Ego & Greed? Not So Fast! (Or: How Misunderstood Is The Value Of A Photo?)

We’ve all done it at one point or another. We find an image online that we want to use for any myriad of reasons. We don’t think twice…we right click, or hold the image down on our phone and save it. Particularly in this world of compulsive meme sharing, I don’t think many people actually think about who made the original picture.

But how often do you find yourself in the middle between the author and a random end-user?

That’s where I found myself this past weekend.

My good friend and fellow photographer Christopher Taylor Dantonio made the image (found above in the A-Spot) of Philadelphia shortly before the last time our fall sports team made the big game a few years back. It was an instant hit. Naturally, everyone had been re-posting the image as we got closer to this year’s final game of the season. It’s been used in local newscasts, hype messages, and so on. Hell, even our local power provider PECO has used it.

I happened to notice an acquaintance post this image as their cover photo on Facebook. Now, as the middleman between the two…I tagged Chris in the image as a formal introduction to the person who liked it enough to download it off the web and use it. I also informed them they were fellow cigar aficionados. To me, it was connecting two like-minded individuals.

Chris privately asked the poster if he could swap the image out with one that had his watermark on it.

Long story short, it did not end well. The words “ego & greed” were bandied about because someone had the nerve to ask for what was well within their rights as the creator.

So, rather than give up precious column inches about what people think they’re entitled to just because they want it…let me explain a few things about how photography works, and what we as photographers, photojournalists, etc. are entitled to under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998.

• At no time did Chris ask for money even though he could have under the DMCA. It’s a copyrighted image. It is expressly his intellectual property, and he can use it, revoke it or share it as he sees fit.

• To a degree, ego plays into anything a creator creates. Images, articles, code, or even a bespoke product. We CRAVE societal accolades. Anyone in any job sector looks to get a pat on the back for a job well done. Would I personally have sent a request to swap the images? Probably not, but Chris was well within his rights to request him to do so and was protected as such under the DMCA.

End of story.

Greed doesn’t play into this situation at all…and I’m about to explain in detail why.

Chris never made these images knowing there could be a possible payoff at the end of the rainbow. He made the images because he loves the city, he loves the team, and he loves both traditional photography and drone photography. He is a second-generation photographer. His love for the craft runs deep.

BUT…let’s talk about what it cost for Chris to make this image in money and time without knowing if he would ever recoup it.

• Part 107 Drone Exam: $175

• 15-25 hours to study for the 107 Exam (time away from his wife and children)

• Recurrent training of new drone technology

• Registration of his drone with the FAA; secure an additional waiver to fly over 400 feet AND an additional waiver to fly at night in Philadelphia – especially since he was flying within 10 miles of Philadelphia International Airport (various fees…maybe a top out of about $100-$200)

• Buy the equipment (with his level of gear, let’s start the bidding around $2,500)

• Edit the images with software he had to purchase (anywhere from $100 - $1,000 annually)

• Insurance on his gear in case of catastrophic failure, etc. (call it $1,200 a year at minimum)

• Time and travel from his home to Philadelphia and back (gas, tolls, etc.)

Now did he ultimately get some business referrals from this shoot and sell prints due to demand? You’re damned right he did. Did he turn away that business? Absolutely not, because it ultimately paid for his shoot and then some.

‘MERICA!

Anyone making an image and posting it online will lose a certain level of control over the end use. Most pro-level shooters have attorneys on retainer (we certainly do) to send take-down notices & violations of the DMCA to companies using those images without permission. As a matter of fact, a good friend of mine was telling me recently about an issue he ran into. An office admin downloaded an image from the web to use on some project they were working on. The photographer found out doing a routine reverse-image search and sent them an invoice for use of the image. Under the terms of the DMCA, they had no choice but to pay it. They wouldn’t have stood a chance in court otherwise.

So at this point in the story, I’m hoping you’re asking, “So then, how do I avoid copyright infringement?”

Glad you asked. You look for free images to use on a website called Creative Commons. There are also a plethora of websites like Unsplash, Pexels, and old standbys like Shutterstock and Adobe. Of course, the more in-demand an image is…the less of a chance you can find it for free.

I would guarantee that any sports fan, while balking after being asked to simply credit someone for use of their image saying, “I shouldn’t have to…” most likely owns team schwag that they paid handsomely for. So if you’re willing to pay for one company’s product, why is a photographer’s work valued any less, especially when it spoke to you enough to want to use it?

Sadly, the only ego at play here was on the part of the poster who used the image without permission, and the perceived greed was just that, perceived. Again, the photographer asked simply for credit vs. his right to legally backed compensation for usage.

And, you may have also noticed that not once have I called any mentioned parties or events by their proper names. Turns out, they don’t like it when you use their copyrighted wordmarks without paying them.

‘Merica.