Opinion
The fairy tale of self-inflicted doom - Kodak Edition
by David Lee
The work of photographers is worth peanuts
5.6.2023
Translation: Katherine Martin
The Federal Supreme Court of Switzerland has ruled in favour of a professional photographer who objected to the illegal use of one of his photographs. The compensation, however, is too paltry to be of any use to him. If you ask me, the decision will actually encourage image theft.
According to reports by the «Tages-Anzeiger» (in German), the Federal Supreme Court of Switzerland has issued a ruling on a stolen photograph. Their decision, however, has left me at a complete loss.
The story? When photographer Alain D. Boillat coincidentally discovered that a real estate company was using one of his aerial photographs in its advertising, he sent the company an invoice. After the firm refused to pay up, the case ended up at Switzerland’s Federal Supreme Court. On 21 April, the court found the company to be in breach of copyright law.
The verdict, however, is still a defeat for the photographer and the profession as a whole. The reason? Boillat demanded 3,920 Swiss francs, and received 55.
How did the court arrive at such a pitiful sum? The «Tages-Anzeiger» article explains: «When calculating the licensing fee, the Federal Supreme Court largely followed the reasoning provided by the defendant. The company pointed to a number of aerial photographs available online for comparatively low prices.»
I’m no lawyer, but I’m sure no professional photographer would take on a job that was «compensated» at 55 Swiss francs. Images available at prices that low are usually stock images, whereby photographers make their money through volume. A single stock photo can be sold dozens or hundreds of times. Only then is enough cash accumulated to make the effort worthwhile.
However, this approach only works for very general motifs. If a prospective buyer has a specific idea for an image, they’re highly unlikely to find it in stock image databases. Pictures like these need to be commissioned as one-offs, and the efforts of the photographer fully compensated.
In this case, the Federal Supreme Court has taken a photograph that wasn’t a stock image and treated it as if it were. After this verdict, you’ll be hard pressed to find a photographer willing to take a chance on going to court. As a result, the foundation of many photographers’ already precarious livelihood has been taken away from them.
Header image: Shutterstock/Maridav
David Lee
Senior Editor
David.Lee@digitecgalaxus.chMy interest in IT and writing landed me in tech journalism early on (2000). I want to know how we can use technology without being used. Outside of the office, I’m a keen musician who makes up for lacking talent with excessive enthusiasm.
Photo and video
Follow topics and stay updated on your areas of interest
170 comments
later