Photographer and videographic writer Peter Phillips has joined a group calling for the closure of the “photographer-videographer” relationship and the replacement of professional licensing with digital licensing.
Photo: Andrew Meares Mr Phillips said the situation had become so difficult for the industry that many photographers were choosing to “break” their relationships with photographers.
“The problem is that the relationship is a contract with photographers and not a relationship between photographers and photographers,” Mr Phillips told AAP.
“There is no such thing as a photographer-vidographer relationship.
It’s not good for the profession. “
I am really disturbed by the situation that we find ourselves in.”
It’s not good for the profession.
It’s not very conducive to the way the profession works and it’s certainly not conducive to our lives.
“The problem with this relationship is that it’s based on a false understanding of what photography is.”
What photographers really do is a collaborative process where they’re all getting paid the same amount of money.
There’s no contract. “
When they produce their images, they’re sharing the money and they’re also paying each other.”
There’s no contract.
There’s no relationship between a photographer and a photographer.
There are no terms and conditions.
“I don’t think that there’s any business model for this relationship that’s fair.”
Mr Phillips has become a vocal critic of the industry’s licensing policies and has spoken out against the closure and “digital death” of the medium.
He said the digital model was based on the idea that people could create any image they wanted without paying for it.
“That is simply not the case,” he said.
“If you’re a photographer, you don’t need to pay to get an image out there.”
If you take an image, put it on Instagram, put a video on YouTube, put an image in a gallery, upload it to Facebook and sell it on to anyone, you’ll be able to earn money from that image, no matter what the price.
“But when you put it in the hands of a consumer, you can’t sell it.”
You have to get a licence.
That licence is something that’s owned by the photographer.
“What you get is a licence that allows you to make a photograph and a licence is worth something.”
When you have the licence, it’s your money.
“You don’t have to pay anything for it.”
Mr Phillips said it was “unacceptable” that a new model for photographers and videography had to be built in the digital age.
“It’s just ridiculous that there can be a new medium where you can make a digital photograph and sell a digital image that you’ve done in your studio or in your workshop and have it go into a digital marketplace,” he told AAP last month.
“So I think the current model of licensing, the model that is being built around the fact that you can only make digital photographs, I think it’s really broken.”
This is what I’ve been saying for the last six years.
“A photograph is a piece of photographic art that they’re giving to you.””
In reality, you’re paying money to a photographer to create a photograph, so they’re not paying you for each photograph you take,” he added.
“A photograph is a piece of photographic art that they’re giving to you.”
Mr Philips said he supported Mr Hughes’s proposal to have a licensing model for the photography profession.
“We are in a crisis,” he argued.
“Why are we going to allow this to continue?”
He also said it should be made clear that photographers could only make a “professional” photograph and not sell the image for profit.
“This should be clarified.
I don’t see why we have to have licensing agreements based on this.”
And I’m really opposed to any sort of digital death of the profession.
“Topics:art-history,arts-and-entertainment,business-economics-and andu-2026,photography,photographs,government-and/or-politics,industry,industries,photograph,community-and,miami-hurricanes-hurricane-2011,florida-hurrier-hurts,united-states,arizona-delta,atlanta-southwest,tallahassee-south,north-carolina,united States,northwest-states