|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
| . | |||||||||
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rangefinder
Magazine Profile: Seth Resnick by Stephen Dantzig
The only way a photographer would not recognize the name “Seth Resnick” is if he or she simply wasn’t paying attention. Seth is renowned not only for an amazingly diverse portfolio and a “dream team” client list. He is an outspoken proponent of the notion of making—and keeping—photography a viable profession. He is a leader in the creative, business and educational sectors of photography. On the creative front, he is a member of the prestigious Canon Explorers of Light program as well as a key consultant for Adobe Photoshop. He has traveled extensively presenting seminar after seminar on the various aspects of photography. Seth is also the former president of Editorial Photographers (www.editorialphoto.com) and co-founder of D-65. (www.D-65.com). EP is a trade organization dedicated to the promotion of sound business practices within the world of editorial photography. D-65 is at the forefront of digital, working with companies like Adobe, Canon and GretagMacbeth. His experiences in these companies uniquely qualify Seth to speak about the new role of digital technologies in the changing world of photography. D-65’s services include bidding and production services, digital workflow analysis for studios and agencies, consulting, digital workflow workshops and seminars.
RF: Your online portfolio shows vast differences from image to image and client to client—from a macro image of a gecko’s eye to the floor of the New York Stock Exchange to extremely personal environmental portraits. How do you approach each assignment in order to capture such diversity and yet still come up with an image that says “Seth Resnick”? SR: First and foremost, I love photography and always want to love photography, so I won’t shoot anything just to make money. If it were about money, I would have been a lawyer. I know too many photographers who hate what they do or at best look at it like a 9-to-5 job. I never want to look at photography as a 9-to-5 job. I always carry a camera so when I am inspired, I can shoot. Second, I try to approach every assignment in a way that is different. As a still photographer I want to do more than bring back what you would see if you were standing next to me. My visual philosophy is to produce images nobody else envisions. Color, design, gesture, texture and spontaneity are key elements in all of my images. In general I am intrigued by the ability to transform a three-dimensional world into one plane of color and design. Shooting digitally allows me to combine editing with shooting—allowing me to see in real time and improve the image. I haven’t shot any film in over three years and doubt I will ever shoot film again. For what I do, digital is simply better.
RF: You’ve got a major presence on the Web. However, you require visitors to your site to log in before accessing your images. Aren’t you concerned that potential clients will click elsewhere rather than go through the process of registering to see your work? SR: Not at all. I have studied this a great deal. You have to know your target audience. I want to target high-end art directors. They are used to registering on places like Getty and Corbis and Workbook. If they are really interested in an image, they register and don’t have a problem. Since my site went up, I don’t think I have had more than three or four art buyers ever complain. On the other hand, the people who complain regularly are photographers. I offer things to photographers like contracts and pricing, and I don’t charge for it, but my real goal is to target paying clients. Paying clients don’t mind registering. Further I have sections of my site that are not open to the public at all for really high-end clients. These sections are password-protected, and the clients who use this service are thrilled it is private.
RF: Can you give a brief explanation of copyright and why it is important to photographers? Aren’t there people who believe you are taking a photograph of their product for them, so therefore they would own the images? SR: Copyright is the very basis of our existence. As a freelancer, I exist only by the value of the intellectual property I produce. I must control and license that property. If I don’t, I can’t benefit from the value of being a photographer, and I can’t stay in the marketplace to produce more images that enrich our culture. Photography and my intellectual property is the key to survival when I can’t shoot. My property becomes my retirement account. Further, my copyright is my soul, and it is not for sale. Recently our entire profession has been under attack by those who seek to own intellectual property and take it away from the creators. At the very least it would minimize my ability to earn a living from my work, and at the worst it removes my incentive to create. Clients are very aware of copyright and the value of intellectual property. I license mine; I don’t sell it. In order for you to get the full protection of copyright law, you must register your images with the U.S. Copyright Office at the Library of Congress. [Please search the archives of www.editorialphoto.com for detailed discussions on copyright issues.]
RF: What about “work for hire”? Why wouldn’t a young photographer—or even an established photographer—be interested in a WFH contract? After all, they would collect their day rate. SR: Work for hire should be reserved for full-time employees. The young photographer may have their day rate covered, but are they getting the cost of their equipment covered, their health insurance covered, disability, life insurance, a salary, vacation pay, a retirement account? When you work full time, these are the things you get from an employer. With work for hire you are deemed an employee. The difference typically is you are granting the company all the fruits of your labor and all the potential future value of your labor, and you are getting no benefits. RF: But isn’t that exactly what the large publishing houses are doing: offering “day rates” in exchange for all rights?
