andersju
Well-known
I just thought I'd share a happier story 
Having been involved in the free software community / open source movement since the late 90s, I have some strong opinions about intellectual property law and the value of sharing. Those opinions are not the point of this post, but coming from that "culture" it made sense to me to try releasing some pictures under similar conditions.
In 2005 one of my favorite bands, Sonic Youth, played in Stockholm and I took some pictures, including this one:
Not a great picture, but OK. At the time, the band's Wikipedia page only had one not very good picture on it, so in September 2005 I uploaded mine and put it far down on the page. I chose the recommended license, Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike, which means that anyone can use the image (and adapt it) for whatever purpose (including commercial use) as long as 1) attribution is given and 2) the same license is used.
In March 2007, someone made it the main, top-right picture, and it's been there ever since.
Now, Sonic Youth is a fairly popular band, and the Wikipedia page is among the top results on Google, so I sometimes wondered how many people had seen that picture. It wasn't until recently that I discovered that Wikipedia actually publishes page view statistics! Someone created a nice interface to this data - see here, for example.
Adding up the numbers, I realized this old picture must have been viewed more than four million times by now. (And that's not counting the dozen or so non-English Wikipedias where it's also used. The online Encyclopædia Britannica uses it too - not that anyone cares anymore)
Which, to me, is just mind-boggling.
I also uploaded a bunch of other pictures, e.g.:
).
Thanks to the license, I've seen the pictures and my name in all kinds of places - personal blogs, major music sites, magazines, YouTube videos, .. - and I receive emails every now and then. It's like I've set them free: they no longer belong to me, but to everyone, and were I to disappear tomorrow the pictures will survive and keep being used as long as people still care about them. Just a nice feeling, is all.
Had I intended to make some money off these [admittedly not that special pictures], I would've gone a different route. But that was not my intention. I must have spent hundreds and hundreds of hours reading on Wikipedia through the years, and this is one of my small ways of giving something back.
If you have something to contribute -- and you surely do -- I recommend you try. Wikipedia could always use more (and better) pictures. It's easy, and it might give you a kick when years from now you can point and say "I took that!".
Having been involved in the free software community / open source movement since the late 90s, I have some strong opinions about intellectual property law and the value of sharing. Those opinions are not the point of this post, but coming from that "culture" it made sense to me to try releasing some pictures under similar conditions.
In 2005 one of my favorite bands, Sonic Youth, played in Stockholm and I took some pictures, including this one:
Not a great picture, but OK. At the time, the band's Wikipedia page only had one not very good picture on it, so in September 2005 I uploaded mine and put it far down on the page. I chose the recommended license, Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike, which means that anyone can use the image (and adapt it) for whatever purpose (including commercial use) as long as 1) attribution is given and 2) the same license is used.
In March 2007, someone made it the main, top-right picture, and it's been there ever since.
Now, Sonic Youth is a fairly popular band, and the Wikipedia page is among the top results on Google, so I sometimes wondered how many people had seen that picture. It wasn't until recently that I discovered that Wikipedia actually publishes page view statistics! Someone created a nice interface to this data - see here, for example.
Adding up the numbers, I realized this old picture must have been viewed more than four million times by now. (And that's not counting the dozen or so non-English Wikipedias where it's also used. The online Encyclopædia Britannica uses it too - not that anyone cares anymore
)Which, to me, is just mind-boggling.
I also uploaded a bunch of other pictures, e.g.:
).Thanks to the license, I've seen the pictures and my name in all kinds of places - personal blogs, major music sites, magazines, YouTube videos, .. - and I receive emails every now and then. It's like I've set them free: they no longer belong to me, but to everyone, and were I to disappear tomorrow the pictures will survive and keep being used as long as people still care about them. Just a nice feeling, is all.
Had I intended to make some money off these [admittedly not that special pictures], I would've gone a different route. But that was not my intention. I must have spent hundreds and hundreds of hours reading on Wikipedia through the years, and this is one of my small ways of giving something back.
If you have something to contribute -- and you surely do -- I recommend you try. Wikipedia could always use more (and better) pictures. It's easy, and it might give you a kick when years from now you can point and say "I took that!".
jippiejee
Well-known
This why the whole old copyright concept of photographic works is almost obsolete. Does anyone really want to go after people copying their work on pinterest? It's free marketing. The web is about sharing and linking. Print on paper if you want to keep your art exclusive, or share on the web if you want it to be seen and enjoy the exposure. Enjoy the sales of a picture that has gone around, but don't be too butthurt if someone pins it on what's basically a mood board. I am sure the photographers that now go after pinterest are the same that'll complain next year that marketing is so expensive.
maddoc
... likes film again.
Wow ! That is quite some story, congrats !
semordnilap
Well-known
That is a nice story... very cool.
andersju
Well-known
Thanks! The really cool thing is anyone can do it. In a way, contributing pictures to Wikipedia is more thankful* - or better for ones vanity, anyway. A text on Wikipedia might be the collaborative, joint effort of a hundred people. Not so with a picture.
* Until your picture gets replaced or removed. That can sting, a little, especially if you don't think the new picture is as good. But that's just the way it goes; you have little or no control. Some of my pictures have disappeared completely from the English Wikipedia, but that doesn't mean they are gone for good - they are still available on Wikimedia Commons (the big database where you upload stuff), and might be used on non-English Wikipedias and elsewhere.
A text on Wikipedia might be the collaborative, joint effort of a hundred people. Not so with a picture.* Until your picture gets replaced or removed. That can sting, a little, especially if you don't think the new picture is as good. But that's just the way it goes; you have little or no control. Some of my pictures have disappeared completely from the English Wikipedia, but that doesn't mean they are gone for good - they are still available on Wikimedia Commons (the big database where you upload stuff), and might be used on non-English Wikipedias and elsewhere.
Sejanus.Aelianus
Veteran
The really interesting thing about the web is that it really does reflect that misquote "Let a thousand flowers bloom". I see great hope in stories like this but I also see great danger in the actions of the greedy, who want to stuff the genie back in the bottle and bury him deep under laws passed by corrupt politicians. I think I'll go find some of my images and stick them on Wikimedia Commons today.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
What do you do for a living?
Or are you saying that no-one should take pictures or write for reward?
Cheers,
R.
Or are you saying that no-one should take pictures or write for reward?
Cheers,
R.
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
I agree. He's just let others get rich off his talents while he gets nothing but worthless pats on the back. I can't do that. I've seen my son cry because we had no food in the past. I know from hard experience that we cannot live on air alone, and no one gives me free food. I have to pay for things I want and need, and if others want or need my work, they pay so my family can live.
Now, if someone wants to help a charity or their church or some other cause they believe in, that's totally alright. To give work to profitable businesses is just plain dumb. I have spent enough time with editors and graphic designers and business leaders to know how they look on guys like the OP. They laugh at them and call them fools, idiots, and chumps. They do NOT appreciate the 'kindness' you think you're doing.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Chris,
Maybe I wouldn't be quite as harsh as that.
Or maybe, on second thoughts, I would.
Cheers,
R.
charjohncarter
Veteran
Roger, Chris are right. And I am not a professional photographer.
pakeha
Well-known
How about you guys re-read the OP. He said nothing of the sort.
batterytypehah!
Lord of the Dings
I disagree. Chris, Roger, you're missing the point. Wikipedia is not a business.
I Love Film
Well-known
There is a distinct difference between giving away something that you did because you enjoy it, and doing an assignment for payment.
Chris reduces everything to a simplistic level.
1) You go to a concert and shoot pictures for fun. You post some photos online that you enjoyed taking, and let them get downloaded from Wikipedia, which makes nothing off your images. You then take pleasure in seeing your work all over the place. Chris immediately assumes some "big corporation" is making a fortune off these images, which is nonsense. The value of the images is still basically zero. According to Chris, someone is always conspiring to take one of his "fine art" photos of some rural diner or farmhouse, and make a fortune off it.
2) Here is another scenario. Maybe a band has seen your online photos of them and liked them. So they give you a purchase order for a PAID ASSIGNMENT to shoot a cover of their new album. You GET SOME PAYMENT IN ADVANCE, SIGN A CONTRACT DETAILING USAGE AND/OR ROYALTIES, and GET YOUR EXPENSES PAID. You do a pre-agreed amount of contracted work, get special access to the band, and you provide unique images that could not have been produced in a public venue. You then get paid for your work, and you have a contract with the record label to be paid for the cover, and for any other promotional use for your images. You or the record label retain copyright, according to your agreement. The corporation enforces your rights.
The two situations are completely different. The first situation, your photos are not worth anything. The second situation, contractually, and because of the specialized work involved to produce images for a money-making enterprise, along with an advertising campaign, your work has a quantifiable value which can be enforced.
Value in one case is fantasy, in the other case is reality in a commercial sense.
