Posted by Peter Cairns on October 11, 2009 at 6:09 AM
It seems that finally, the conservation community is embracing the communication value of powerful imagery. With that has come a surge in demand which ironically, has coincided with a more-than-equal surge in supply. So, given the market conditions and given the myriad worthy causes that claim they have no budget for communication, what is the true worth of our images?
Should we be putting our money where our mouths are (or at least should be) and contributing free imagery to conservation efforts? Or, does this undermine the value - financial and creative - that is invested in creating quality imagery?
My own experience is that payment for images is no longer dictated by the extent of use but by the client's perception of the value of the image to him/her. This can range from zero to several £000's for ostensibly the same image and same use. All of which leads me back to my original question!
As long as we make and market images on a commercial basis in a free market economy they are worth no more than we can get for them at any given time. Giving anything away free or cheap as chips obviously devalues it.
As you say, there are many worthy causes who don’t have a dedicated budget for photography. But they have to have a budget for everything else. Plumbers don’t work for free. When asked why they don’t have a budget for photos, which are clearly an integral part of their fund-raising strategy, the answer is always the same. We don’t need one; people usually give us photos for free. However, if you have something they really need and can’t get for free, a budget often materialises. It’s clearly a business decision on their part not to pay for photos if they don’t have to. Who can blame them for that? And how do we really know just how worthy some of the worthy causes are anyway. I seriously question just how effective some of these many wildlife conservation/welfare charities (which usually seem to be competing rather than collaborating) are, but that’s whole other issue and way OT I guess.
Unless a new way of financing wildlife conservation photography emerges, externally funded by grants from government, large NGOs or Industry, apart from charging, either as a commission or retrospectively as stock (both apparently declining in value), how else can we afford to create new work?
I think it’s only wise to provide images without a fee if it’s in return for logistical support or access that cannot be gained otherwise, and everyone is aware of the value of what you provide in return.
Thanks for the opportunity to get that off my chest. I feel much better now.
What do you mean by ‘worth’? Money; self publicity (= more money); promotional value (non-financial) to a species/cause for the purpose of conservation; artistic merit; a photographer’s self enjoyment? I'm guessing a mix of all these (and more), depending on the photographer's outlook, but mainly money?
An interesting example is 'royalty free' images. What is the ‘worth’ of this form of image selling to conservation? A cheap(er) way of conservation bodies to get hold of images for the purpose of income generation, for sure - but what does it say (if anything) about the value of the species depicted and indeed wildlife photography? It would seem they are both commodities, like any other, that are there to be exploited?
Sorry, I've got more questions than answers. One thing is for sure though; a great deal of money is made from wildlife in the name of ‘conservation’ by photographers who purport to be conservationist (myself included). Frankly, in reality, we are kidding ourselves. Perhaps the real question is, ironically - what is the true COST to, and impact on, the animals (and places) being depicted?
"...but what does it say (if anything) about the value of the species depicted and indeed wildlife photography? It would seem they are both commodities, like any other, that are there to be exploited? ... "
I guess this goes to the heart of the issue of just how effective traditional wildlife photography (and wildlife film documentary) is as a conservation tool. After all it has been used for decades by WWF and all the others but the world is still going to hell in a hand cart. We are told that those iconic images of tigers (often captive), pandas et al motivate people to fund conservation bodies and I'm sure that's true, but does that actually help in the long term protection of habitat and species? For every image we see by Karl Amman of the gruesome reality in Central Africa or Asia we see hundreds of majestic elephants, lions or whatever. Who is deciding what we see and what effect does that have in the real world? Now polar bears are the poster children of global warming but will great photos of them change the way people live?
Terry
Posted by Peter Cairns on October 11, 2009 at 2:18 PM
So, does anybody have any suggestions (related to the use of imagery) about how to change the way people live? Or at least think?
If I have learn't one thing in life it is Worth and Payment are two completely seperate things.
Worth is the notional value you place upon your work, payment is the actual value it acheives; they are rarely the same.
