BTW: I already talked to David Roura and Bob Garrard, David's image was used without permission and he already got in touch with them. Bob's image was used with permission, they owe him a couple of samples when the model is finally released.
ZakHH From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 6, posted (5 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 2758 times:
Quoting Whisperjet (Reply 5): Imo it's not very fair to the photographers as the models don't cost them very much.
Well, as long as they ask (and won't use the photo if the photographer rejects their offer), you can hardly call it unfair. Sure, I would also prefer if they paid good money, but if they get enough photos in exchange for model samples - good for them.
What is unfair is the unauthorized use of photo material. To those guys who are concerned here, please keep us posted.
Whisperjet From Germany, joined Nov 2007, 552 posts, RR: 9 Reply 8, posted (5 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 2719 times:
maybe unfair wasn't the best word here .
But to me it seems as if they don't value the photographer's work.
They want the pictures as cheap as possible and they know that if the 1st person they ask rejects the offer, there are always other photographers who would give away their pictures for 1 model or even nothing than the name printed on the packing.
But it's a genral problem for not so special pictures. The market is just too big and many photographers give their pictures away for everything - or even nothing...
Well, that's economics in a nutshell. Trying to find the best balance between costs and benefits. If you can get the best pictures for $100, and the 2nd best for free, then the 2nd best is probably the best choice for the company.
The problem is not so much that the company does not value the photographer's work. It's more that many photographers will not value their own work, and give it away for free.
Then again, standards are different for hobbyists and (semi-) professionals. While the hobbyist is probably proud enough just to see his work being used on a professional product, this would destroy the market for the pro.
To a certain extent, you have the same in software development. Are you disrespecting the work of professionals when you use free open-source programs instead of proprietary ones? Are the developers of open-source software destroying the professional market?
Hard to judge. So as long as the companies act fair, it is alright with me. I'd say Herpa did, while Schuco didn't.