Beyond Instagram: Should photographers accept the risks inherent in social networks?

instagramphoto1

Have photographers become complacent with their only commodity in order to expand their community of followers? Olivier Laurent delves into the Instagram controversy surrounding loss of copyright ownership and asks if the benefits of building an audience are worth the risks in the long run

Author: Olivier Laurent

In the early days, Instagram was liberating for journalists and photographers, says Karim Ben Khelifa. "In most cases, we never really meet our audiences, and with Instagram you can interact directly with your followers. When you think about it, Instagram, more than Facebook, is the perfect tool for photojournalists. Everyone communicates with photographs today. Of course, when we post images on that platform, we're not necessarily telling a story like we usually do - with 15 images, for example. But there's a sort of romanticism, where we seek beautiful or incredible images."

For Tomas Van Houtryve, a VII photographer, Instagram has allowed him to take pictures he'd stop taking altogether. "Sometimes, with digital cameras and huge raw files, I actually hesitate to take a picture because I don't want to deal with downloading it and backing it up on my hard drive and captioning it later," he says. "With Instagram, it has kind of brought that joy back where I can just take a moment - it's worth what it's worth - send it out and move on to something else. Not everything has to be a raw file. If I want something to go out through VII, I know it has to be perfectly colour-corrected, AP-style captioned, and sometimes I feel like: ‘Oh forget about it'." And Instagram has also become a kind of visual notepad, Van Houtryve adds. "If I have an idea, I might try playing around with the iPhone first. And if the idea takes hold, I'll go out and shoot it with a more advanced camera."

But with the fear of Facebook using Instagram's data and content to generate revenues, photographers have been rethinking their approach to the platform. Should they take the risk of losing ownership over some of their images in order to create a community of followers, or should they stop using the service altogether?

"We've become complacent with the only commodity we have as photographers - our copyright - in our near unfettered embrace of sharing our content with for-profit companies such as Instagram," says John Stanmeyer, one of the original founders of the VII Photo agency. "Keep in mind, there is nothing wrong whatsoever in a company making money. I want Instagram, Facebook, Twitter and whatever other brilliant means of digital communication is invented to thrive and survive. And while I respect some of my friends' and colleagues' approach of not publishing their photography on these social media platforms, I still feel strongly that you are missing a weighted potential of communication, especially if your photography is on meaningful issues which humanity collectively should discover and understand."

It's for that potential that photographer Peter DiCampo and writer Austin Merrill moved Everyday Africa, a photography blog about everyday life across the African continent, from Tumblr to Instagram last October. "It has actually been the ideal platform for Everyday Africa, considering the project's goal is to remind a general public that Africa is more than just a place of extremes," says DiCampo. "Instagram recently marked us as one of their Selected Users, which has resulted in thousands of new followers." As of 28 January, Everyday Africa had more than 17,000 Instagram followers and nine regular contributors, including photographers Shannon Jensen, Holly Pickett and Laura El-Tantawy, among others.

Instagram, says DiCampo, "has opened us up to what I'm calling ‘The OMG Crowd' of general Instagram users outside of the circle of photographers - young people who, whether they realise it or not, are exploring the world through an inundating stream of photography. I could not go offline and have the same impact."

And that's precisely what Instagram is good for, argues Ben Khelifa. "I really believe we need to create these communities. It's the future. I believe that people who will understand our work are going to be the same people who will want to subscribe to our work. And these people have the capacity to finance us - we see it, concretely, with Emphas.is," a crowd-funding platform he created with Tina Ahrens to help finance the work of documentary photographers and photojournalists.

However, he adds, photographers have to accept that while Facebook, Twitter and Instagram can help them gather a community of followers, these platforms are not interested in helping their users monetise their audiences. "Instead, you need another platform that will respect photographers' copyright and give them the correct tools to communicate directly with an audience that is ready to invest in their work."

For Ben Khelifa, of course, that platform could be Emphas.is. But he says the debate isn't about what platform photographers should use. Instead, "the debate should be about click-through rates. If you have 100,000 followers with a CRT of 1%, it sounds small, but actually it means that 1000 people are ready to spend money on you. On Emphas.is, the average spent in 2012 was $113. So, with a click-through rate of 1%, that means you'd be getting more than $100,000 a year. This allows you to be independent."