I concur with the vast majority of what Terry writes and would add that, daily, we are further anaesthetised from imagery by imagery; its quantity, its often repeating message (give me your money) and that nagging doubt that it has been manipulated far from the truth.
What I am convinced of is imagery is failing to work unless the person has been previously tuned into the subject. As an example many of us will have read the Sunday mag's today - name me the womans perfume names that where advertised - what was the image? We (I?) just gloss over the same-old-same-old, yes the picture changes but we know the (dated) style - so there's your answer Pete you have to change the style; failing that something base (primal) is required.
Also Chris has a valid point, what is the cost of conservation, the photos we take, upon the animal we seek to conserve - do some people keep bears in cages because they will be paid to set them free or let people take photos of them? I simply don't know, my heart hopes not, my head says probably. Morality is a virtue entwined with a full stomach.
So will a photographer accept a proposed payment for an image that is less (possibly free) than their notional worth for said image - how satisfied is their methaphorical stomach/ego/conscience/knowledge/weakest-link and does the buyer know this.
In context with your 2nd question, Pete, let's take global warming (GW) as a topic - here's my very simplistic take on it:
In the 'developed world' we live a relatively comfortable existence - most of us over consume, in a multitude of ways, and think very little about the by-products of our actions in relation to global conditions. Why is this? We don't need to: our lives aren't inconvenienced by our behaviour . . . . Yet!
Show your average human an image of a polar bear and I doubt the first response will be concern for the animal’s habitat as a consequence of GW. Show an average Brit a scene of natural devastation (attributed to GW) effecting people in a foreign country and the response will be? - A charitable donation to a relief agency?
The point I'm trying to make (badly) is that animals/places/people may only start to be conserved on a grand scale once the developed (and developing) world begins to feel the inevitable pain of its lifestyle. Wildlife may start to benefit as a by-product of our decision to conserve OURSELVES.
So, if we want to be 'conservation photographers', maybe documenting what the future might hold for human-kind if it persists with its current behaviour, might be a better option than photographing animals and labelling the results 'conservation images'.
Sorry, I did say it was simplistic.
Posted by Peter Cairns on October 12, 2009 at 3:54 AM
Agree 100% Chris.
Pete
Posted by Peter Barritt on October 12, 2009 at 6:31 AM
I think donating images to worthy causes is quite legitimate, particularly if they are small operations such as wildlife sanctuaries. I have also donated to small operations abroad such as the Sheldrick elephant sanctuary. Personally I believe wildlife photography does give pleasure and raise awareness of the beauty and fragility of the planet. It can stimulate eco-tourism without which i believe tigers and mountain gorillas might have disappeared some time ago. The Wildphotos meeting www.wildphotos.org.uk shows a lot of practical examples of photographers making a difference. It's a delicate balance between working for a better world and avoiding wildlife photography becoming just another branch of consumerism and motivation for profit.
I donate images fairly often but I always invoice for the full value, with 100% discount.
The usage terms and conditions are clearly spelled out - usually no third party use without permission, and the threat of stiff legal penalties if misused.
This way I feel my work's value is underlined, but critically - it demonstrates to the user what value I place on my work and skill, and I feel that this helps to foster a realistic attitude towards photographs as a commodity.
Also I think it is vital that charities know exactly what the full operating cost of their operation is, and they can only do that if they include the 'value' I place on my work. I would urge others to adopt a similar approach.
“I think donating images to worthy causes is quite legitimate, particularly if they are small operations …”
I have some sympathy with this argument and I wouldn’t want to sound hard-nosed about it but simply giving away photography, to whomever, clearly devalues it in financial terms. And Chris makes a good point about exploitation so perhaps it is morally wrong for images of endangered animals/cultures/ecosystems to be commoditized in the first place. A few years ago I photographed a group of hunter-gatherer people in Paraguay and those images are placed in image libraries. 50% of all revenue goes into a health fund for them. It’s not much but it’s money they wouldn’t otherwise have and they are, in economic terms, very poor. The images retain a monetary and creative value and the subject benefits directly. We could do similar for any organisation we chose to support.
