Can you believe this???

[Roger Hicks]

Dear Chris,

I think you're onto a loser here. Remember that there are plenty of people who accept social 'Darwinism' (survival of the fittest, 'fittest' being defined as 'those who make the most money') while rejecting actual Darwinism and believing the world was created 7000 years ago.

There are also plenty who reject the idea that 'the labourer is worthy of his hire'. All the labourer is worthy of, in their book, is the minimum they can get away with paying him. Then they'll cut that, when they've driven everyone else out of business.

Against all that, there is the widespread idea that 'the world owes me a living': that one is entitled to be paid well for doing something for which there is an insufficient direct market. Fine art is, as you know only too well, a lamentably un-lucrative marked with very 'lumpy' income (big chunks, well, relatively big, and long gaps between chunks). One can be paid, but seldom well.

'Rational economic man' doesn't exist, and economic theory has been going downhill since the 18th century. It fell off a cliff face in the late 20th century with the advent of mathematical modelling.

Cheers,

R.

 

[gavinlg]

re: digital being cheap -

adobe lightroom - $400aud
camera and lenses - $6300aud
backup camera and lens - $1000aud
computer to process and archive + backup HDs - $3000aud
online delivery service/website/blog monthly price - $100aud
monthly phone bill for work phone - $80aud

Total of absolute basics needed for a pro photographer: $10,960aud - and I'm not even anywhere near the level I want to be.

This year I have to upgrade my camera to the newer model, upgrade my computer as it's ram is currently maxxed out and file sizes keep getting bigger and I have to upgrade my backup system to a DROBO which will cost the best part of $1000 by itself. Oh, and I want to buy a full lighting setup that will last me minimum 5-10 years - probably around 3.5K

 

[sig]

As I do understand it the pictures the whole tread started with was from a iPhone.

This tread started with a polite question about using a photo free, it was politely answered no. Nobody had any problems with it. But there were some guys said they would be happy and given the photo away. They were branded as immoral people.

So to the pros out there with your fancy education and even more fancy equipment. Good! I am happy, it shows that you are doing something great. However bashing a average joe for giving his photos to big bad profit hungry companies, there is no need (and instead of complaining try to do something to make yourself better than the average joe)

 

[Roger Hicks]

As I do understand it the pictures the whole tread started with was from a iPhone.

This tread started with a polite question about using a photo free, it was politely answered no. Nobody had any problems with it. But there were some guys said they would be happy and given the photo away. They were branded as immoral people.

So to the pros out there with your fancy education and even more fancy equipment. Good! I am happy, it shows that you are doing something great. However bashing a average joe for giving his photos to big bad profit hungry companies, there is no need (and instead of complaining try to do something to make yourself better than the average joe)

Are you really? If so, why did you feel the need to post comments about 'fancy education and even more fancy equipment'?

Cheers,

R.

 

[August Derleth]

To survey this argument as it has transpired recently in pop culture, check out Chris Anderson's Free article in Wired and Malcolm Gladwell's dissent published in the New Yorker. Anyone who thinks there is an easy way out of this mess (or believes that it isn't in fact a mess) is kidding themselves.

Have you sent a check to Malcolm Gladwell and Chris Anderson for reading their articles?

Participating and posting on forums is taking the bread and butter from the children of paid content providers.

An online forum is an insidious device.....content that writes itself, day after day, week after week.....in vast quantities....at no expense. It's the Sorcerer's Apprentice in real life.

Every word you post here is killing some starving scrivener. Poor Bartelby.

Stop all threads at once!

 

[August Derleth]

And that goes for posting photos too. You're starving out people who get paid to shoot for websites.

 

[sig]

Are you really? If so, why did you feel the need to post comments about 'fancy education and even more fancy equipment'?

Cheers,

R.

Yes I am. There is nothing wrong with fancy equipment and a fancy education is one of the best things in the world.

 

[August Derleth]

There are groups that do that. Google "Habitat for Humanity". They give to THE POOR. Thats a hell of a lot different than giving to PROFIT MAKING BUSINESSES. This is so elementary as far as application of basic logic skills.

The software company that originally contacted the OP doesn't seem like some huge "profit making" corporation. It seems like a bunch of young guys probably barely eking out a small profit (if at all). They used their brains to innovate and to attempt to do something creative in software that could possibly pull in some money and help establish them. (to avoid BEING poor) I strongly doubt they are living in luxury as a result of writing a few esoteric photography apps for the iPhone. They deserve a polite reply. I would have given them the photos. Maybe I would have asked for a token payment or some free apps in the future, but I doubt it. I don't see how this would have destroyed the foundation of professionally paid photography.

If you wrote to a publication of your choice and asked them to send you a few copies of their magazine/newspaper/book for free because you "like them" you wouldn't even get a reply.

So I assume that the next time you want to read something on an online newspaper's or magazine's website, you will consider your moral obligation and go out and BUY a printed copy for yourself instead?



How about a professional photographer such as Annie Leibovitz who commands hundreds of thousands of dollars per shoot? If every photographer on Flickr gave away a hundred photographs tomorrow, would her rate drop, or would she continue to earn at her level because she is providing imagery that only she can produce and is desired by those who pay for such photographs?

Mattock of course is absolutely correct, even though at times he is a preposterous buffoonish doofus, he is clearly far more intelligent and rational than the average lumpen here.

