You own your photos and can get paid for their usage... right?

A big question (really, sad sad issue more or less) in photography surrounds around money: can we really afford to make a living as photographers? So many photographers have a 9-5, daytime job in addition to their photo exploits because the answer for most is no.

But why? Why can't photographers make a living doing what they do best? Many reasons, which go basically from how difficult it is to get paid work when every Tom, Dick, and Nancy has a friend or cousin who just bought a fancy camera and "for their portfolio" is willing to do the job for free to you, photographer, invested the $ in better equipment and in becoming an accomplished professional and then some bigger fish just comes along and uses your work without telling you or without your permission. That sucks.

I have recently started watching a lot of Current TV (great TV channel, by the way) but in a google search, I came across this post that just about made me gag. The story goes along the lines of a photographer, upon discovering that his photo made its way unknowingly onto the Current TV website, demanded some kind of action. He wanted to be compensated for the work that he had done which is fair, right? If a surgeon does a surgery, he/she expects to be paid. If a chef cooks a dinner, he/she expects to be paid. If an actor stars in a movie, he/she expects to be paid. That's the only way we, in a capitalist society, are able to have doctors, chefs, actors, etc. etc. - because they get money to allow them to keep doing the things they do for us. Apparently, photographers are somehow different. Long story short, a judge granted the photographer his $588 claim but Current TV appealed and ended up getting their money back on appeal.

What does this mean for us? This means that the quality of such an expensive industry to be a part of will continue to separate... one on end, the "working free" amateur photographer with the time and drive to be amazing but without the equipment and investment to really get there and on the other, the "working non-photographer" who can only afford to be in photography because another (time consuming) job pays for it. Either costs need to come down or pay needs to go up. And I'm not saying that talent is secondary to what equipment you carry - if you suck, you suck no matter how great and/or expensive your stuff is. But you can be the greatest DJ in the world and have the greatest mixing abilities ever to be seen - but if your mixer can't process the music and your speakers sound like crap, your final product will not do your ability justice. This is just one of those kinds of industries allowed only by advancements in technology and innovation. That is, unless we're all going to revert back to pinhole camera photography, try selling a client on that. But either way. a big thank you is owed to the photographer, Mr. Ken Light, for speaking up. It's pretty ugly how Current TV went about devaluing/not paying for someone's work that they used (stole), but if photographers continue to see this type of thing going on and don't say anything - it's only going to get worse. Stand up for your work, you worked for it.