Freelance vs Official Photography at Shows

[Casey van Bronkhorst]

I've waded through four of 19 pages of commentary at Trot.org regarding the banning of freelance photographers from shows - not all of it by far, but enough to see that a small handful of reason seems to have been drowned out by a whirlwind of noise. It seems that the point of the discussion has been derailed.

Is it reasonable to ban freelance photography from shows? We're talking about public venues here, right? Not invitation-only events, unless I'm misreading what is already in print elsewhere.

I'll be frank - from what I have seen of show photographs, in the brief time of my tenure at ATH - I'm not sure which I would buy.

My question is more about monopolistic trends. We don't tolerate them in other industries.

Fire at will.

[Nina Kraus]

We don't tolerate them here either. People should have a choice as to whose photos they want to buy. A monopoly should be illegal no matter what the business involved is. As an exhibitor, owner, parent or what have you, I should have the choice to decide which and whose pictures I want to buy. If the "official" photographer has the best pictures, then I will buy his or hers. If that person doesn't, I should have the choice to buy someone else's. I don't think that the freelancers should be able to sell their pictures during the show, but I see no reason that these people can not post their pictures after the show is over on their own private websites.

[Casey van Bronkhorst]

Well, what I don't get is how the show can -legally- block an attendee, amateur or professional, from taking pictures and doing with them what they will. How is this justified in the minds of the venue management?

[Claire]

Horse shows have contracts with photographers which provide them an exclusive right to sell for that event. It also requires the photographer to shoot every class of every session, set up a point of sales area on the grounds, etc. It is the same with videographers - we hire one to cover the show.

Legally, I understand that a public event cannot stop anyone from taking pictures, but it is really only the selling of pictures that is of concern. The in ring photogrpahers don't give a hoot about mom and dad and granny taking pics of their and friends' horses.

Historically, horse show photogrpahy evolved in the days of film cameras, with the unretouched, flash in ring photo the industry standard. Avis wsa the first to develop commercial natural light photography from outside the ring. It was technically difficult to get the shots she did. Digital photography has changed what is possible, and also has made it much much easier for more people to get good shots from the rail...and post them online. From the days of just Avis and Jane Jaconbs on the rail, we now have Saddlebred Web, and a dozen other freelance shooters competing.

I will post my initial reply from trot on here, which explains my take.

The next post will be my response from trot.

[Claire]

Here is my original post from trot, skip it if you've already read it there.

" I see this issue from several perspectives...as a customer who buys pictures of her own horses, as a show manager who hires a photographer for a major horse show, and as an equine journalist who takes candids and ring shots for editorial purposes and is dependent on pics to sell ads. (I do not sell the images I take for SHR. And I'm not an attorney.)

"Horse show managers do not want to make exhibitors unhappy. They have better things to do than become full time photo police. Show management does, however, typically have signed exclusive contracts with their official photographers and videographers. They've just not chosen to enforce them. As one poster pointed out early in this thread, shows have historically enforced the exclusivity of video phorographers but not the still photogsr...at least until now...and only at the request of the official photogs. Being caught between the demands of the exhibitors and the contractual requirements of its officials is probably not where any horse show particularly wants to be.

"It also seems obvious that the out-of-the-ring photographers, whose numbers have grown exponentially of late, are making serious inroads into the profits of official horse show photographers or we would NOT be having this discussion. If the in-ring photographers were making money hand over fist and everything was rosey they wouldn't be trying to enforce their contractual exclusive right to sell. I don't think this is about coercion and greed. I don't need a photographer to disclose specific numbers. Common sense tells me that if the elite photographers in our industry feel an urgency to enforce their exclusivity clauses they're doing it because they've taken a financial hit.

"I understand why we all love outside the ring images. I love 'em too. As a consumer, I want as many choices as possible. It stands to reason that the more photographers you have around the outdside of a ring the more opportunities there are to get a good shot of any given horse - the official photographer is one person in one spot. It's simple mathematics. And I love the interesting and artisitic choices offered by the different vantage points of candid photographers.

"However, it's hard for me to figure out how an official photographer is going to make a living under this paradigm. There probably isn't enough photo business at most horse shows to sustain 4-5-6 or more photographers. A top professional is not going to want to give up their exclusive right to sell to an army of freelancers.

"I think it might be helpful to realize why, other than tradition, shows hire official photographers in the first place.

"Show managers hire an "official photographer" for the exhibitors. For YOU. Shows have an enforcable contract that states the official photographer is going to take pictures in EVERY class of the show, every win pic, every special presentation, every day of the show, rain or shine, hot or cold. Every class, every session, every day. That person is accountable to management. They have to show up on time every time. The vast majority of horse shows receive nothing but comp photos in return for granting the photo rights to the official photographer. Be sure that shows want exhibitors to get good photos, and they want them to advertise with them, so they try to hire a good professional. If the official photographer is not doing a good job servicing the exhibitors, if the photos aren't good, management needs to know.

"As mentioned, the official photographers have considerable overhead. Travel expenses, accommodations, equipment, personnel, displays etc. Thousands of dollars for onsite sales before the first shot is taken. Bowing to consumer demand, several photogs, such as Howie, Doug Shiflet and Rick Osteen have hired candid photographers in an official capacity - more overhead but giving customers what they want.

"The candid photographers, OTOH, have no contracual obligations to the show or exhibitors. They are free agents and take what pics they please when they please. If they want to skip a class or a session they can. If it rains they can pack up and go home. I think the best rail photogs quite consiencously try to take as many pics in as many classes as they can - it's only good business - but they have absolutely no obligation to do so. They can come and go whenever they want.

"Advances in digital photography and the ubiquity of internet access have radically changed the paradigm of horse show photography. Without exclusivity enforcement, I think the day will be coming where we see no official photographer in center ring at all if a show can't pay them to be there. Some shows may have to decide whether they can pay an official photographer to be onsite as they do for other services such as the farrier and vet. Horse shows already have steadily increasing costs and adding to this burden would be a more than some budgets could stand. Cost increases would eventually be passed on to the exhibitors anyway.

"I hate that it might come to this. But it might not be possible to have our cake and eat it too. Choices will have to be made, and once made, lived with. This showdown has been years in the making and no one is a villain in this scenario. If we decide we want unlimited acess for all free lance photogagraphers we may have also decided we don't want the in ring professional anymore."

[Nina Kraus]

There are many valid points from all sides to this argument. Please feel free to comment on the blog I wrote about it.