"My Grandmother always used to say 'why buy the cow, when you can get the sex for free'." – Mallrats (1995)
I agree with points most of you brought up. I think the crux of the issue is that photographers love sharing their work, and advertisers love getting stuff for free. As long as there are people so eager to share, advertisers will be plenty eager to pilfer their work.
YES–protecting your work is ultimately your own responsibility.
BUT–Is it unreasonable to expect a company to self-police, and to conduct themselves to a standard of higher integrity? (yeah…it probably is. Race to the bottom)
Allow me to paste an excerpt from an email that I sent to Jon Underhill, the Marketing Manager at GoLite. I recently fell into the trap of submitting photos because I thought they were assembling an album of user photos and captions, and I enjoyed viewing other peoples'. Obviously it was advertising, but I thought it was purely social. Stupid mistake–should have read the rules before submitting. I accept that. After I expressed concerns, they immediately respected that and removed my photos with no hassle (one of which was on a fly-out menu on their homepage. It is the image that's currently my BPL avatar)
"User-generated campaigns like that are successful because people want to share their experiences with others who would appreciate them. It makes sense for GoLite to tap into that existing enthusiasm and—by providing a forum for those people to share their nostalgia—allow those user-submitted photos to speak to the benefits of GoLite as gear for mindful adventurers. The fact that it is fueled by users is what gives it ethos with outside viewers. It’s called native advertising.
Here’s the rub. A lot of people don’t understand photo ownership rights. We’ve been programmed by Facebook and Instagram to post and share freely, and interact with others. Unless someone has a background where he or she has dealt with ownership rights before, it is probably not something of which they are acutely aware.
The fact of the matter is that GoLite pays [name of the marketing firm removed] to create this campaign. GoLite wouldn’t be doing so unless it expected a return on that investment. Then, in order to generate assets to be used in the campaign, you are taking submissions from users. It is costing you nothing, yet their photos are the material that is making the marketing campaign possible. It’s disingenuous and manipulative, and taking advantage of the enthusiasm your customers have for your products and the nostalgia that they have for the adventures they were on while using your products.
Do other companies do this? Yes. Is it successful? Yes. Is it legal? Perfectly. You know what else fit all that criteria? Subprime mortgages. Just because something is accepted, successful, and legal, doesn’t make it ethical.
If you are using their photos as assets for webpages, videos, and other campaigns to build your brand and to make money, that’s a technique that makes perfect sense and it can be fun for users to participate. However, you owe those people something. They are doing the heavy-lifting for your brand. They’re the ones with the credibility that make it possible."
© Beartooth Media Group Inc.
Loading...
