Mega Home Centers began to appear offering the same plumbing fixtures and supplies the traditional P&H wholesaler offers, there was the same situation. Sinks and faucets were almost exclusively available only through P&H wholesale, and only the professional trade had unfettered access to them at competitive prices. Now the HI center appears offering the same products direct to the public at prices that were often less than what a tradesman would pay at a wholesaler! Do you think the "stuff hit the fan" when this happened? You bet it did!

Some wholesalers conceded the loss and continued to do biz the way they always had. Many of these business's went under from their loss of sales to the HI centers. Other wholesalers stepped up their game to compete by installing "public friendly" showrooms with all of the plumbing fixtures elegantly displayed. They also now have showroom sales people to assist the home owner with the selections, and referral lists of contractors who could be hired to install the product (many DIYers are converted to a professional installation this way). These P&H wholesalers opened a whole new market doing this and have absolutely thrived because of it!

At the same time, the pro tradesman either kept conducting biz in the usual way only to meet the same fate as the wholesalers who didn't adapt, or came up with new ways to thrive in the changing marketplace. The innovative contractor realized that the home owner buying the materials direct - the same materials they had traditionally made a "mark up" on - was actually an opportunity to create new lines of work. For example, the heating contractor would work with the DIY homeowner as a paid consultant, guiding them on the easy part of a heating system install - such as installing the baseboard - while providing installation service on the more difficult part of the heating system, such as the boiler piping and hook-up. Believe it not, there was MORE money to be made doing this than just doing the entire job themselves! They had learned to become more than just an installation contractor - they had learned how to sell themselves as professional consultants to the DIY home owner.

These are just two simple examples of how the DIY Mega Home Centers have had a tremendous impact on that industry and how it has changed as a result. The key in all cases is not to "swim against the tide of change" but rather look for ways to exploit that change.

One has to believe that the stock photo industry is undergoing the same kind of change. Whether a contest happens on NPN or not, that change is coming and there's no stopping it. If I were in the stock photo business, I would be spending my time and energy looking for ways to exploit that change, not trying to prevent the inevitable.

Jim,

I certainly don't think you efforts were wasted or unappreciated. It was and still is a good idea. I just think the terms were unreasonable. A one year exclusive would have been fine. IMHO.

Having worked at a stock agency, I know what the industry is and has gone through, you can bet HP is not paying pennies an image for unlimited copyright buyout.


Bob

Being an amateur, and one that HP would have loved to gouge, I sincerely applaud your decision Jim. Now if it was an Epson SP 3800...

Jim,
You are correct change is constant. I feel that one change that is needed is to educate all photographers to the value of the wonderful images they are capable of producing.

Clap Clap Clap!

It's not like HP is so poor that they couldn't offer a $5k cash prize, plus the $1K printer, and limited the use of the image to one year.

Value based on use, folks. Value based on use.

Jess and Gary, good points.

But that contest - and many more like it - are inevitable. You have a HUGE and ever-growing supply of top-notch photography and owners willing (and justifiably so) to trade all rights for a product/payment that under their circumstances they feel is fair.

Like it or not, outstanding nature photography HAS become a commodity, and photo buyers know it. It's only a matter of time before supply/demand economics takes its toll on everyone involved with it.

Clap Clap Clap!

Tick...tick...tick...

Jim,
I understand there is a problem with a growing use of drugs and something caled aids. Is it best we do nothing?
I feel it is wonderful these companies want to use high quality nature photos maybe we could get Canon and Nikon to give us several $9000 cameras so we can make these images.
Could we negociate something like that?
I would be glad to give them credit for all the images used in these contest.

Jim,

I'm sure this was a tough decision. Is there a possibility to re-negotiate the terms? I think a "limited rights" 1-2 yr term where the photographer retains all copyrights would be more in line with the value of the compensation.

Lon

Jess, I do not believe your "drug analogy" holds true. It is simple supply and demand economics - nothing more.

One way to "fight" this problem is to keep the fine images displayed on this site (for example) by the "hobbyist photographer" out of circulation - out of reach of commercial use. This would help hold down supply and keep prices high. In effect, this is what we have done (in an insignificant way) by canceling the contest.

The next step for the photo buyers is to find what they need on PhotoPortfolios. When they find what they want and contact the photographer, it will be up to the photographer to accept whatever offer they make without any direct involvement by NPN. As we have seen, some would accept the offer for the $1000 printer while others would not. But the fact remains that the large supply of quality photos by the "hobbyist" on personal websites and sites like PhotoPortfolios and NPN will sooner or later have an impact on the value of all photography. Supply goes up, value goes down. To not recognize that fact is foolhardy and an invitation to end up wearing an orange apron every day.

In a private email to me today regarding the cancelation of the contest, the sender stated "Reality is that stock photography is a commodity and it's a buyer's market. If their business model is that fragile, it's dead already."

Pretty good observation, IMO...