Of course, there aren't that many photojournalists at the moment with 100,000 followers. David Alan Harvey has 16,000, Benjamin Lowy 21,000, David Guttenfelder of Associated Press is followed by 23,000 people, while Michael Christopher Brown and John Stanmeyer both have 26,000. Outside of photojournalism, however, the numbers can be staggering. Koci Hernandez, an expert in iPhoneography, has amassed more than 162,000 followers.

But, says Ben Khelifa, even with "just" 20,000 followers, a photographer such as Lowy can benefit if he has a click-through rate of 1%. "That means that 200 people could potentially spend around $100, if we take Emphas.is' numbers. That means that if he puts together a good proposition, he could get $20,000 for his work."

Van Houtryve hasn't really used his community is that way yet, even though the VII photographer has become an expert in successfully crowd-funding his various projects. "John Stanmeyer, I think, is the master of that right now," he says. "He has managed to build up a huge community and then uses it to the benefit his clients, like Médecins Sans Frontieres. These NGOs just want to show people what they are doing in the field. They don't care if it's on Instagram or in print. When he posts it on his own, 26,000 people see it, but when he posts it on the National Geographic feed, 500,000 people see it. That's a huge potential for NGOs that are trying to raise awareness of a particular situation."

When it comes to copyright issues raised by Instagram's latest controversy, not everyone agree on the way forward. "It is impossible for us, as professionals, to accept these terms," says photographer Ed Kashi. "First of all, it goes against everything we've worked so hard to protect for decades - that we own our work and can control it. But more than that, how can Instagram expect to monetise images of people who are recognisable without model releases? They aren't thinking clearly."

Yet, for others, it might be a risk worth taking, mainly for the sake of building communities of followers. "When we publish images on Instagram, they can be seen by everyone, freely," Ben Khelifa argues. "People can take a screenshot of the images, and on Facebook they can even download them. They can print them. So, we need to wake up to that reality. What's actually happening is that, with the latest technological advances, anyone can take our images. So, the question should be: can we fight these advances and the millions of people who are consuming images in that way? Or should we accept this new form of consumption and instead look at how we can bring them closer to us, how we can interact and benefit from them. We need to put ourselves in their shoes, accept their rules and, down the line, monetise them. We might be the authors of our work, but without an audience, we're nothing."

In fact, photographers should engage directly with that audience, he adds. "When people are engaged, and when they are satisfied with the experience, they become ambassadors who might be willing to spend money on you. But if you don't engage with that audience, if you take their money and don't communicate, these people won't trust you anymore. You need to respect your audience. If you get an assignment from Patrick Witty at Time Magazine, you're not going to ignore him the next time you see him. The same goes with the 250 people who financed your work on a crowd-funding platform. You need to nurture that relationship."

Instagram has, so far, given up on its controversial terms of service, but its founder Kevin Systrom has made it clear that, in the future, it will use its contributors' content for commercial purposes. In a blog post, he wrote: "Going forward, rather than obtain permission from you to introduce possible advertising products we have not yet developed, we are going to take the time to complete our plans, and then come back to our users and explain how we would like our advertising business to work."

For photographers, one way around these future commercial plans is to watermark their images, making them unusable in advertising. "You can post a single image, covered in elegant but complex to clone-out watermarks," says Stanmeyer. "Doing so will ensure you bring people to the photographs that you, to the best of your ability, control."

Van Houtryve has already been watermarking his images using the app Marksta, which was developed by John D McHugh, himself a photojournalist. But he's also been testing other photo-sharing platforms such as EyeEm and Flickr. "The thing with EyeEm and Flickr is that you don't get the same kind of numbers you get with Instagram," he tells BJP. "Instagram has a massive community."

One thing is sure, the photographers all agree that we live in an era of constant experiments, and there aren't always clear solutions, says DiCampo. "What works for one photographer or one project may fail for another. Personally, I try to put my head down and plough forward, making work that interests me and that I hope interests others, and not be involved with any practices that devalue my craft in the meantime."

Kashi adds: "The world is not the same as it was just five years ago, let alone 30 years ago when I first entered the profession. We must adapt and make tough decisions as we move forward. That is also why it's critically important to share information and communicate with one another, so we stay stronger and aware."