“It can stimulate eco-tourism… ”
Isn’t this a double-edged sword though? Do we really know what effect eco-tourism (a much misused term) is having on, for example, Indian tigers and what would happen if research showed that now, tourism is detrimental to tiger conservation (I’m not saying it is)? What about the issue of mass tourism, promoted by beautiful images, to the Galapagos?
Just another 2 cents worth.
Cheers
Terry
Posted by writepic on October 12, 2009 at 10:24 AM
This is interesting. There are some references above to conservation organisations, and eco-tourism, so I will recount a very heated debate that went on during a recent trip I was on.
Amongst the trip members, there was an environmental consultant, and a previous volunteer working of a very large household name in environmental and wildlife conservation. The group was discussing over dinner how we had stayed with some indigenous communities on the trip, and how what happens in the wider world affects them. The authorities had recently opened the national park in which the communities live to oil exploration (!). Many of the indigenous people had gone to work for the oil company, not surprisingly to try to attain a better standard of living (they have no electricity, no vaccination programs, no formal education etc etc). The main topic of discussion was how one could ensure that they maintained their basic human right for an improvement in aforementioned deficits whilst still managing to conserve the rainforest.
The environmental consultant pointed out that assisting them in attainment of better health, wealth etc, would most likely result in the people having a greater demand on their immediate environment. Better healthcare = more lives saved so increase in population, greater wealth = local consumerism or migration away from area to further increase consumerism resulting in indirect consumer pressure.
The enviromental volunteer had been working on a program developed to redistribute carbon funds to governments of rainforest countries. The government receives the money to protect the rainforest, and herein lay the hot debate. How does a government protect a rainforest whilst satisfying the needs of the people living within it to meet their needs for basic human rights, and satisfy their natural tendency to develop? Answers on a postcard.
As for what an image is worth. It is worth nothing unless you try to sell it. Granted one has to have an idea of value, but it is a market driven by oversupply. The plumber analogy is oft quoted in such debates, but one cannot go to jessops or B&Q and buy a new digital tap fixer, or "one button does all" shower installer. There is still a regulated under abundance of skill in plumbing, whereas there is an unregulated over abundance of photography. Anyone looked at istock lately?
"How does a government protect a rainforest whilst satisfying the needs of the people living within it to meet their needs for basic human rights, and satisfy their natural tendency to develop? "
By allowing ownership of that forest - and by providing the people with the skills to manage their own (rich) resources, and the knowledge to understand why it's both necessary and sensible. The worth of the medical patents alone that can be sourced from one tract of forest can be considerable. Sustainable logging can provide consistent revenue, and a well-managed and sustainable enterprise like that will maintain its wildlife and can attract discerning eco-tourists paying a premium in the knowledge that what they support with their $$$$ is worthwhile.
The problem is that such forest resources are rarely managed sensibly, and hardly ever for the benefit of the indigenous people.
Re supply of photogrpahs:
There may be an overabundance of supply of photographs, but I would argue that there is not an equal overabundance of skill in photography. To continue with the plumbing comparison - buying a camera is like buying a spanner, you still need to know how to properly use it. People often forget that basic fact. There's a wordprocessor in my laptop, but I'm not a novelist simply because I own it.
Posted by Peter Cairns on October 12, 2009 at 11:28 AM
All very interesting guys.
Perhaps we should (as is already happening in USA) be looking to establish a 'fairtrade' nature photographer? One who conducts his/her business in an ethical manner; one who donates a given %age of his/her images to XYZ worthy cause; one who is honest and open about the origins/circumstances of his/her pictures.. BUT...also one that is able to charge a premium rate for a premium product?
Sounds fanciful? Not to me and there IS a market for such an approach.
How would one acheive the above creditantials and credance? ILCP?
T
Posted by Peter Cairns on October 12, 2009 at 1:20 PM
ILCP possibly but why not a British or European approach? It is being discussed as we speak but I'm personally not convinced of the appetite in UK for such a thing (unless of course it means more ££ per image, which of course it might).
