Companies slowly abondoning photographers?

all the above points are the symptoms of a greater problem that is endemic to our (supposed) modern culture - that being the fact that the vast majority of people simply cannot, do not or will not think things through to their logical conclusion. This is the way that those who run things want it. It benefits the elite few - whether in politics, business or banking - at the expense and peril of the masses of everyday working people who are not billionaires or powerful government functionaries.

There is something inherently obnoxious, offensive, unethical and immoral about a billion dollar social media entity unilaterally deciding that it has the right to take over the images and the rights of photographers - be they hobbyists or working professionals - and exploit their intellectual property for the benefit of the social media entity with no prior permission from the photographer, no credit to the photographer and no financial compensation paid to the creator of the images.

In spite of the provisos and user agreements in which such activity is couched, it is nothing other than theft being perpetuated by a handful of super rich executives at the expense of the "little people."

Only a fool would volunteer to be exploited and abused by such an arrogant and obnoxious arrangement.


JMHO and yes, I know - I sound like a bitter, old coot. I've been called worse and survived. 😀

Sometimes the truth is bitter medicine.
Not just yours, no. PKR has already mentioned Jaron Lanier. Anyone who uses 'social media' and 'sharing' sites, but has not pondered upon the ideas he expresses so well (and that you and others have touched upon in this thread), is basically well set on the road to deluded serfdom, no matter how clever, hip and young they may mistakenly think they are.

See "Who Owns the Future", http://www.jaronlanier.com/futurewebresources.html

Cheers,

R.
 
Not just yours, no. PKR has already mentioned Jaron Lanier. Anyone who uses 'social media' and 'sharing' sites, but has not pondered upon the ideas he expresses so well (and that you and others have touched upon in this thread), is basically well set on the road to deluded serfdom, no matter how clever, hip and young they may mistakenly think they are.

See "Who Owns the Future", http://www.jaronlanier.com/futurewebresources.html

The problem with Lanier's hypothesis is he assumes it is the internet and digital age creating inequity and hollowing out the middle class.

In reality, long before the internet became a phenomenon and digital became a byword, entrenched legal structures and macroeconomics were already setting that stage.

Lanier is only using his optics. Ownership is a legal term.
 
Flickr (as far as I'm concerned) is just a 'free' bank to store images for embedding on forums. I've been a member for nearly three years and haven't more than about one hundred images most at less than 800px wide.
I can see now they have 1TB you could upload your best images and make private, I'm not sure if one day they might just sell your images like one big 'free' image library.

So put me in the 'old curmudgeon' corner, because in the main I print my best stuff even if it only goes in a Henzo album and sometimes I exhibit. I visit and see as much art as I can I like physicality and experiencing things..

That said I totally understand the Flickr crowd, the groups the peer votes/likes and the social networking aspects. Having someone show me their stream on Flickr on their iPad was really nice, like flicking through a magazine.
He said 'do you have any photo's I can see?,' I said 'I have a few albums at home' to which he replied 'that's no good, what use are they there?'

A different generation I guess, one that values immediacy of access and peer communication.
 
The problem with Lanier's hypothesis is he assumes it is the internet and digital age creating inequity and hollowing out the middle class.

In reality, long before the internet became a phenomenon and digital became a byword, entrenched legal structures and macroeconomics were already setting that stage.

Lanier is only using his optics. Ownership is a legal term.
Very true: cf. Galbraith's The Affluent Society, more than 50 years ago. But familiarity with Lanier sets it in a more modern context. I don't think he claims to have invented the analysis in the highlight: merely to provide 'a modest proposal' for today.

Cheers,

R.
 
Last edited:
I can't wait for Facebook to sell one of my images to Coca-Cola for one Million Dollars. Or Ten. It would certainly be the highlight of my carreer.
 
Flickr (as far as I'm concerned) is just a 'free' bank to store images for embedding on forums.

But that is the crux here, it is actually *not* free, there is a huge, bigger picture cost to this that is about to be realized, it's actually going to cost everyone….it's seriously setting the stage for more collapse.
 
I can see now they have 1TB you could upload your best images and make private, I'm not sure if one day they might just sell your images like one big 'free' image library.

Flickr is making money the old fashioned way, increase traffic and sell ads. The photos themselves are useless, its their owners that flickr and everyone else in the social network business is interested in.
 
Flickr is making money the old fashioned way, increase traffic and sell ads. The photos themselves are useless, its their owners that flickr and everyone else in the social network business is interested in.
No, the old fashioned way is to inherit it. Google "Dukes of Westminster". Wikipedia is pretty good.

A slightly more modern way is to sell a real product that people actually want: Google 'Beerage'.

The most modern way is to sell a company that has never made a profit, working on the assumption that you will work out a way to rip people off later, even with a 'free' service. Google Tumblr.

Cheers,

R.
 
But that is the crux here, it is actually *not* free, there is a huge, bigger picture cost to this that is about to be realized, it's actually going to cost everyone….it's seriously setting the stage for more collapse.

Hence why I put 'free' in quotes. I've always been fully aware of the risks of showing work online as well as the risk of losing ownership. That's why not a single photo of my professional work is online-I don't even have a website.
Posting snaps for peer review on websites is fine, anyone is welcome to them; in all their 600 pixel glory.

People who post images online should only post low resolution or embed © tags in the file header or even on the image. Even better don't post anything of value.

Nothing in this life is free.
 
No, the old fashioned way is to inherit it. Google "Dukes of Westminster". Wikipedia is pretty good.

A slightly more modern way is to sell a real product that people actually want: Google 'Beerage'.

The most modern way is to sell a company that has never made a profit, working on the assumption that you will work out a way to rip people off later, even with a 'free' service. Google Tumblr.

Cheers,

R.

Making money is of course their goal, whether they can continue to make money through advertisement is not so certain.

Like many people I use a plug-in called ad-block in my browser, it blocks 95% of all advertisement in a webpage - in fact I cannot even imagine browsing without ad-block.


The real old fashioned way of making money is happening in China, India and Brazil, the west is living on credit cards.
 
Flickr is making money the old fashioned way, increase traffic and sell ads. The photos themselves are useless, its their owners that flickr and everyone else in the social network business is interested in.

Like TV.

The Flickr network.

I'm mad as Hell and I'm not going to take it anymore!
 
Making money is of course their goal, whether they can continue to make money through advertisement is not so certain.

Like many people I use a plug-in called ad-block in my browser, it blocks 95% of all advertisement in a webpage - in fact I cannot even imagine browsing without ad-block.


The real old fashioned way of making money is happening in China, India and Brazil, the west is living on credit cards.
Highlight 1: I'm not sure that imperialism works in the long run. About 60% of modern 'China' is occupied territories (to name the biggest, Tibet, Uighurstan, Mongolia, Manchuria) but 90% of the population of 'China' is Han Chinese. Lebensraum, anyone? Didn't work well for the Third Reich.

Highlight 2: Less and less so, I suspect, but you are still right.

Cheers,

R.
 
This thread is basically about the anxiety of everyone in photography, from businesses to pros to amateurs.


Adobe, flickr, what next? Samsung buys Nikon...
 
You know, I always get the sense that people here are "looking down from your nose" whenever flickr is brought up in RFF threads.

Why is that?

I have no problem at all finding photos that are absolutely gorgeous and inspiring on flickr.

Just as I had no problem rolling my eyes or scratching my head looking at some of the photos on RFF or exhibitions in galleries or museums.

What's really so amazingly "pedestrian" about flickr?
 
Back
Top Bottom