You can follow the photographers quoted in this article on Instagram: Karim Ben KhelifaPeter DiCampoEd Kashi, John StanmeyerTomas Van HoutryveEveryday Africa, as well as the author of this article Olivier Laurent and British Journal of Photography.

  • Comment
  • Print
  • RSS
  • LinkedIn

Comments

Wishful thinking...

There is no question an ability to make money from social networking, BUT...

What I have read here, whilst very interesting is so much wishful thinking. Losing copyright is not going to suddenly gain more income for any photographer professional or amateur.

Why do Instagram need copyright? Presumably they see some sort of income opportunity in the future. What a shame they do not choose to share that opportunity with those providing the created works.

Too many ifs, buts, and lots of suppositions and theorising.

Social networking is a means to an end, unless you are the company providing the facility it will never be the income generator itself.

The Internet is our future, what we have to do is find out how as creators we can make it work for us. I don't think we are even close yet - regrettably :-(

Posted by: Pete Jenkins on 28 Jan 2013 at 18:40

yes

If you don't want your work copied either don't publish or use a very visible watermark.
You know that placing images on social sites or even your own websites will lead to copies being made so,now you know its up to you how you deal with it.Deal with it you must as the digital world is running away with all your published work and watermarking is the only defense you have.

Posted by: Michael Wilkinson on 28 Jan 2013 at 18:43

negligible benefit...

I think the value of social media to benefit a photographers business is over hyped. Photographers must weigh up the advantages and dis-advantages of participation, we concluded that the benefits to our business are, at present , negligible as such have deleted all our social network accounts - and still here trading happily. For a freelance photographer posting photos daily on twitter is at the best devaluing your product - why give it away free? I heard some very illuminating research at a design conference in Cambridge last week. An appearance on a traditional search engine is still over 10 times more effective than social network - almost 100 times more effective if it's paid for. Yesterday a fellow photographer informed me that during last week's snow a UK news Agency snatched a photographer's photo off his twitter account and sold it on to the nationals - without that photographer's consent. That in itself tells me a lot about the ethics promoted by social networks.

Posted by: Phil Mynott on 29 Jan 2013 at 11:24

Still Disappointed

Left Instagram earlier this year. I recognize it's a new and complicated world we now live and work in and tough decisions need to be made, but I just couldn't countenance the obvious rights grab they were going for.

I admit, I miss the place. Loved the connections, the sociability. Who knows maybe I'll go back one day all watermarked up! Ha. But reading this article doesn't make me want to rush.

A shame, really.

Posted by: michael kircher on 30 Jan 2013 at 18:49

technology vs. ethics?

I'm still struggling to understand why, just because we have social media, it's on us, the creators, to acquiesce to audiences who 'take' things. Just because it's online, no, does not mean someone can take it. Most people know music and films have strict penalties for piracy...why not the art and photography industries? This is like saying that I can take something out of Walgreen's 'because it's out there'. Given that my art (i.e., my innate ownership of that art) is my only means of income, I think it's crazy and irresponsible to try to push creators toward an acceptance of 'giving it away' just to maybe have some followers who may someday buy a print from me. That is not going to sustain my business. I'm very disturbed about this kind of thoughtless mindset, and those creators who have no problem with pulling the rest of us toward that unfruitful path. Maybe I'd feel differently if I had 500,000 followers, but I don't.

Posted by: Christine Kerrick on 30 Jan 2013 at 19:42

Dump Instagram

Pros should dump Instagram. There are numerous other more protective ways to display your photos. Instagram (Facebook) just wants to build a free stock library, and photographers who use Instagram are suckers. It's an ego thing for amateurs to see their images up, only insecure pros feel the same.

Posted by: Mike Tenant on 30 Jan 2013 at 23:18

Sounds great

If you already have a job, like Stanmeyer.

Look, the value of your work is what people will pay for it. Instagram pays nothing, so that's the value of what you put there.

If you must use these services to get the word out about you, there's a watermarking app for iPhone and Android now.

Use it.

Posted by: elfpix on 31 Jan 2013 at 16:11

Updating your subscription status Loading