Can you believe this???

Not to be offensive, but I am sure he sent the same message to 20+ people, banking on at least 10 of them to say yes... Personally, I would have said yes [prepares for a good flame]...
 
Chriscrawfordphoto said:
You don't always get paid for doing the morally decent thing for your fellow man, but you actually do benefit by not destroying the livelihoods of others.
Click to expand...

First, I do not accept the argument that I am destroying the livelihood of others. As an IT worker, I design and help to implement mechanisms that replace the need for people doing particular things - like an elevator control circuit that means people don't have to operate elevators anymore. Am I destroying jobs, taking food off of people's plates? If I cook a meal for my friends, am I stealing from restaurants? If I change my own oil, am I stealing from my mechanic? No. I am taking nothing from another person by giving away my own property as I see fit.

Second, I strive to be both a decent and a moral person. I would not accept any criticism of my morality or decency by anyone who does not know me or how I live my life.

If someone cannot earn a living, they get welfare, which YOU get to pay for whether you like it or not. Its really that simple. Every person in the USA has to eat every day. They can be allowed to earn a living or those who do have incomes can be forced to feed those who do not. For that reason, I try to buy American made things whenever possible. This costs me a lot more money than buying stuff made in China, Mexico, etc. I am relatively poor, so this is a burden on me, but I think it is worth it because, unlike you, I am conscious of the fact that a nation is a community whose members must work together to survive. Keep in mind also that not only do you get to pay for those who cannot earn a living through welfare programs, but the fewer people in this country who make a living, the less money is available to pay your wages at whatever job you do....which gives an incentive to your employer to ship your IT job to one of those smart, hardworking, young people in Bangalore.
Click to expand...

All this boils down to is this - working photographers demand that I behave in a way which protects their income. Fine. If they have the right to demand that, then I have the right to make demands too. If they want me to withhold my work from others, then they need to compensate me.

What you're doing is playing with the words 'morality' and 'decency' to act in lieu of remuneration. It's an old game - if you want something for free, shame the person into giving it to you by suggesting they're not a nice person unless they do. I am not shamed. My photographs, and I'll do as I wish with them. No one has the right to tell me otherwise; not legal, and certainly not by implying I'm immoral or indecent.
 
bmattock said:
Second, I strive to be both a decent and a moral person. I would not accept any criticism of my morality or decency by anyone who does not know me or how I live my life.
Click to expand...

I'm criticizing you and there isn't a thing you can do about it.

I am not shamed.
Click to expand...

I'm sure you feel no shame. That's your right, and it is very, very common in the USA today. The people in my home state are among the most uncaring and self centered people in the nation, and they're paying the price. Unemployment is over 20% here (the real number not what the government claims) and the jobs that do exist pay very little. It is a historical fact is that any nation whose people follow such a philosophy in large numbers is a nation whose end is near. The economic problems facing the USA in general and places like Indiana in particular demonstrate this truth in action. Our actions affect others. Some of us care, some don't.
 
pachuco said:
I was just reading an article about this very subject on the Black Star blog. The photographer makes some great points about the "f" word. Free that is! It's not always a bad thing.

http://rising.blackstar.com/new-photography-business-models.html
Click to expand...

He's wrong. The only people that article brought to his site are other photographers, and photographers images from photojournalists. Credits give you NOTHING. This is one of the first lessons a new professional learns in any creative field. Its a well known fact among commercial photographers and graphic designers that 'publicity value' from giving an image is a common scam perpetuated by buyers to avoid paying newbies. It never brings you future business from the people who see the published result and it tells the original user that you're a fool who can be played for more freebies.
 
bmattock said:
First, I do not accept the argument that I am destroying the livelihood of others.

Second, I strive to be both a decent and a moral person. I would not accept any criticism of my morality or decency by anyone who does not know me or how I live my life.

I am not shamed.

My photographs, and I'll do as I wish with them. No one has the right to tell me otherwise; not legal, and certainly not by implying I'm immoral or indecent.
Click to expand...

fine, bill. one more item to add, given your considerable skill at missing the entire point. if a wealthy man gives away that which another man of much less wealth sells for his living, thus depriving him of that living, then a disservice has been done. the wealthy man broke no law, but he broke another man.

marx called it the labor theory of value. you'd likely call it the eschaton.
 
MCTuomey said:
fine, bill. one more item to add, given your considerable skill at missing the entire point. if a wealthy man gives away that which another man of much less wealth sells for his living, thus depriving him of that living, then a disservice has been done. the wealthy man broke no law, but he broke another man.

marx called it the labor theory of value. you'd likely call it the eschaton.
Click to expand...