John. Excellently Put. Agree also that the resources are rarely managed in favour of the indiginous people. In the case I mentioned, these people own the forest, but it didn't stop the government marching in and setting up a national oil platform. even when the people protested for 20 days. they ran out of supplies that come from outside, and gave up, to work for the oil company. even now the government hasnt given them a child vaccination program, which it boasts in the rest of the country, is free for every child, only it seems if tehy can get themselves to a hospital.
good idea regarding some kind of licensing or certification. similar to i guess 'normal' photography institutions like RPS etc. just with a conservation requirement. I have my own conservation project involved with manta rays and sharks, and the running of this far outwieghs my involvement in photography. The thing that turns me off of ILCP is that is requires some kind of invitation from a current member, which I find uncomfortable. I don't know any members of ILCP and if I contacted a current member for a recommendation, what good would that do me if they don't know me? Rather like getting a doctor or a judge I never see to sign my passport application.
Is this topic going to be discussed at wildphotos? Would be good to hear more about it.
Warning - this reply contains a SERIOUS RAMBLE warning,
How about something radical? The IMF should commoditize/monetize the environment and all that it contains, valuing the third world/developing countries environments more highly, with 'environmental health' being the operational yardstick, and your 'stock' falling if the health of the environment deteriorates. At the same time environmental charities and agencies should bite the bullet and pay wages on a scale that matches bankers, with really fat bonuses that rewards conservation success.
So instead of people boasting they work in 'the city', they'll say they work in 'the country'. Save a pocket of rainforest, make a packet of dosh; get rich on dugong futures - turn a sea cow into a cash cow; the real 'bear markets' should focus on polar bears.
Why should it just be bankers that earn obscene amounts of money? They only work with numbers. What about environmental workers? They do really important stuff that affects the planet, which in turn affects our health. Are we seriously saying playing with numbers is more important than saving the planet?
The trickle-down effect will be interesting - serious environmental photographers, if we look for a parallel in banking, are perhaps akin to the venture capitalists - they put up their own time and money to explore/exploit a story (about nature) that brings it to the investors notice, and this gets it all loved up by conservationists and subsequently saved, and this photography work is generally a long-shot - so we should be rewarded very handsomely for this risky strategy and take a fat cut of the profits. :-)
What, you ask, is the environment worth?
The answer is anything the government and banking community wish to make it worth! If they can monetize debt, and get rich off 'futures' anythings possible - so what about the 'debt' we owe nature for our very existence, and the real future, the future I'd like my son to inherit? Are they REALLY worthless?
This massive rethink about the environment and the accompanying injection of cash across the board would make wildlife really 'sexy' - footballers would be falling over themselves to appear in WWF adverts rather than Renault adverts, Coldplay would be immediately associated with global cooling, and Madonna would be adopting pandas rather than children in Malawi, and in a complete about-face Hollywood would embrace Bill Oddie and Kate Humble in a remake of Baywatch (featuring a guest appearance by the Moray Firth dolphins). And yes, of course getting on the act is Simon Cowell who will unveil a new series called 'Britain's Got Wildlife' that features environmental workers who've achieved conservation success with their particular area of interest. The environment will be way cool.
Suddenly the environment, like banking, will be seen as 'a good career move', and really really really smart people will flock to get jobs there, school-leavers will aspire to be 'environmentalists', and environmental success will be rewarded with knighthoods, social cachet and 'The Freedom of the Country' accolades. And more smart people involved means more intellects brought to bear on solving the problems.
Do the maths - if Damien Hirst can make a dead shark worth so much money just think what REALLY creative financially savvy people should be able to do with a live one; a DEAD shark mind you, entitled (I hope the irony is not lost on you) "The Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Living" and which fetched $8m when flogged on by Saatchi to American billionaire hedge fund manager Cohen. Despite Hirst's titular proclamation, the possibility of the death of our planet is pretty real in my mind.
So, if a dead shark is worth that much - simply by being pimped by Hirst, just think of the untold riches that lie as yet untapped in live sharks if we can do an 'emperors new clothes' number on the way we perceive them and their worth, and just imagine if if we can do the same for bears, and frogs, and birds, and ants, and spiders and....
