Getting started as a commercial photographer is hard work. It is hard to get a great portfolio while still making money doing it. Sometimes you have to compromise. I think OnRequest images provides emerging photographers with the opprortunity to prove their abilities and get paid if chosen. I don't think OnRequest is meant for professionals who have been in the business for years.

You could easily substitute graphic designer, illustrator, artist or, composer in this argument. All the arts have been in this situaion for years. As long as there is someone willing to work for spec (ie free) this situation will continue. Try finding a carpenter, plumber, doctor, lawyer or any other profession that behaves this way. We all have a choice - which one will you make?

This is a new low in ethics, pitting the hungriest (often emerging) photographers against professionals who have carefully built careers. Both groups suffer first, then the photo buyers who will be denied quality images as the profession withers.

As a licenser of stock photography ($295,000 two years ago, last year was a slow one) I know the pain of paying top dollar for top-quality photos.

But as a photographer, I understand what photographers are going through. They never get the respect they deserve for their hard work and their retirements are based on the continued sale of their images.

I don't like that Corbis and Getty are becoming the 800 pound gorillas in this industry. But that's the way it's going. It restricts choice and competition and drives prices up. If that was including paying photographers better I'd be all for it. But it's not. It's about raising corporate and stockholder's profits, which creates pressure to drive payments to photographers down.

Years ago a Corbis editor promised me they would treat photographers well, and that promise has been broken over and over since then. (And yes, I'm a big customer of theirs.) Just check the Pages of Photo District News over the years if you don't believe me.

You ask if such a paradise is possible as harmony and respect between photographers and art buyers. It had darn well better be possible or you are going to see photographers getting out of the business, and the quality of stock photography drop from it's good-to-mediocre levels now to downright dismal.

Assignment photography is still how you get the best, most current, on-topic photos possible. I'm now travelling the world occasionally to shoot photos because it's cheaper than paying for stock photos. So for me personally, it's a great trend!

Stock is a good substitute when more generic photos will do. But in the end, you get what you pay for. And if you drive the best photographers out of this business, you are going to hurt your own bottom line. Becuase the quality of the work you use is going to drop.

Now if this process forces people to hire photographers again because they can't get what they need through stock, all the better. But the spreadsheet jockies at most corporations don't listen sympathetically to an art buyer saying "I need Jay Maisel!"

I agree that photography as a whole has been devalued in the eyes of the agency buyer and others that depend on images to convey their message. It seems that the photographer, who used to be part of the creative element, is once again asked to reduce their rates and accept the "realities" of the marketplace. The photo buyers then seem perplexed by the fact they are having a harder time finding talanted/committed photographers to produce the photographs they need. I do not know where the "suggested assignment" theory is going or how it will affect the industry. I do know that when talented photographers can no longer make a living producing the products the agencies are looking for because they are not willing to pay for them, we will see a drop off the available photographer pool. It is hard enough today to keep on going, considering the investment in both equipment and creative talent, without more stumbling blocks being placed in our way.

Quoted from the article: "But with continually shrinking budgets and timelines, is such a paradise possible?"

If there's no budget or short timeline, there should be no photos.

Would deigners and ADs like to work on spec? This should be the next step if this business model is going to extend.

SAA has no issue with stock. As a global trade organization of stock photographers, our mission is education, community and advocacy to protect our members' interests.

SAA members know that stock is no easy business to navigate these days. It's more critical than ever to provide a resource for stock photographers to understand the options for licensing their imagery, and a forum of straight talk about how to evaluate these options.

Our job is complicated by quickly evolving business models and the common use of inexact and confusing terminology to describe them. Take "Royalty Free" for example. There's nothing "free" about it, but it's a great name to attract business.

Now there's a hybrid model commonly known as "custom stock." As every stock photographer knows, there's nothing "custom" about stock... but again, it's a great name to attract business.

Representatives of SAA and our fellow trade organizations have engaged in roundtable discussions, published reports, written letters and attended meetings to help clarify the terms of this model and express our concerns about the ramifications for photographers.

Rather than restate what's already been said so well, here's an analogy that does a good job of cutting to the chase about what the "custom stock" idea means for photographers. It was originally posted to the SAA Member Forum and is reposted here with the author's permission.

"As a stock shooter, you are engaged in 'spec' in the same way a housing developer is. Based upon your analysis of the marketplace and current trends, you decide on what products to sell. You purchase or build your inventory and hope that the sales justify your decisions. You determine how to market and advertise your products for maximum exposure and return on investment.. Large real estate developers do this all the time."

"On the other hand, let's say you were a builder who did custom homes. Can you imagine a customer going to five builders and having them agree to the following? 'Each of you will build a home to my specifications. It will be created especially to meet my needs and designed with my tastes in mind. If I like one of the homes, I may purchase it at the price we agree to before you get started. If I decide I don't like any of them, I am free to simply walk away. In any event, with the homes I do not purchase, you are free to try to sell them to someone else (who may or may not like my taste, specific needs and design options)."

"Oh ... and one last thing. My real estate agent will be taking 50% of the sale if I buy the house... and the same thing if you sell these homes elsewhere."

This would be an amazing deal for home buyers, but it's clearly a lousy business model for home builders. Similarly, designers and art buyers may be happy to accept the deal offered by "custom stock", but they might consider the consequences. Does this sound like an equitable or sustainable business model for photographers? These are questions worth asking and carefully considering by everyone involved in image licensing.

Betsy Reid
SAA Executive Director

In the arena of the "do everything corporate mindset" photographers are being replaced by individuals that are working on the crossplatform of the" we expect everything from you" as directed to the art dept employee. They are expected to be able to photograph-create, layout and produce everything for the company. This is an attempt to streamline the operation. Of course the ads will become fodder along with the professional photographer. After 33 years in the business I see this as a temporary issue that we will have to ride. Give it three to five years and our clients will be back-just figure out how to survive in the meantime.

While providing work "on spec" is seldom a satisfying situation, it is still the choice of the photographer, artist, etc. whether on not they are willing work this way. It does not appear to me that OnRequest is denigrating photographers who do not join them and after reviewing the "Real Projects" on the site, found the client tesitmonials to be credible, positive references for working with their network of talent. As a creative director I would consider using OnRequest for a photo shoot if the right project came along .

I beleive over the years that the markt value of good photography has declined. It still takes talent and skill to produce a good image, but it has become too much of a commodity and not a unique product (which assignment photography is). I do not support a business model where the shooter is working on spec with no compensation.

How can I agree or disagree with an article which tried to make a balanced case? The choice offered is nonsensical.

For the record, I strongly agree with ASMP and other letter signees.