Everything we do for ourselves that we could pay another person to do could be considered robbing them under your theory. Obviously, we do not rob everyone by the mere act of living.

Missing the entire point? I think I understand the point. That being, by undercutting the competition, I ruin that other man. Strange that this is what the entire free market is based upon - competition to the point of ruination - and yet it persists and is otherwise considered unremarkable and certainly not a 'disservice'. Illegal aliens do it to citizens. Corporations do it to each other. Farmers and grocery stores and Megalo-Marts and convenience stores and gas stations do it.

You buy on price yourself - we all do. Why pay for what one can get for free?

Ah, but capitalism offers a way out. Value. I'll generally choose free over paying for something, but not if the good or service I am interested in offers me a value I cannot get from the free version. I'll bet you do too.

As I mentioned earlier, I am in constant competition with outsourcing for the work that I do - I have to compete with skilled and intelligent IT workers who will do what I do for less money from places like India. Given that my skills are virtual, it is no disadvantage to them to be distant, or that their skills in English are not as good as mine. I can only compete on value - by offering superior services that make a customer want to pay more for what I offer. That's why there are Cadillacs and Kias.

I do not accept that artists such as photographers should be guaranteed a living. They are, like me, guaranteed nothing but the right to compete to sell their services. Photographs will continue to be sold on micro-stock sites for pennies, and photos will continue to be given away for free by people like me. It is on them to compete with that by offering value that people will want to pay for.

To say otherwise is to say that their photographs are no better than mine, that their services are no better than mine, that they offer nothing that a person could not get for free. If that is the case, they do not deserve to be in business, and the market will reward them accordingly.

It is only in labor unions and amongst artists that the notion persists that they are owed not just a chance to compete, but the right to succeed in their chosen field. That those who put them in the position of having to scrap for jobs against those who undercut them are somehow morally reprehensible for doing so. When the gas station across the street lowers its price and gets my business, the other gas station doesn't call them up and accuse them of being immoral. They can compete by offering me something that makes me willing to pay a penny or two more per gallon; perhaps good coffee or free refills of it - or if they cannot, then they will not succeed. This is life. Yet when one photographer lowers his prices to attract business and another cannot survive selling his work at that lower rate, the first photographer is an evil person. Sorry, don't buy it.

EDIT: And I'd just like to note for the record - when others have no actual argument to offer me, they get personal mighty quickly. I'm immoral, I'm indecent, and I have 'considerable skill at missing the point'.
 
MCTuomey said:
fine, bill. one more item to add, given your considerable skill at missing the entire point. if a wealthy man gives away that which another man of much less wealth sells for his living, thus depriving him of that living, then a disservice has been done. the wealthy man broke no law, but he broke another man.

marx called it the labor theory of value. you'd likely call it the eschaton.
Click to expand...

You're assuming that people possess fundamental rights as human beings. Sadly, few Americans believe in the Enlightenment values that underpinned the founding of our country. Now, no one has rights and those less fortunate are simply vermin to be crushed like bugs.

I'm disgusted to note that the modern worker in many cases is worse off than those in slavery. The slave's owner has to feed, house, clothe, and provide medical care for his slave. Many owners were cruel to their slaves, but this was really not in the owner's best economic interests. Todays masters don't have to feed, clothe, house, or provide medical care for the modern day serf. He has nothing invested in it to lose if it dies, so he can pay starvation wages and when the worker dies or gets sick, no problem there are enough unemployed out there that he can quickly replace the broken man with a new one.
 
bmattock said:
When the gas station across the street lowers its price and gets my business, the other gas station doesn't call them up and accuse them of being immoral. They can compete by offering me something that makes me willing to pay a penny or two more per gallon; perhaps good coffee or free refills of it - or if they cannot, then they will not succeed. This is life.
Click to expand...

As I said, Bill, you're skilled at missing the point - and at stating the obvious as if it isn't. Competition isn't immoral, and no one has suggested so. Unfair competition, or competition that disrespects human dignity, is wrong, assuming you value human dignity and fairness. If one of your hypothetical gas station owners is wealthy and the other isn't, the wealthy owner can afford to price his gas so low (taking short-term losses) as to cause the other owner to go out of business. Once that happens, the wealthy owner raises his price. There are laws that prohibit this market behavior, of course. Or do you believe that competition can never be unfair, that it is some kind of prime value that subsumes all others, without reference to any kind of social or normative standard?

