Copyright and an Interesting Article

Firstly apologies for the lack of blogs in recent weeks... no real excuse but it has been incredibly busy - thank goodness - with a mix of boudoir, wedding, commercial and portraits in equal measure - its been a really interesting month or so. But even so, of course, my coffee habit has needed to be nurtured over that time so I've signed in to update the blog a few times but deleted the draft because nothing quite captured my thoughts.

There are a number of issues that have had me climbing onto my soap box in recent weeks, but in essence the two that are recurring are 1. the decline in standards in wedding photography and 2. copyright.

The decline in standards is a huge issue, but I really don't know how to address this without offending somebody, somewhere. Couples seem quite cavalier in entrusting their day to part-time, mediocre photographers for the sake of saving a few hundred pounds (and yes, I know times are tough but that doesn't change the maxim that 'you get what you pay for'). Its quite depressing, not just because it compromises my business but it also demonstrates how little creative work is appreciated. There are some very, very good wedding photographers in the Bristol/ Bath/ Gloucester area, but plainly we are not making the case clearly enough for couples to appreciate why they should book us. For my part, its put a huge spotlight on the quality of my work and has re-energised me in working even harder to create great shots - after all, no point complaining about the quality if my work isn't the very best it can possibly be. So I have rejoined the BIPP (British Institute of Professional Photography), with a view to ensuring my qualifications are brought back up to date. I'll keep you posted as to how I get on.

But actually, that wasn't the point of this blog...I saw a really good article by Caitlin Moran in the Times today talking about copyright. Really, I recommend that you track down a copy and read it for yourselves. For me, the following reflection particularly hit home: "I liked the 20th century. The 20th century was great; for the first time in history artists stopped starving in garrets or being indentured to wealthy patrons and got paid decent money, thanks to massive tranches of dull yet hard-assed copyright legislation. As a consequence, the 20th century was artistically dominated by the working classes, because for the first time they could actually afford to be artistic."

Too many photographers (and maybe those in other creative roles too?) are handing over their copyright, competing on the lowest price, offering quantity over quality and in the process, driving down standards, which ultimately will lead the consumer to loose confidence and faith in the product offered. As I said, I can only really respond by challenging my own work, not just today but on an on-going basis and hope that I can find the words to explain why quality should win the day.