Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
They actually do. In many states it is illegal for retailers to sell below cost. Walmart has been fined a number of times all over the country for opening stores where much of the merch is sold at below cost until all the local stores have been killed off, then they jack prices up to normal levels. Other retailers have gotten in trouble for this as well.
barefoot
talented, but lazy
I used to work as a musician. Not full time - just for fun. I'd play in a coffeehouse here and there. I made it a point to charge a fee (at for-profit venues), even when I'd gladly play for free (because I enjoyed it) - the reason being that I didn't want to undermine the value of live music. (and you never know, I might one day want to 'follow my dream')
I agree with bmattock in that I didn't owe it to anyone to charge for my services, but I'm certainly on the side of rich815 and Chris and others in respecting the livelihoods of photographers, musicians and other artists. I would never play a for-profit venue like a coffeehouse for free, nor would I give away a photograph to a for-profit venture.
I agree with bmattock in that I didn't owe it to anyone to charge for my services, but I'm certainly on the side of rich815 and Chris and others in respecting the livelihoods of photographers, musicians and other artists. I would never play a for-profit venue like a coffeehouse for free, nor would I give away a photograph to a for-profit venture.
antiquark
Derek Ross
bmattock
Veteran
I support your right to choose to charge for your services. I have never advocated that others should give away their work, only that they are free to do so if they wish - and that it is not taking food off the tables of other photographers if they do. I would hope that others would support my right to not charge for a photograph if I decide to give one away.
apconan
-
This is a ridiculous argument. That theory, like other economic theories, makes the basic assumption that goods/services are identical and interchangeable. Your gas station argument makes sense because gas is, for the most part, interchangeable. But the whole point of a photographer's job is they offer a unique artistic vision. If your photos are so easily replaced by someone else's, I'd say you have room to improve.
barefoot
talented, but lazy
No, not directly, but don't be surprised by the angry looks from people who might have profited where you gave away your photograph.
apconan
-
Same to you, Wal-mart offers the exact same goods as other retailers, at much lower prices, giving consumers no reason to go to other places.
As a photographer, if you can differentiate your service in a way that is valuable to customers, they will choose you over the free guy.
bmattock
Veteran
It is not uncommon for competitors to level such charges and ask for investigations.
And in any case, you're talking about 'predatory pricing'. For a finding of predatory pricing, you have to have several elements:
http://cbdd.wsu.edu/kewlcontent/cdoutput/TR503/page15.htm
I do not have the power to unilaterally raise prices on photographs after driving competitors from the market. Nor do I even engage in the business, so I am clearly not trying to recoup my losses. In fact, I haven't engaged in a single element on the list. Predatory pricing? I am not capable of doing it.
As to the current state of predatory pricing charges in the US:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predatory_pricing#United_States
What's really funny is that the loser in 'predatory pricing' prohibitions, which some countries have, is poor consumers. They benefit from, among other things, low prescription drug prices at places like Wal-Mart. By forcing Wal-Mart to charge more, it only harms the very poor. Nice job.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-169es.html
Of course, being a small-l libertarian, I hold a different viewpoint about predatory pricing. It's a myth.
bmattock
Veteran
Doesn't bother me. If they want to speak to me about it, they can come get some.
barefoot
talented, but lazy
bmattock
Veteran
Come get some? Looking to 'rumble' are you?
Whatever dude.
Allow me to amend my statement. If they just want to make angry faces at me, wah. If they wish to register a complaint with me, they feel free to do so in person.
dan denmark
No Get Well cards please
i think you mean, 'incensed.' and anyway, if you are a pro you can demand payment. if you are a punter, consider it a compliment and add it to the Christmas Card Annual Report. do you think use of the image will tip him over onto the Ten Richest List?
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
When I sell photos for commercial uses, it can mean serious money. I've sold photos on several occasions that EACH paid my expenses for a month. Most commonly I get enough from each to live for a week or so. We're not talking about $20 or $50 for a photo here. Businesses can and will pay for photos and will pay enough for a photographer to actually live. Photographers just need to be smart enough to stand up for themselves. People here get confused and try to equate businesses with family and friends, which it is totally ok to give photos to. I gave a photo to a high school yearbook class a couple yrs ago to use for their cover. They wanted a photo of a drive in movie theater and google led them to one I had. Giving them a photo didn't take money from anyone, high school yearbook classes do not have much to spend and they do not make a profit. I had fun working on my high school's yearbook and was happy to help the kids. The sent my a copy of it several month later when they got the finished books back from the printer, which was very kind of them...that cost them money that would have been nothing to a publisher but for them it was significant.
sig
Well-known
It might be a bit sad, but the cost and effort to create a good picture is close to zero. That is why the result is free, and we do not expect to pay for it.
drewbarb
picnic like it's 1999
You may not accept the argument, but it's still true.
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
Not even close to true. The last photo I sold was made with a camera that cost me $3000. The camera stores don't give them away. That's a cost. The film cost me $5 and the processing $10 (it was E-6 film). More costs. I scanned and edited the photo and retouched it and resized it to what the client needed. On a $2500 computer running Adobe's $600 Photoshop software. Goddamn, this is getting expensive! Of course I have a university degree in fine arts (photo and graphic design), and I still owe a fortune in student loans from the schooling that gave me the ability to consistently produce professional level imagery on deadline for paying clients. The photo was made on a trip that cost me $1500 to make, as it was a thousand miles from where I lived at the time.
Are you sure it takes 'close to zero' cost and effort to create 'good pictures'? I know, and my ledger shows, that it costs quite a bit of money and time and effort.
sig
Well-known
Your competitors do it for close to zero cost. They use a cheap digital camera, wack the jpeg it produces into flickr and there you have a great picture at no cost. They do not have any education, they were at a holiday so they do not count that as a cost. So yes close to zero cost. Of course you make great pictures, but in some cases your greatness can not compete with dead cheap.
Edit: However if your client wants to have a nice photo of a deer with 2 good looking children patting it in front of their HQ they can not find it on flickr. Same goes with wedding, portrait etc so the future of the pro is still shining. But landscapes with a sun -> flickr it
Last edited:
dan denmark
No Get Well cards please
i tend not to think that the world owes me a living. somewhere the innocence has left this thread. the principle is well and truly emblazoned in the need for greed. and for some to be unquestionably right. i'm willing to bet, in principle, that nothing would ever have come of it had the image been used as yet another example of a passing fad of software. is it TamPad savvy? i think more concern is directed at the need for more toys.
ping pong.
ping pong.
MCTuomey
Veteran
conan, let me amplify the analogy. let's say the poorer man shoots with humble equipment, manages to eke out a small living shooting low-end weddings, some portraits, a few events. now say a retired hobbyist physician, looking for something to do, buys some high-end gear with his ample retirement income and starts doing the same kind of work in the same small community as our poorer professional photog. with a difference: our physician doesn't charge anything because he "likes" doing it. it makes him happy. assume further that, while our poorer pro's work is technically better, the physician's work is quite acceptable, partly because he has basic skills and partly because he has good gear. after awhile, the poorer photog's business volume drops to the point where it can't be sustained.
observations:
1. no laws were broken. as bill and others say, he has the right to give away his work to anyone at any time
2. the physician continues to enjoy an active, personally rewarding retirement
3. the professional photographer is out of business
if none of this hypothetical situation creates for you a moral or ethical dilemma, then we have nothing further to discuss. i say so without a trace of sarcasm or ill-will or judgment of your character. your position would be free market libertarianism; mine would be regulated market conservativism. your position implies complete freedom; my position implies the concept of personal restraint, really noblesse oblige (applied to the economically advantaged). we would simply agree to disagree.
if my argument continues to seem ridiculous to you, then you can simply ignore it, sorry.
Last edited:
bmattock
Veteran
I think it's worthy of discussion, because it is a position that is hasn't a logical basis. I do not mean that personally - I'm attacking the argument, not you.
If it were true that by giving away a photograph, a person was damaging a working photographer, then it would also be true for any other profession; it would not just apply to photography.
Therefore, if I change the oil in a friend's car, I'm putting a mechanic out of business. If I cook a meal for my neighbors, I'm damaging restaurants. This is the same logic here - by providing ANY good or service for free that others charge for, I am competing with them in a way that they cannot match; free versus cost.
And as I have previously stated, my very employment would consist of performing what could only be considered a societal ill - making software that allows fewer humans to be employed to do a particular job, or making equipment last longer and require less service, and so on.
The fact is that most of us do not, by the simple act of living, damage the careers and livelihoods of those around us. But the logic you use, if true, is inescapable; nearly every act we perform that could be done by another for a fee is damaging to them.
I would be willing to bet that there are those chefs who bemoan the Food Channel, for teaching people to create gourmet meals themselves. Those who are angry at HGTV for showing people how to hang their own drywall. In both cases, not only might people be doing work for themselves, but they might choose to give away their new-found expertise to help friends and neighbors, who then do not have to hire a professional.
What of the person who gets their daily news from the Internet now, and does not subscribe to a newspaper any longer? Are they taking food off the table of reporters and photographers and editors and printers? Are we morally obligated to have a care for the survival of the New York Times or the local daily newspaper, be it ever so humble?
Changing times and changing technology creates new opportunities for employment at the same time that it makes it harder to compete for other professions. Daily milk delivery trucks just are not on the street in the numbers they once were - clearly the fault of supermarkets. Those same supermarkets, by the way, were the bane of the corner grocery. I believe Stuckeys put local mom-and-pop highway restaurants in jeopardy, until they themselves were overcome by the ubiquitous McDonalds and Burger Kings. All of these things, while at times not pleasant and certainly unhappy for those whose livelihoods are lost, are perfectly normal and do not have a moral component to them.
Your state that your position is 'regulated market conservatism', but in truth, it's anti-competitive. It seeks stasis in free markets which by nature do not do well with stasis. It says that what exists at a particular time and place is what is desired, and we'll lock it in place and not allow change. That would be difficult-to-impossible to actually accomplish, first, and second, I don't think you have thought it through to imagine what the result would be - a country that essentially stops innovating, stops changing, and stops advancing. The technology we have at that point is the technology we keep from then on. Of course, the world outside would not be bound by the same rules, and would soon overcome us economically, while we protect what would be the economic equivalent of a Potemkin Village on a national scale.
New technologies bring new challenges as well as new opportunities. Speaking specifically of photographers, it brings new potential markets for sales, at the same time that it brings increased competition. Photographers cannot simply hang a sign and expect a reasonable flow of business anymore; I have a friend who is a high school senior photographer (she does other work too) and she's constantly having to innovate, be fresh, be bold, be new; because she's competing with others who are found on the web and are willing to travel to compete for her local business, and if the prospective clients like the competition's stuff better, she loses. She has to compete with their prices. She has to have a red-hot website. She has to be flexible and work to new client demands that didn't exist ten years ago in high school senior photography.
She's adapting and surviving - she's actually doing really well. I believe that her success comes from having a superior product and presenting it very well to the marketplace.
That's the nature of the world. Things change constantly, and there is no protection or shelter for those who cannot adapt, or whose professions become obsolete because they want to work in a way that the market will no longer support.
This is not just a political opinion that supports a theory, this is how things actually work in practice. We both observe the same conditions and seem to be reporting them accurately. The difference is that I see no reason to attempt to modify the marketplace (via regulation or well-motivated personal desire) to suit a particular individual or profession, and you think that would be wise. You're certainly free to entertain that opinion, but even your own observations should show you that this is not how things work.