 

[MCTuomey]

Mattock of course is absolutely correct, even though at times he is a preposterous buffoonish doofus, he is clearly far more intelligent and rational than the average lumpen here.

Well done, you've managed to insult both sides of the aisle at once.

Since I'm not part of the auto-mattock libertarian school, I must be average lumpen. As opposed to above average lumpen, darn.

By the way, welcome to RFF, August!

 

[bmattock]

Well done, you've managed to insult both sides of the aisle at once.

Since I'm not part of the auto-mattock libertarian school, I must be average lumpen. As opposed to above average lumpen, darn.

By the way, welcome to RFF, August!

I'm not insulted. I think I'm not, anyway. But I've always been pleased enough to be part of the lumpenproletariat, myself. My sig was "Lumpen and Proud" for many years. And I freely admit that I am often a "preposterous buffoonish doofus." What the heck, we all have to be something.

But my name is not "Mattock," it's "Mattocks." A 'mattock' is a tool with a hammer at one end and an adz at the other. Oh wait. Perhaps that does fit me. Well, there you go.

 

[August Derleth]

OK, I didn't mean it as exclusive, so assume you're a lumpen with a higher than average intelligence, but clearly not high enough to be invited to join the oligarchy. You've been passed over in the Illuminatus recruitment.

In this case you happen to be completely correct. Those offering their bizarre versions of this "argument" are clearly bordering on insanity.

 

[bmattock]

By the way, August; not for nothing, but aren't you kind of, well, dead these days?

And remember; "Smile, Cthulhu loathes you."

Welcome in any case, dead or not.

 

[sjw617]

So let me see if I have this correct......
My friend Bill presents me with a copy of a photo of his, a couple of days after I told him how much I liked it. I must refuse his generous offer and find someone who I can purchase a photo from because I don't want to bring the world economy to its knees (also in my interest). I have to find someone who thinks I must reimburse them for the full value of equipment and maybe their college education.(I would guess they figure this all into the price asked for an image sold).
Bill might actually be reimbursed for his image as I might pay for a dinner as thanks, help him with a home project or buy him a thank you gift.
If Bill gives me the image because he is a nice guy and was glad someone liked the image, he is not taking a sale away from someone else. I was not out looking to spend money to decorate my house, I simply liked a friends image. A fine art / professional photographer had no shot of getting a weeks pay from me. Bill's offer did not interfere in a sale because I was not looking to buy.
But maybe I am missing something here.....

Steve
EDIT - I know this is not the same a a business asking for a Flicker picture, but not far off.

 

[MCTuomey]

steve, no that's not the scenario i envisioned for explication; here's the last version i posted above:

<<<< What I am suggesting is that if I show up at a baseball tournament with my 1D and 400 and I shoot a friend's games for free, and that tournament is being worked by another event photog for a living, I certainly took the opportunity for some sales away from that fellow. Assuming no law or contract prevented my action, do I have an obligation to consider the working photog's situation? I believe I do .... >>>>

I could call this sense of obligation simple professional courtesy. At the very least, I can respect that the guy working the tournament is there to earn income, while I am not. It's quite reasonable and respectful for me not to shoot in deference to his arrangement with the organizers. (I'm ignoring any potential exclusivity terms for simplicity's sake.)

There is no need to subsume the original point about the impact of free photos on the market into the abstractions of market theory. Do I assert my right to shoot and distribute free pics at the tournament or do I defer to the working photographer? I would defer, out of respect for his endeavor and need. Others wouldn't, citing the rigor and freedom of the market. Nothing more to say, as far I can see.

 

[sjw617]

Mike,
I agree that if the other photographer had an arrangement in place for the team, then giving free pictures to a friend would step on his toes and be wrong. But if he had no prior agreement but was hoping to get some sales afterwards, then I have no issue with giving pictures to a friend. Also I would not necessarily know someone would be looking for sales afterwards.
I have taken pictures of nephews playing football which were better than a guy with a long lens who puts them up on the teams website (not for sale). I did see him there and he saw me and there was nothing said either way. I did not know if he was looking for sales and truthfully, it didn't even occur to me.
Steve

 

[MCTuomey]

Steve, I see your point. My case is a bit different though in that the other photog is there doing a tournament job as a paying gig, not simply shooting pics for free distribution/website use. In your case, yes, I'd have done the same thing: continue shooting.

 

[Incitatus]

and believing the world was created 7000 years ago.

Roger don't be silly - everyone knows the earth was created 6000 years ago, not 7000

 

[gavinlg]

This is a little off topic, and really directed at the wedding market - where this sort of argument is absolutely raving at the moment, but I agree with what this guy says 100%

http://photofocus.com/2010/01/25/and-you-call-yourself-a-professional/

 

[emasterphoto]

But note that the conversation quickly got personal last night. I never called anyone any names that I'm aware of. Others quickly found themselves resorting to implying or stating outright how immoral I am for holding the beliefs I do. When one is attempting to hold the moral high ground, resorting to name-calling and character-smearing seems an odd way to go about it. For being the immoral one, I've been quite civil.

I love the irony that comes with a poster complaining that people are reacting to him in a negative fashion when he's spent nearly five pages trying to justify his right to not have a conscience in his actions towards others. Absolutely delicious.