Whats wrong with thinking laterally?
Want to save a power station's daily output of greenhouse gases overnight? Put proximity sensors on street lights so they only go on when a person or car is near them, so they only work when needed, immediately reducing our rates/community charge = more cash in our pockets.
Want to overcome people's reluctance to have wind farms near their house? Give free electricity to any house that can see a windfarm - which will restore the 'value' of the house that (some) people perceive they'll lose by the wf's presence, and overnight you make windfarm proximity socially/economically desirable = more cash in your pocket.
This is of course a flight of fancy - but being serious for moment - what does it take to change people's perception of the worth and value of our environment? Is money a good starting point? If people equated a healthy environment with a healthy bank balance would we be on the road to environmental recovery?
Posted by Peter Cairns on October 13, 2009 at 11:18 AM
John, you're wasted. Give William to Melanie and get yourself a political party. I can just see it now:
"BROWN'S A CLOWN, THE MAC IS BACK!" Anything is possible as you've clearly alluded.
Discussion
20 repliesShould we be putting our money where our mouths are (or at least should be) and contributing free imagery to conservation efforts? Or, does this undermine the value - financial and creative - that is invested in creating quality imagery?
My own experience is that payment for images is no longer dictated by the extent of use but by the client's perception of the value of the image to him/her. This can range from zero to several £000's for ostensibly the same image and same use. All of which leads me back to my original question!
Peter Cairns
www.northshots.com
As long as we make and market images on a commercial basis in a free market economy they are worth no more than we can get for them at any given time. Giving anything away free or cheap as chips obviously devalues it.
As you say, there are many worthy causes who don’t have a dedicated budget for photography. But they have to have a budget for everything else. Plumbers don’t work for free. When asked why they don’t have a budget for photos, which are clearly an integral part of their fund-raising strategy, the answer is always the same. We don’t need one; people usually give us photos for free. However, if you have something they really need and can’t get for free, a budget often materialises. It’s clearly a business decision on their part not to pay for photos if they don’t have to. Who can blame them for that? And how do we really know just how worthy some of the worthy causes are anyway. I seriously question just how effective some of these many wildlife conservation/welfare charities (which usually seem to be competing rather than collaborating) are, but that’s whole other issue and way OT I guess.
Unless a new way of financing wildlife conservation photography emerges, externally funded by grants from government, large NGOs or Industry, apart from charging, either as a commission or retrospectively as stock (both apparently declining in value), how else can we afford to create new work?
I think it’s only wise to provide images without a fee if it’s in return for logistical support or access that cannot be gained otherwise, and everyone is aware of the value of what you provide in return.
Thanks for the opportunity to get that off my chest. I feel much better now.
Cheers
Terry
What do you mean by ‘worth’? Money; self publicity (= more money); promotional value (non-financial) to a species/cause for the purpose of conservation; artistic merit; a photographer’s self enjoyment? I'm guessing a mix of all these (and more), depending on the photographer's outlook, but mainly money?
An interesting example is 'royalty free' images. What is the ‘worth’ of this form of image selling to conservation? A cheap(er) way of conservation bodies to get hold of images for the purpose of income generation, for sure - but what does it say (if anything) about the value of the species depicted and indeed wildlife photography? It would seem they are both commodities, like any other, that are there to be exploited?
Sorry, I've got more questions than answers. One thing is for sure though; a great deal of money is made from wildlife in the name of ‘conservation’ by photographers who purport to be conservationist (myself included). Frankly, in reality, we are kidding ourselves. Perhaps the real question is, ironically - what is the true COST to, and impact on, the animals (and places) being depicted?
Cheers,
Chris
I guess this goes to the heart of the issue of just how effective traditional wildlife photography (and wildlife film documentary) is as a conservation tool. After all it has been used for decades by WWF and all the others but the world is still going to hell in a hand cart. We are told that those iconic images of tigers (often captive), pandas et al motivate people to fund conservation bodies and I'm sure that's true, but does that actually help in the long term protection of habitat and species? For every image we see by Karl Amman of the gruesome reality in Central Africa or Asia we see hundreds of majestic elephants, lions or whatever. Who is deciding what we see and what effect does that have in the real world? Now polar bears are the poster children of global warming but will great photos of them change the way people live?