SR: Yes, this is exactly what large publishers are doing, and photographers are naïve. They are shortsighted and don’t see the value over the long term. Freelance photographers are getting driven out of business, and the main reason is work for hire. RF: Actually many of these issues are discussed daily on the EP newsgroup. You started EP with Paula Lerner, right? What is the goal and mission of EP? SR: I didn’t start EP. It was started by nine people who said no to Business Week. They were fed up with rates that hadn’t changed in a decade, and each said “no” to working for BW. I was asked to help negotiate, and we formed a real group, and I was asked to be the president. We are a non-profit organization dedicated to the business of editorial photography. We maintain an Internet discussion forum on business issues with more than 4000 subscribers participating from over 30 countries around the globe. Via the forum, photographers exchange information on business practices, copyright and contract concerns. Photographers can find useful resources such as sample business forms, publisher contract reviews and more on EP’s web site.
Our mission is to educate photographers about business issues and in the process to raise the level of business practices in the profession. EP advocates fair contracts from publishers and promotes the position that both photographers and publishers must seek win/win working relationships for either side to profit and prosper. In the face of the rapidly changing editorial marketplace, EP’s goal is to find positive solutions to problems within the industry. For example, we went head to head with Forbes and Business Week, but the real key is that while we certainly had disagreements, everyone on both sides knew there needed to be change. Both Forbes and Business Week changed because they wanted to change. They saw value in change, and that is critical. Time, on the other hand, has no interest in change. They want to own content and don’t want to pay for it, and until photographers are willing to say “no,” it won’t change. RF: Why can’t photographers set up some standard pricing scheme—albeit with some degree of flexibility for the particular photographer’s talent and experience? SR: We are prohibited by federal trade laws from collective bargaining. In our industry, the livelihoods of freelancers are being crushed by work-for-hire and other nasty rights-grabbing contracts. These contracts are accompanied by fees that have been stagnant for 20 years. The world economy has benefited by the rise of the Internet, and many corporations and publishers have directly profited as a result. By contrast, freelance contributors are getting collectively hammered by a publishing industry that demands more and more of our rights but does not pay commensurate usage fees. As small, independent contractors, we are prohibited from even discussing our problems in public forums without being in potential violation of antitrust law.
This law, in effect, hamstrings us from taking action or even properly addressing our issues. Large corporations with an interest in keeping usage fees low routinely take advantage of the situation by dividing and conquering, and picking off us little guys one by one. Instead of profiting from the intellectual property we produce, we are pressured by publishers to give up more and more of our rights. These publishers then exploit those rights for corporate gain. This is the exact opposite intent of the copyright law, which was designed to give creators and inventors a chance to benefit from the fruits of their labors. If this trend continues, our ability to survive and the incentive to produce the varied intellectual property from which our country benefits will be greatly hindered—if not outright destroyed. RF: What do you see as the future for professional photography? SR: I see the market condensing. I fear that because rates have been stagnant for so long and because there are so many photographers that being a photographer will turn into a hobby instead of a profession. Something needs to change. The costs associated with being a photographer keep increasing, and there comes a point where one simply can’t maintain quality and creativity and stay in business. Photographers have a creative inspiration to share with the world. The visions we develop will quickly fade unless we acknowledge that we must be businesspeople as well as creative people. As the marketplace grows, I believe it is more important than ever to remember that we, as photographers, are operating a business. Our inability to educate, participate, and negotiate in the global market jeopardizes the essence of our creative drives. Regional markets have been transformed into a global marketplace. We can and should utilize new technologies that offer the ability to enhance our photographic skills. What was once a mere conceptual dream is now reality. The individual photographer can be a player in a global game and can both participate and compete in real time. We must stay on top of the technology of today and make it work to our advantage. We must rise to meet the new technologies of the future as they develop. Our long-term success is no longer dependent on just our creativity, but also on our ability to integrate creativity, technology and business. Dr. Stephen Dantzig is an award-winning photographer with more than 20 magazine and web site articles to his credit. He is the author of a forthcoming book on light and fashion photography. His work has appeared on more than 20 magazine covers, ranging from local and regional markets to national publications. He is a frequent contributor to Rangefinder. Stephen runs a commercial photography business from Honolulu, Hawaii. His work may be seen at www.dantzigphotography.com.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
