I’ve wanted to write about this subject before, but it kept sliding down my to-do list until this article showed up and sort of stated my point without realizing it. Photos aren’t valued.
Let’s talk about the case described in that article for a moment and get a couple of things out of the way. A painter is accused of “copying” a photograph to make a work of art. Specifically a photograph of the Gallegher brothers of the rock band Oasis interacting. The usual claim of the painter is that it isn’t a violation of Copyright to do so, it’s Fair Use, a very specific aspect of the Copyright law that encourages public dissemination of derivative works in particular ways, typically educational, though not limited to that.
You should read the Petapixel article, as it has details that I won’t be repeating here. Form your own opinion, and then come back here to see where I went with the same information.
The thing that struck me wasn’t the “copying,” it was the value.
First, the painter here did something here that often isn’t seen in these Copyright violation accusations: they made a lot of independent and different decisions in interpreting that moment between the Gallaghers. Had the artist in question actually been standing alongside the photographer (or in another way have seen the same scene), I don’t think anyone would be truly believing this was really a Copyright violation.
To me, it’s the numbers in the story that are much more interesting. The painting had earlier sold at US$12,000 and was apparently judged to now be worth US$1.5 to US$2 million by the auction house getting ready to sell it. Said auction house actually licensed the photograph in question for use in their catalog to appear alongside the painting. For US$2000.
You’re probably now seeing where I’m going. In terms of value: Photograph < Painting. It really doesn’t make any difference as to whether there was copying going on or not, (most?) paintings are simply valued higher than (most?) photographs.
Clearly one aspect of this is that typically only one version of a painting ever comes into existence. I use the word “typically” in the last sentence as art cloning has been a thing for some time because paintings can have real monetary value. Sometimes substantial monetary value. I wonder what will happen to that when AI-powered robots can reproduce the original work really well? (“Just moved into a new home with plain walls? Rent the Picasso100 for a week and wind up with museum quality decoration throughout your home.”)
There’s another thing that strikes me about value of photos versus paintings. In my experience, you get the most payback from a truly original photo when it is first seen, and declining payouts as it gets reproduced and used more often. Eventually, it’s no better than stock, which produces almost no income. Original paintings on the other hand, have had a long history of rising in value, and often dramatically so after the creator dies. Now some of that is simply manufactured economics by parties with a vested interest (galleries, agents, auction houses, and collectors). There’s “scarcity” caused by a variety of factors, and that is what increases the value.
Most people taking photos, including professionals, are in a rush to get them disseminated, and they’re not necessarily scarce, as reproduction is dirt simple if that image makes it to a public space (e.g. Internet). Photos tend to be highest in value when they’re unique and haven’t been reproduced yet.
Some of that initial value is actually promotional, not measured in direct sales. Consider Instagram, for instance. Photographers want to be seen there to attract followers, not sell their photo. Followers can be turned into value, typically by the Great Internet Con, which is that you’re only valued as a target. But the original photo? Literally priceless. And soon to be copied.
For non-professionals, photos tend to have value in two ways: memories and bragging rights.
Memories, of course, are a personal thing. Apple, Google, Meta, et.al. try really hard to get you to expose your memories to the world, but as a photo only, it’s tough to trigger anything near the same response as it will to your family or those that know you. This isn’t helped by the fact that most people are terrible at self-editing (e.g. showing only a few very good photos rather than a large batch of photos of varying quality), or that Big Tech has other plans for your photos that will devalue them for you and expose value for Big Tech.
Bragging rights tends to be one of the following: (1) I can do this as well as a pro; (2) I got an image no one else has (yet); and (3) I just want to be seen. I have nothing against any of those, but the value here isn’t dollars, it’s fleeting acclaim, which is really tough to keep generating over and over (ask any so-called Creator; it becomes a job, and a job from which you have to find a different way of extracting value other than from the images directly, but you have to keep producing unique images to generate that value).
I’m at a point in my life where the value of a photo (directly or indirectly), really doesn’t matter to me as much as it once did. As with a lot of pros, I’ve transitioned mostly to something photo-adjacent, and no longer put any effort into selling photos themselves. My value at this point, comes from helping others to extract what they need to from their imaging.
There’s an old cliche: those who can’t do, teach. But if you observe the photographic community, this turns into something different: those who have done it, teach. I can point to dozens of photographers, living and dead, whose photos I valued (though not always monetarily), but whose real value has been in teaching me things that I needed to know to become better myself.
Let me leave you with this: imagine a world with no photographs (sort of like what the Wall Street Journal once was ;~). Kind of a boring place, right? So obviously photos have value. It’s just not often monetary value.