Terry
Pete
Worth is the notional value you place upon your work, payment is the actual value it acheives; they are rarely the same.
I concur with the vast majority of what Terry writes and would add that, daily, we are further anaesthetised from imagery by imagery; its quantity, its often repeating message (give me your money) and that nagging doubt that it has been manipulated far from the truth.
What I am convinced of is imagery is failing to work unless the person has been previously tuned into the subject. As an example many of us will have read the Sunday mag's today - name me the womans perfume names that where advertised - what was the image? We (I?) just gloss over the same-old-same-old, yes the picture changes but we know the (dated) style - so there's your answer Pete you have to change the style; failing that something base (primal) is required.
Also Chris has a valid point, what is the cost of conservation, the photos we take, upon the animal we seek to conserve - do some people keep bears in cages because they will be paid to set them free or let people take photos of them? I simply don't know, my heart hopes not, my head says probably. Morality is a virtue entwined with a full stomach.
So will a photographer accept a proposed payment for an image that is less (possibly free) than their notional worth for said image - how satisfied is their methaphorical stomach/ego/conscience/knowledge/weakest-link and does the buyer know this.
Sorry its gone slightly OT.
2 cents.
T
In the 'developed world' we live a relatively comfortable existence - most of us over consume, in a multitude of ways, and think very little about the by-products of our actions in relation to global conditions. Why is this? We don't need to: our lives aren't inconvenienced by our behaviour . . . . Yet!
Show your average human an image of a polar bear and I doubt the first response will be concern for the animal’s habitat as a consequence of GW. Show an average Brit a scene of natural devastation (attributed to GW) effecting people in a foreign country and the response will be? - A charitable donation to a relief agency?
The point I'm trying to make (badly) is that animals/places/people may only start to be conserved on a grand scale once the developed (and developing) world begins to feel the inevitable pain of its lifestyle. Wildlife may start to benefit as a by-product of our decision to conserve OURSELVES.
So, if we want to be 'conservation photographers', maybe documenting what the future might hold for human-kind if it persists with its current behaviour, might be a better option than photographing animals and labelling the results 'conservation images'.
Sorry, I did say it was simplistic.
Pete
Peter
The usage terms and conditions are clearly spelled out - usually no third party use without permission, and the threat of stiff legal penalties if misused.
This way I feel my work's value is underlined, but critically - it demonstrates to the user what value I place on my work and skill, and I feel that this helps to foster a realistic attitude towards photographs as a commodity.
Also I think it is vital that charities know exactly what the full operating cost of their operation is, and they can only do that if they include the 'value' I place on my work. I would urge others to adopt a similar approach.
Hi Peter
“I think donating images to worthy causes is quite legitimate, particularly if they are small operations …”
I have some sympathy with this argument and I wouldn’t want to sound hard-nosed about it but simply giving away photography, to whomever, clearly devalues it in financial terms. And Chris makes a good point about exploitation so perhaps it is morally wrong for images of endangered animals/cultures/ecosystems to be commoditized in the first place. A few years ago I photographed a group of hunter-gatherer people in Paraguay and those images are placed in image libraries. 50% of all revenue goes into a health fund for them. It’s not much but it’s money they wouldn’t otherwise have and they are, in economic terms, very poor. The images retain a monetary and creative value and the subject benefits directly. We could do similar for any organisation we chose to support.
“It can stimulate eco-tourism… ”
Isn’t this a double-edged sword though? Do we really know what effect eco-tourism (a much misused term) is having on, for example, Indian tigers and what would happen if research showed that now, tourism is detrimental to tiger conservation (I’m not saying it is)? What about the issue of mass tourism, promoted by beautiful images, to the Galapagos?
Just another 2 cents worth.