Jim,

I appreciate that you canceled the competition. But your arguement becomes a snowball. At some point HP would be able to offer a $9.95 ink cartridge for unlimited copyright usage and then maybe just the "glory" of seeing your image used for free. Cancelling the competition did not take anyone out of commercial reach, it did just the opposite. It keeps the hobbiest in the reach of truely fair usage fees. It says that even a hobbiest won't be taken advantage of. Stock maybe a buyers market and maybe a race to the bottom, but NPN doesn't have to push it down the hill. Just to put this in perspective, I wouldn't be surprised if there are some pros here that would gladly pay $500-$1000 cash each for a pick of the top images by hobbiests on this site to gain full copyright control.

Paul

Jim,
The reality is that there has been and will always be free images. People sign on to bad deals everyday. Does that mean it should be advocated here? Of course it is your choice.

Thanks again for a chance to comment.

Just to put this in perspective, I wouldn't be surprised if there are some pros here that would gladly pay $500-$1000 cash each for a pick of the top images by hobbiests on this site to gain full copyright control.

No doubt about it! And if the hobbyist felt comfortable doing so, would you hold it against them?

Maybe us hobbyists can sell our photos to the pros under a program like this? No kidding - it may be worth some discussion.

I appreciate that you canceled the competition. But your arguement becomes a snowball. At some point HP would be able to offer a $9.95 ink cartridge for unlimited copyright usage and then maybe just the "glory" of seeing your image used for free.

Again, simple economics does not predict that outcome. As the demand for "inexpensive hobbyist photography" increases, so does the asking price. At some point one would predict that the cost of pro and hobbyist photography would reach parity.

I really believe you are arguing against the laws of economics, which like the laws of physics, you have no chance. I am only stating the obvious, not promoting any agenda. If I was in a business where the product I sell was growly rapidly in supply, I know what the undesired effect would be - regardless of how much I think my product is "worth."

In the end, how much a buyer is willing to pay determines the value of anything.

Jim,

I wouldn't hold it againsthobbiests for selling full copyright to a pro. But here's the big difference. The pro is likely going to foster a good market that the hobbiest could benefit from as well if they moved into that place. The HP situation destroys the market for everyone. I am not a stock professional, but I sure would like to see the market stay as strong as possible. I know that what you were doing was trying to offer an opportunity to those who otherwise wouldn't have it. But the pros on this site are part of the attraction I feel (I am not including myself). It is important to keep that as part of the equation (as I know you have). I think the discussion does need to continue and thank you for bringing it to the floor.

Paul

I wouldn't be surprised if there are some pros here that would gladly pay $500-$1000 cash each for a pick of the top images by hobbiests on this site to gain full copyright control.

Paul,,,,,you are assuming that someone will put their best photos up for grabs.

The HP situation destroys the market for everyone.

I don't think that's the case. It's the fact that there's equal quality product available at lower prices. I cannot fault HP for acquiring the products they need at a lower price - every other business does the same. And if they didn't, heads would roll.

I think the real issue is accepting the reality that the value of the products is changing due to the high supply.

Another issue is the implication that if the hobbyist sells all rights/ownership to a photo in exchange for a package they feel is equitable for them under their circumstances, are they being unethical to those who depend on such sales to make a living? I think this is what really cuts to the heart of the matter...

Is it unethical for a home owner to buy their own supplies and do their own home improvement work knowing they taking business from a professional tradesman?

Is it unethical for a car owner to buy parts and do his own brake job knowing he is taking business from a professional auto repair shop?

Is it unethical for the teenager to cut lawns at a lower price than the professional landscaper?

Or, is it really the pro's fault for not providing enough "perceived value" in the services they offer? Who is really to blame for their loss of business?

BTW, I started another thread of interest here.

Jim,

Don't know if they would look at doing this again, but the only problem I saw with this contest was the unlimited rights they wanted for a very cheap price. As you mention businesses are always out to grab a bargain and this would have been that for HP. Maybe make it a little fairer if possible, A 1 year rights only. That gives them a bargain still but would make it more tempting for the exposure the photographer would get and the fact the image is returned to them after a year, maybe to at a push.

The unethical illustrations you provide are worthy of consideration but there is a slight difference. This isn't a sale of a image to undercut a professional, It's a competition that only HP wins. 10 Images for 10 Printers and the photographer has lost all rights to the image. If this could be changed to a 1 year or at a stretch 2 years I think many may change their views.

10 winners to get their photo's used by HP for a year, if HP use their name on the images would be great exposure, if after the year the photographer gets his copyright to the image back to reuse that image. Unfortunately HP will probably just go get some free images somewhere else

Oh even though I was against the competition I would have let it run, while the professional photographers may have been upset the hobby guys would probably have loved it and now while the professionals may be happy I'm sure a lot of others would be upset it is closed. You can't please everyone all the time.

Keith, good suggestions. FWIW, I spoke with the gal I've been working with at HP today. She felt really bad about what happened, but I told her "no worries, they've knocked the snot of me before."

HP is unlikely to budge on the unlimited rights thing due to lawsuits in the past, so I don't know where it goes from here (probably no where). I think it's safe to say that the contest idea on NPN is dead.

Edit - this topic has been moved to the Hot Topics forum in this thread.