There are exceptions, of course. Let's say you get exclusive photos of some extremely newsworthy event, like a murder or a celebrity doing something. In that case, you would do diligence to copyright your image, and let some commercial agency or newspaper handle distribution and rights. You'd have to work fast, call an agency and usually let them handle it after signing a contract. You could collect hundreds of thousands for this image, maybe more. In any case, this is also not a situation where you take a photo of a sign, or a rural diner, or a band performing in public, and you you decide that your image is worth a fortune, which it isn't.
Chris reduces everything to a simplistic level.
1) You go to a concert and shoot pictures for fun. You post some photos online that you enjoyed taking, and let them get downloaded from Wikipedia, which makes nothing off your images. You then take pleasure in seeing your work all over the place. Chris immediately assumes some "big corporation" is making a fortune off these images, which is nonsense. The value of the images is still basically zero. According to Chris, someone is always conspiring to take one of his "fine art" photos of some rural diner or farmhouse, and make a fortune off it.
2) Here is another scenario. Maybe a band has seen your online photos of them and liked them. So they give you a purchase order for a PAID ASSIGNMENT to shoot a cover of their new album. You GET SOME PAYMENT IN ADVANCE, SIGN A CONTRACT DETAILING USAGE AND/OR ROYALTIES, and GET YOUR EXPENSES PAID. You do a pre-agreed amount of contracted work, get special access to the band, and you provide unique images that could not have been produced in a public venue. You then get paid for your work, and you have a contract with the record label to be paid for the cover, and for any other promotional use for your images. You or the record label retain copyright, according to your agreement. The corporation enforces your rights.
The two situations are completely different. The first situation, your photos are not worth anything. The second situation, contractually, and because of the specialized work involved to produce images for a money-making enterprise, along with an advertising campaign, your work has a quantifiable value which can be enforced.
Value in one case is fantasy, in the other case is reality in a commercial sense.
There are exceptions, of course. Let's say you get exclusive photos of some extremely newsworthy event, like a murder or a celebrity doing something. In that case, you would do diligence to copyright your image, and let some commercial agency or newspaper handle distribution and rights. You'd have to work fast, call an agency and usually let them handle it after signing a contract. You could collect hundreds of thousands for this image, maybe more. In any case, this is also not a situation where you take a photo of a sign, or a rural diner, or a band performing in public, and you you decide that your image is worth a fortune, which it isn't.
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
I didn't assume anything. I read the original post. He said his work has appeared in magazines and major music sites, for no pay. THOSE are the corporations I am talking about. Wikipedia is a true volunteer effort, and if you guys read MY post, you'll note that I endorse giving work to nonprofit enterprises that you support.
shiro_kuro
Charles Bowen
Enjoyed the story and your images as well ...... thanks
I Love Film
Well-known
There are many people who have high-paying jobs in fields other than photography. The shoot for a hobby and take pleasure in seeing their work in magazines, online, etc. They do not shoot commercial assignments.
If they contribute photos to a commercial website or magazine once in a while, for fun, are they all fools or chumps?
If they contribute photos to a commercial website or magazine once in a while, for fun, are they all fools or chumps?
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
The stuff I wrote in that post, the things businesspeople have said to me, are unfortunately very true. Businesses are not your friends, they exist to make money for their owners. They'll happily take from you if you let them, and while it could be argued that they ought to show some gratitude, privately most of them will not respect you as a human being because THEY wouldn't dream of giving away their product for free, so they see anyone who does so as a fool who deserves fleecing. When creatives recognize that this is business, they get respect and they get paid. No matter how much your 'real job' pays, I'm sure you can use some extra money. Buy a lens, or put it in your kids' college funds.
kevin_v
Established
I think this is great. Open-source is a beautiful thing. As far as the criticism goes, the OP didn't intend to make an money from these; it was his way of giving back to the community, an admirable thing.
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
They're seen as such by the people they give the stuff to. I've been told this many, many times over the years by my clients. Not just in Indiana but in Santa Fe (where I lived for a few years). That's how people who give work away are seen by those they give it too.
I've given a lot of prints to friends and family over the years, and I have donated work to charity a number of times. Those people appreciated my gift. Businesses do not, they look down on you for it.
I Love Film
Well-known
I know dozens of publishers, photographers, businesspeople.
They are not all thieving conspirers who laugh at the poor starving artists. That is a sophomoric perception.
People makes deals, do each other favors, and ARE FRIENDS. They sometimes give away stuff for free and get stuff for free.
You have an entertaining mental construct of how the big bad world works.
They are not all thieving conspirers who laugh at the poor starving artists. That is a sophomoric perception.
People makes deals, do each other favors, and ARE FRIENDS. They sometimes give away stuff for free and get stuff for free.
You have an entertaining mental construct of how the big bad world works.