Cheers
Terry
This is interesting. There are some references above to conservation organisations, and eco-tourism, so I will recount a very heated debate that went on during a recent trip I was on.
Amongst the trip members, there was an environmental consultant, and a previous volunteer working of a very large household name in environmental and wildlife conservation. The group was discussing over dinner how we had stayed with some indigenous communities on the trip, and how what happens in the wider world affects them. The authorities had recently opened the national park in which the communities live to oil exploration (!). Many of the indigenous people had gone to work for the oil company, not surprisingly to try to attain a better standard of living (they have no electricity, no vaccination programs, no formal education etc etc). The main topic of discussion was how one could ensure that they maintained their basic human right for an improvement in aforementioned deficits whilst still managing to conserve the rainforest.
The environmental consultant pointed out that assisting them in attainment of better health, wealth etc, would most likely result in the people having a greater demand on their immediate environment. Better healthcare = more lives saved so increase in population, greater wealth = local consumerism or migration away from area to further increase consumerism resulting in indirect consumer pressure.
The enviromental volunteer had been working on a program developed to redistribute carbon funds to governments of rainforest countries. The government receives the money to protect the rainforest, and herein lay the hot debate. How does a government protect a rainforest whilst satisfying the needs of the people living within it to meet their needs for basic human rights, and satisfy their natural tendency to develop? Answers on a postcard.
As for what an image is worth. It is worth nothing unless you try to sell it. Granted one has to have an idea of value, but it is a market driven by oversupply. The plumber analogy is oft quoted in such debates, but one cannot go to jessops or B&Q and buy a new digital tap fixer, or "one button does all" shower installer. There is still a regulated under abundance of skill in plumbing, whereas there is an unregulated over abundance of photography. Anyone looked at istock lately?
Complicated but you gotta love it.
M.
By allowing ownership of that forest - and by providing the people with the skills to manage their own (rich) resources, and the knowledge to understand why it's both necessary and sensible. The worth of the medical patents alone that can be sourced from one tract of forest can be considerable. Sustainable logging can provide consistent revenue, and a well-managed and sustainable enterprise like that will maintain its wildlife and can attract discerning eco-tourists paying a premium in the knowledge that what they support with their $$$$ is worthwhile.
The problem is that such forest resources are rarely managed sensibly, and hardly ever for the benefit of the indigenous people.
Re supply of photogrpahs:
There may be an overabundance of supply of photographs, but I would argue that there is not an equal overabundance of skill in photography. To continue with the plumbing comparison - buying a camera is like buying a spanner, you still need to know how to properly use it. People often forget that basic fact. There's a wordprocessor in my laptop, but I'm not a novelist simply because I own it.
Perhaps we should (as is already happening in USA) be looking to establish a 'fairtrade' nature photographer? One who conducts his/her business in an ethical manner; one who donates a given %age of his/her images to XYZ worthy cause; one who is honest and open about the origins/circumstances of his/her pictures.. BUT...also one that is able to charge a premium rate for a premium product?
Sounds fanciful? Not to me and there IS a market for such an approach.
Pete
I know of a couple of UK and Irish photogs who have an environmental statement on their sites (and not simply paying lip-service to the idea either).
T
Pete
T
John. Excellently Put. Agree also that the resources are rarely managed in favour of the indiginous people. In the case I mentioned, these people own the forest, but it didn't stop the government marching in and setting up a national oil platform. even when the people protested for 20 days. they ran out of supplies that come from outside, and gave up, to work for the oil company. even now the government hasnt given them a child vaccination program, which it boasts in the rest of the country, is free for every child, only it seems if tehy can get themselves to a hospital.
good idea regarding some kind of licensing or certification. similar to i guess 'normal' photography institutions like RPS etc. just with a conservation requirement. I have my own conservation project involved with manta rays and sharks, and the running of this far outwieghs my involvement in photography. The thing that turns me off of ILCP is that is requires some kind of invitation from a current member, which I find uncomfortable. I don't know any members of ILCP and if I contacted a current member for a recommendation, what good would that do me if they don't know me? Rather like getting a doctor or a judge I never see to sign my passport application.
Is this topic going to be discussed at wildphotos? Would be good to hear more about it.
m.
How about something radical? The IMF should commoditize/monetize the environment and all that it contains, valuing the third world/developing countries environments more highly, with 'environmental health' being the operational yardstick, and your 'stock' falling if the health of the environment deteriorates. At the same time environmental charities and agencies should bite the bullet and pay wages on a scale that matches bankers, with really fat bonuses that rewards conservation success.
So instead of people boasting they work in 'the city', they'll say they work in 'the country'. Save a pocket of rainforest, make a packet of dosh; get rich on dugong futures - turn a sea cow into a cash cow; the real 'bear markets' should focus on polar bears.
Why should it just be bankers that earn obscene amounts of money? They only work with numbers. What about environmental workers? They do really important stuff that affects the planet, which in turn affects our health. Are we seriously saying playing with numbers is more important than saving the planet?
The trickle-down effect will be interesting - serious environmental photographers, if we look for a parallel in banking, are perhaps akin to the venture capitalists - they put up their own time and money to explore/exploit a story (about nature) that brings it to the investors notice, and this gets it all loved up by conservationists and subsequently saved, and this photography work is generally a long-shot - so we should be rewarded very handsomely for this risky strategy and take a fat cut of the profits. :-)
What, you ask, is the environment worth?
The answer is anything the government and banking community wish to make it worth! If they can monetize debt, and get rich off 'futures' anythings possible - so what about the 'debt' we owe nature for our very existence, and the real future, the future I'd like my son to inherit? Are they REALLY worthless?
This massive rethink about the environment and the accompanying injection of cash across the board would make wildlife really 'sexy' - footballers would be falling over themselves to appear in WWF adverts rather than Renault adverts, Coldplay would be immediately associated with global cooling, and Madonna would be adopting pandas rather than children in Malawi, and in a complete about-face Hollywood would embrace Bill Oddie and Kate Humble in a remake of Baywatch (featuring a guest appearance by the Moray Firth dolphins). And yes, of course getting on the act is Simon Cowell who will unveil a new series called 'Britain's Got Wildlife' that features environmental workers who've achieved conservation success with their particular area of interest. The environment will be way cool.
Suddenly the environment, like banking, will be seen as 'a good career move', and really really really smart people will flock to get jobs there, school-leavers will aspire to be 'environmentalists', and environmental success will be rewarded with knighthoods, social cachet and 'The Freedom of the Country' accolades. And more smart people involved means more intellects brought to bear on solving the problems.
Do the maths - if Damien Hirst can make a dead shark worth so much money just think what REALLY creative financially savvy people should be able to do with a live one; a DEAD shark mind you, entitled (I hope the irony is not lost on you) "The Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Living" and which fetched $8m when flogged on by Saatchi to American billionaire hedge fund manager Cohen. Despite Hirst's titular proclamation, the possibility of the death of our planet is pretty real in my mind.
So, if a dead shark is worth that much - simply by being pimped by Hirst, just think of the untold riches that lie as yet untapped in live sharks if we can do an 'emperors new clothes' number on the way we perceive them and their worth, and just imagine if if we can do the same for bears, and frogs, and birds, and ants, and spiders and....
Whats wrong with thinking laterally?
Want to save a power station's daily output of greenhouse gases overnight? Put proximity sensors on street lights so they only go on when a person or car is near them, so they only work when needed, immediately reducing our rates/community charge = more cash in our pockets.
Want to overcome people's reluctance to have wind farms near their house? Give free electricity to any house that can see a windfarm - which will restore the 'value' of the house that (some) people perceive they'll lose by the wf's presence, and overnight you make windfarm proximity socially/economically desirable = more cash in your pocket.
This is of course a flight of fancy - but being serious for moment - what does it take to change people's perception of the worth and value of our environment? Is money a good starting point? If people equated a healthy environment with a healthy bank balance would we be on the road to environmental recovery?
"BROWN'S A CLOWN, THE MAC IS BACK!" Anything is possible as you've clearly alluded.
Pete