A hobbyist photographer who gives valuable services and product away for free is taking paid business away from professionals, assuming that the person receiving the free service would otherwise engage a professional. What is so hard to see about this simple notion?
 
Last edited:
bmattock said:
It is only in labor unions and amongst artists that the notion persists that they are owed not just a chance to compete, but the right to succeed in their chosen field.
Click to expand...

Long live labour unions! Maybe photographers should form a union of some sort, similar to the screen actor's guild.
 
MCTuomey said:
As I said, Bill, you're skilled at missing the point - and at stating the obvious as if it isn't. Competition isn't immoral, and no one has suggested so. Unfair competition, or competition that disrespects human dignity, is wrong, assuming you value human dignity and fairness. If one of your hypothetical gas station owners is wealthy and the other isn't, the wealthy owner can afford to price his gas so low (taking short-term losses) as to cause the other owner to go out of business. Once that happens, the wealthy owner raises his price. There are laws that prohibit this market behavior, of course.
Click to expand...

First of all, I am not competing. As I stated, I do not pitch my services, nor do I do weddings, events, etc. I am not in the marketplace. So I am unclear on how that would be competing unfairly.

Second, who is it that decides what is far competition and what is unfair competition? If I sell my photo instead of giving it away, must I charge a particular price for it? Will you tell me what an acceptable price would be, below which I am competing unfairly? Is it up for discussion, or is there just some line below which I am an evil *******?

A hobbyist photographer who gives valuable services and product away for free is taking paid business away from professionals, assuming that the person receiving the free service would otherwise engage a professional. What is so hard to see about this simple notion?
Click to expand...

Because it's incorrect. I can't take anything away from a person that they do not have. If we take the roles mentioned - you being the paid photographer, me being the immoral indecent ******* who gives away photos, I would have to intercede in a contract you had in order to take business away from you. If there is no contract, it's not your business, so I can't take it from you.

I might theoretically take potential business away from you, but that's a very different thing. If you cannot compete, then you need a new business model. You need to offer the buyer a value that they cannot get from my free photo, or you will be shut out. You may have lost the business, but I didn't take it from you; it was never yours to begin with.

As I said, this discussion proceeds from an assumption that I do not agree with - that the professional photographer has some expectation of business, which I am interfering with. Business people have no inherent right to win business, they have a right to compete. Art, like anything else, is still business. Compete or fail. If you can't compete with free by offering value, then fail. I didn't do that to you, you just can't compete.
 
antiquark said:
Long live labour unions! Maybe photographers should form a union of some sort, similar to the screen actor's guild.
Click to expand...

People are always free to form guilds and trade unions. If it works for them, then so mote it be. Let me know how it turns out.
 
Chriscrawfordphoto said:
those less fortunate are simply vermin to be crushed like bugs.
Click to expand...

Time and time again in human history, that situation you describe has happened. The poor have nothing, and the rich have everything. Usually the problem was solved when the poor decided to "dispose of" the rich and take their place. Of course, the solution was temporary, and the cycle would eventually repeat itself.

Most modern societies understand this. That's why they tax the rich and give to the poor. Because you can only screw the poor for so long...
 
Chriscrawfordphoto said:
He's wrong. The only people that article brought to his site are other photographers, and photographers images from photojournalists. Credits give you NOTHING. This is one of the first lessons a new professional learns in any creative field. Its a well known fact among commercial photographers and graphic designers that 'publicity value' from giving an image is a common scam perpetuated by buyers to avoid paying newbies. It never brings you future business from the people who see the published result and it tells the original user that you're a fool who can be played for more freebies.
Click to expand...

Didn't read the whole post did you? The photographer he writes about did get paid, just not from the publication. He was paid by the musician he photographed.

The blog post talks about being open to new business models and not being afraid to go a different route to get paid. As a side note, I make my living with photography as well. i think part of the reason the industry is in such a lurch is the fault of companies asking for free work, but also photographers not understanding that their cheese has moved. We need to find the cheese, that's all this man was saying.

Anyhow, it's not apples to apples with what the OP was talking about, I just thought it was an interesting article. Don't have to bite my head off about it :eek:
 
Because of the recession companies & magazines are all over flickr for freebees. They use flickr as their personal stock photo agency. Once they find a photo they like contact the photographer with the same ol story about no money but giving you full credit. Most photographers are hobbiest so they feel like they are suddenly on cloud-nine not realizing they have been had. You did the right thing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom