Can you believe this???

[apconan]

You're right, I do believe in a free market. I don't think it is morally wrong for the man to offer his services for free, the market still gives the professional freedom to differentiate his services. Whether this is through rapport with customers, artistically better photos, unique printing or presentation, is all up to him. He has the choice to defend against those who offer their services for cheaper, but if he refuses to adapt and just hopes for the world to be 'fair' then I have no sympathy for him...

 

[bmattock]

Consider the following hypothetical conversation:

Photographer: Excuse me, are you giving away photographs for free?
Amateur: Why yes, sometimes I do, why?
Photographer: You're harming my business, and I want you to stop it.
Amateur: How am I harming your business?
Photographer: You're giving away a service for free that I charge for. Please stop.
Amateur: So you want me to perform a service for you?
Photographer: Yes, stop giving away photographs for free.
Amateur: You want me to stop providing a service for free for the general public, by asking me to provide a service for you?
Photographer: Yes, that's right.
Amateur: How much will you pay me to stop giving away my photographs?
Photographer: Why, nothing! I just want you to stop giving away photographs!
Amateur: OK, so let me get this straight. You think providing services for free is bad, but you're asking me to provide a service for you for free. Is that right?
Photographer: No! I just want you to stop damaging my business!
Amateur: You ask me to 'do' something, or in this case, refrain from doing something. That's a service. You say free services are bad. So I must ask to be paid. That is your credo, you've explained it clearly. So if you want me to stop giving away my photographs, you must pay me for that service, or I am not following your advice that giving away services for free is bad.

Etc.

 

[robklurfield]

I had a request yesterday from an author and music critic who writes and produces pieces on jazz for NPR to use a shot a I took last weekend at a concert that he was reviewing. As I don't earn my living at this, I was flattered and gave permission. I was happy to see my image on his blog.

I can easily see and empathize with those of you are trying to put food on the table. In my humble case, I was happy for the exposure. I am going to offer to do concert shoots for this guy as way to have fun and, if I'm get lucky, have my shots used elsewhere. At this point my life, getting some money for my work would be a pleasure but not a necessity. I learned very early in life that the arts as a living are best suited to people either willing to starve or who have the proverbial rich uncle. I am in neither category. I have profound respect for people who can make the sacrifices required to earn their bread at this. I am not one of them. (I left graduate school at NYU in film production almost 30 years ago when I realized I'd have to work 20 years taping lighting cables to the floor before I'd make a dent in my student loans. I worked as an apprentice editor gratis on one picture, a Fred "The Hammer" Williamson blacksploitation epic, before remembering that I was broke, that my parents were broke and that food and shelter cost money. Do I have regrets??? You betcha. But I can live with 'em just fine. Everyone has regrets.) Perhaps in retirement, I would pursue opportunities to show and sell my work. Right now, I still have one kid in college and wife who thought it would be fun to get doctorate. Bills, bills, bills. Life goes on.

I can see both sides of this debate.

 

[robklurfield]

That slope certainly is slippery. An analogue: consider a prostitute telling a married woman to stop having sex with her husband because "you're cutting into my ability to charge him for my services." Or, a chef telling someone to stop cooking at home because "you're killing my business each time you don't eat at my restaurant." If that slope gets any more slippery, someone could get hurt.

Consider the following hypothetical conversation:

Photographer: Excuse me, are you giving away photographs for free?
Amateur: Why yes, sometimes I do, why?
Photographer: You're harming my business, and I want you to stop it.
Amateur: How am I harming your business?
Photographer: You're giving away a service for free that I charge for. Please stop.
Amateur: So you want me to perform a service for you?
Photographer: Yes, stop giving away photographs for free.
Amateur: You want me to stop providing a service for free for the general public, by asking me to provide a service for you?
Photographer: Yes, that's right.
Amateur: How much will you pay me to stop giving away my photographs?
Photographer: Why, nothing! I just want you to stop giving away photographs!
Amateur: OK, so let me get this straight. You think providing services for free is bad, but you're asking me to provide a service for you for free. Is that right?
Photographer: No! I just want you to stop damaging my business!
Amateur: You ask me to 'do' something, or in this case, refrain from doing something. That's a service. You say free services are bad. So I must ask to be paid. That is your credo, you've explained it clearly. So if you want me to stop giving away my photographs, you must pay me for that service, or I am not following your advice that giving away services for free is bad.

Etc.

 

[redpony]

*shrug*
but I always get a nice warm fuzzy even when they ask if they can use it for free. I generally say 'yes'. But to each their own.

I think that's what it feels like when someone relieves themselves on you--to each their own indeed.

It would take more energy than I have this morning to rebuke everything, and I disagree with just about everything, bmattock has said. But I'll say this: you cannot compete with free and it is NOT "the nature of the world" for things to "constantly change." Quite the contrary. The world is actually a relatively stable organism. Human cultures have never seen the kind of change we experience today. The Egyptians went millennia with very little fundamental change. That such change can be mistaken for "nature" shows how deeply our culture (and perhaps any) reifies itself.

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.

 

[MCTuomey]

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.

No, Bill. I think that restraint of the exercise of power, whether in markets large or small or in geopolitics, is necessary and is everyone's responsibility, especially those who lead and govern. Why? Because markets and governments can produce bad outcomes. E.g. monopolies and holocausts. Apparently, we don't agree. That's fine.

To my original point, I never suggested that sharing snapshots among friends was harmful to my hypothetical working photog. Or that cooking and sharing a meal among friends or the needy was harmful to working chefs. Or that a wife having sex with her husband was harmful to sex workers (gotta love that one).

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. You apparently don't. Which, again, is fine. We disagree. As you say, nothing personal.

 

[bmattock]

But I'll say this: you cannot compete with free and it is NOT "the nature of the world" for things to "constantly change."

Yes you can, and yes it is.

In this age of the Internet, companies are even now competing with free. They are trying to learn how to monetize what they provide on the 'net, and how to convince others to pay for what they might otherwise get for free. In some cases it works, in others it does not. But they are most definitely competing with free. And they have no choice - they must.

Quite the contrary. The world is actually a relatively stable organism. Human cultures have never seen the kind of change we experience today. The Egyptians went millennia with very little fundamental change.

Millenia is not a very long time. It simply depends upon your viewpoint. There have been many cultures that lasted a thousand or more years, but there have been many more that did not. And the fact that none of the still exist demonstrates that change is the only constant in human terms.

That such change can be mistaken for "nature" shows how deeply our culture (and perhaps any) reifies itself.

I admit I had to look that word up, so thanks for expanding my vocabulary. It's not often I see a word I do not know. It would appear you are saying that by 'reifying' itself, you believe culture regards itself as real and concrete. Well, yes. But I do not know what that has to do with the discussion at hand. Perhaps you could explain.

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.

I have said nothing about there being easy ways out, nor have I commented on the relative merits of free content in our current culture. I have stated that a) I am free to do what I want with my own property, including giving it away, b) there is nothing immoral, discourteous, or evil about my doing so, and c) this is the current state of the world in any case, and d) we deal with the world as we find it, not as we might wish it to be.

Society is in quite a pickle for a number of different reasons, but I've not offered any comments on that one way or the other, so I'm not sure what you're arguing.

 

[bmattock]

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. You apparently don't. Which, again, is fine. We disagree. As you say, nothing personal.

You are free to believe you have that obligation. As you say, I am free to not believe it. The only issue I have is when I am told that I must adopt yours and other's notion of obligation; or I am immoral, unethical, and just generally a rude bad person. If you agree that I'm free to do as I wish and not evil to feel as I do, then we have no real disagreement.

I fully support your right to feel as you do, and only ask the same in return. I have not stated that you are wrong to feel the way you do - and neither am I wrong to feel the way I do.

I disagree with your beliefs about commerce and the role of government, but that's not really important; as you say, you disagree with mine too.

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.

 

[Roger Hicks]

You are free to believe you have that obligation. As you say, I am free to not believe it. The only issue I have is when I am told that I must adopt yours and other's notion of obligation; or I am immoral, unethical, and just generally a rude bad person. If you agree that I'm free to do as I wish and not evil to feel as I do, then we have no real disagreement.

I fully support your right to feel as you do, and only ask the same in return. I have not stated that you are wrong to feel the way you do - and neither am I wrong to feel the way I do.

I disagree with your beliefs about commerce and the role of government, but that's not really important; as you say, you disagree with mine too.

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.

Be fair, Bill. You aren't always immoral, unethical, and just generally a rude bad person.

Cheers,

R.

 

[PMCC]

Be fair, Bill. You aren't always immoral, unethical, and just generally a rude bad person.

Thus the discourse is now restored to the free marketplace of ideas.

 

[Incitatus]

People are free to do what they want with their property and technically no one is forced into making a living taking photos...so I guess it all boils down to personal choice

 

[bmattock]

I think I will move to Detroit and provide free IT services to Bill's clients just for a hoot. See how long he keeps paying his mortgage.

That would be different though wouldn't it?

No, it would not be different, and I'd be forced to compete by offering value that you could not, presuming I was able to do so. I would not raise any objection.

And I no longer have a mortgage, so you're too late.

 

[aad]

Hey, if I can figure out a way to build houses and give them away, am I a bad person?

If I can feed the world for a penny, have I destroyed the world?

 

[bmattock]

Hey, if I can figure out a way to build houses and give them away, am I a bad person?

If I can feed the world for a penny, have I destroyed the world?

It's an excellent point. The same argument is made of Wal-Mart. Yes, they have outcompeted the local stores and in many cases, driven them out of business. There are some who feel companies like Wal-Mart should be restricted from competing in certain areas because of this.

There is also the complaint that Wal-Mart pays substandard wages and benefits, and leaves people with no choice but to accept their employment, once they have driven off the competition in a given area.

These complaints certainly have some validity.

However, it is also true that poor people tend to shop at Wal-Mart because it is what they can afford. Restrict Wal-Mart from competing and they have nothing. Many drug companies want Wal-Mart to get out of the prescription drug business - leaving the poor to pay higher prices from them instead of lower prices from Wal-Mart. In what way does that benefit humanity? One can argue the greater good, but the person who needs medicine and can't afford to pay more than they do from Wal-Mart is not likely to care to hear that argument.

 

[MCTuomey]

Hey, if I can figure out a way to build houses and give them away, am I a bad person?

If I can feed the world for a penny, have I destroyed the world?

No, but you might have to hang on a cross well before your time if you're not careful ...

At any rate, you're off point, I think, because your solution would provide both the advantaged and disadvantaged carpenter/farmer/photographer/gas station owner equal benefits wrt food and shelter. Which is not the case in the examples provided above.

 

[sig]

Everyone wants competition when it suits themselves.... The whole idea of bashing somebody if they say 'I sometimes give my photos to people who is not my family/friends and they might use it to make money' is a bit rich.

The world is changing

- cameras producing technically fantastic pictures are cheap and available (e.g. used pre-1972 that uses the best medium available, film, can be bought for 50 dollars)
- there are even cameras that can focus for you, so you do not need an education
- there are no cost in capturing the image (at least on digital, however film has never been as cheap as now)
- no cost/no knowhow in developing it (film, 'soup' it yourself and it is dead cheap)
- and there are no cost in distribution

So when* a big bad profit hungry organization asks me if they can use my photos I will think: "Sure, for me there has been no cost in creating it, and time spent on it I would do anyway. Thanks"

* I do not think this will happen, my photos are crap

When it comes to immorality.... there was a guy who feed a lot of people with 2 fishes and 5 breads 2000 years ago. ******* (on some may levels)

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Hey, if I can figure out a way to build houses and give them away, am I a bad person?

If I can feed the world for a penny, have I destroyed the world?

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.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Everyone wants competition when it suits themselves.... The whole idea of bashing somebody if they say 'I sometimes give my photos to people who is not my family/friends and they might use it to make money' is a bit rich.

The world is changing

- cameras producing technically fantastic pictures are cheap and available (e.g. used pre-1972 that uses the best medium available, film, can be bought for 50 dollars)
- there are even cameras that can focus for you, so you do not need an education
- there are no cost in capturing the image (at least on digital, however film has never been as cheap as now)
- no cost/no knowhow in developing it (film, 'soup' it yourself and it is dead cheap)
- and there are no cost in distribution

So when* a big bad profit hungry organization asks me if they can use my photos I will think: "Sure, for me there has been no cost in creating it, and time spent on it I would do anyway. Thanks"

* I do not think this will happen, my photos are crap

When it comes to immorality.... there was a guy who feed a lot of people with 2 fishes and 5 breads 2000 years ago. ******* (on some may levels)

You do realize that Christ fed THE POOR, right? Not the rich, not businessmen, not profit making enterprises. I wonder, are guys who make the arguments that you and the guy I responded to above really that stupid, or are you just acting that way to piss people off?

 

[sig]

You do realize that Christ fed THE POOR, right? Not the rich, not businessmen, not profit making enterprises. I wonder, are guys who make the arguments that you and the guy I responded to above really that stupid, or are you just acting that way to piss people off?

Sorry I am not trying to piss people off. You are saying that giving people something that you want to charge for is bad.

In the case of the 5 breads and 2 fishes (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%209:1-17&version=NIV) it seems like Jesus took away business from the 'surrounding villages'. He feed his followers, not the poor (again in this case, but he did a lot of good for poor people too).

(since I am not trying to piss people of I guess I am according to you stupid)

 

[gavinlg]

Everyone wants competition when it suits themselves.... The whole idea of bashing somebody if they say 'I sometimes give my photos to people who is not my family/friends and they might use it to make money' is a bit rich.

The world is changing

- cameras producing technically fantastic pictures are cheap and available (e.g. used pre-1972 that uses the best medium available, film, can be bought for 50 dollars)
- there are even cameras that can focus for you, so you do not need an education
- there are no cost in capturing the image (at least on digital, however film has never been as cheap as now)
- no cost/no knowhow in developing it (film, 'soup' it yourself and it is dead cheap)
- and there are no cost in distribution

So when* a big bad profit hungry organization asks me if they can use my photos I will think: "Sure, for me there has been no cost in creating it, and time spent on it I would do anyway. Thanks"

* I do not think this will happen, my photos are crap

When it comes to immorality.... there was a guy who feed a lot of people with 2 fishes and 5 breads 2000 years ago. ******* (on some may levels)

A camera that can focus itself and take a well exposed photo will still not produce good photos. Studying fine art or photography doesn't teach you how to focus a camera, it teaches you how to "see" like a photographer, which is something 99% of photographers on flickr lack. To take a photo off flickr without permission is stealing, and is no worse than taking a material possession from someone. I am 100% with chris on this debate.

- If a non profit/free publication asks to use my photo, I say yes AS LONG AS it benefits me in some way and I am fully credited. For instance - some internet blogs have HUGE circulation and page views per day, and just 1 simple linked picture can generate a huge amount of interest back to my own work. This is fine.

- If a company or publication that is NOT a non profit/free organization wants to use my photo, they will pay, or they don't get the photo.

I'm fine with amateur photographers giving stuff away, because 99% of amateurs don't take photos worth much. If you are an amateur and are taking fantastic photos and giving them away - you're an idiot and should be making money off them.

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