Are citizen photographers harmless?

If you've ever witnessed a news-worthy event like this summer's dramatic floods, you'll know how tempting it is to show off your impressive shots of the action. The BBC's ‘In Pictures' webpage receives thousands of user generated images a week from proud non professionals keen for the kudos their snaps will earn them. After all, it's not everyday you are able to capture the action as it happens. In their haste to get their hard won images seen, however, the Citizen snapper may be unaware of the pitfalls surrounding user generated content. ePHOTOzine member and professional photographer Barrie Harwood told me why:

"I can fully understand the lure of having work published. As artists, we like our work to be seen, commented on and admired by others. But people give their work away for free, and the people using these photographs are commercial organisations making money from their products. So in effect by giving away your work, you are making them money."

So it seems that, without payment as an incentive, the non professional must be content with the exposure alone. But as Barrie argues, if it means someone else is pocketing the pounds for your work, is this fair? He adds: "People gladly hand over images to people like CNN, the BBC, Sky etc from major incidents and the small print that you accept when you upload images allows these companies to actively syndicate these images. Because of the terms and conditions you have accepted, you are allowing them to make (often) very large amounts of money from your work."

Looking more closely at this, surely it's fair to say that, if corporations like the BBC issue clear terms and conditions explaining they're not obliged to pay up, everything is quite above board? While it may initially seem like free labour, some amateur photographers are content with the trade off. One photography enthusiast I spoke to likes to submit images to news-sites like the BBC's. Irene Crossland told me she thinks fair is fair. She said: "The BBC does make it clear in their small print that you can't necessarily expect a fast buck. They're offering you the exposure of having your photos upon a website with a lot of traffic, and you just have to accept that as ‘payment in kind'. There's nothing underhand about that".

But Barrie insists that "it is the photographer who is suffering and the newspaper or website publishers are rubbing their corporate hands in glee." Irene dismisses the notion of being taken advantage of by pointing out, "no-one's forcing you to give them your images. You're fully aware what you're getting into."

If you choose not to submit your images for companies to use for free, what are your other options? Some interesting responses to a related ePHOTOzine article highlighted some interesting alternatives. Two members comments suggested photography enthusiasts should send their shots to news agencies who can sometimes sell them to interested parties on your behalf. Scoopt.com is one initiative for hopeful citizen journalists who want the satisfaction of knowing they at least tried to make some money out of their shots. Irene is still sceptical about this: "It really depends whether you want the cash-whether you're in it for the money. Because, unless you're professional, you don't stand to rake it in regularly anyway!"

And indeed, as well as helping out the professional journalists who didn't make it to the speedway in time to witness that head on collision, Barrie thinks it may be equally detrimental to those whose livelihoods are behind the lens. He explains that, "when an amateur takes a high quality image that he or she is prepared to give away or sell cheaply for the kudos of being published, this could prevent a professional photographer selling a similar image for commercial rates." Being a professional himself, photography is Barrie's "only source of income", so he knows all too well that when it comes to professionals making losses as a result of user generated content, "it clearly does happen".

Barrie also points out that some non professionals who shoot for the glory also do it "for pin money", adding to the professionals' worries. He says, "it's great that people can make money from their interests.  But people do need to accept that if someone is looking to have photographs taken, for the most part, they are prepared to pay for it or should be."

Barrie even draws attention to the ways in which the photography industry itself can suffer as a result of this uneven playing field. Although he admits, "the professional isn't ‘God'," he also adds that, "I do feel we need to look at regulating the profession not only to strengthen it but to prevent the public at large (who are the largest customer base) from being let down by bad practitioners". He adds that, "The vast majority will pay no taxes (personal or VAT) on the income, have no insurances and can offer their clients no guarantees as frankly, it is easy come easy go. It's this I feel that's harming the perception of the profession. It's cheapening and devaluing it and instead of photography being seen as a great skill, it's (in some quarters) seen as something anyone can do."

Obviously, Barrie's words should not deter those amateurs with genuine passion for their hobby and the quality work they produce. On the contrary, Barrie is in fact eager for talent to be nurtured, as it is the work which enables the industry to remain so vibrant. "If public and corporations alike recognise the value and skill of photography then the industry will grow and opportunities will increase for everybody"; perhaps even for patient enthusiasts like Irene who says she'll continue to send her work to news agencies without expecting anything back, simply for the love of what she does.

"It's satisfying for me, hunting out the best shots of unusual or topical things".

Indeed, if Irene and others like her are prepared to offer their skill for free, we should be even more appreciative of their work. But it can quite literally pay to examine the industry as carefully as we appreciate the work that comes out of it, whether we're taking the pictures or using them. This way, we can keep ensuring no one loses out in the game of chasing that headline grabbing image.