Voluntarily letting everyone use your picture(s)

[Out to Lunch]

All the glory to the OP for an interesting post and also laughing at the acrimonious debate that follows...between the amateur and 'professional' photographers, some of whom, if I recall correctly, could not sell one Christmas card not so long ago. Cheers, Peter

 

[ferider]

On the software side there are some big companies making money with essentially free (for them) contents. Red Hat and Google are two examples.

My compliments to the OP for hinting at a way to do similarly with photography.

PS: I fail to understand how Wiki publishing of web-size pictures would negatively affect selling prints of the same work.

 

[andersju]

Regarding how one might survive as, say, a photojournalist in the Age of Internet, I'm cautiously optimistic. The old ways might be dying, but I feel we are just starting to see a plethora of new ways of doing things. A couple of them come to mind:

The somewhat famous 1000 True Fans idea is interesting. Ctein wrote a series of columns for The Online Photographer about his experiment with this as a business model. I think this one has links to all of them.

Crowdsourcing might sound like one of those overused buzzwords but it is undeniably working for a lot of people. Have a look at Kickstarter's successfully funded photography projects (and most funded); there are quite a few of them, mostly by people I've never heard about, along with some big names (Larry Towell, Bruce Gilden).

(Outside of photography, there are some really interesting examples, the most recent being the point-and-click adventure game Double Fine Adventure: it exceeded its goal of $400k in nine hours and ended up with $3.3m, or 834% funded. Tim Schafer has a lot of fans.)

Kickstarter is young. In 2010 a total of $27m was pledged; in 2011, $99m. You can still only start a project if you are a US resident, and similar sites outside the US have just started cropping up. We're just seeing the beginning of this.

 

[I Love Film]

Not photography but internet-related, an interesting way to instant stardom:

http://www.wired.com/underwire/2012/03/ff_reddit/all/1

 

[Lax Jought]

I just wanted to say, well written story and awesome photos.

 

[ColSebastianMoran]

I'm an episodically serious amateur.

I just want to say how much I appreciate the help that the real pros and fully serious amateurs are giving to all of us here.

Most recently, I'm thinking of Chris for the material on his tech site and CharJohnCarter in private exchanges. Also b1bmsgt and Frontman who share fix-it instructions and even volunteer to send missing parts.

We did see some tension in the exchanges above, but on the whole, this is a very wholesome community at RFF.

 

[Damaso]

As a professional I beg to differ. I think sharing one's images is great, and I highly recommend it but remember that you are also having an impact on people who make their lives selling and licensing their work. That may not matter to you or the original poster but the move towards free for corporations is hurting those who depend on that money. I don't think a multi-national corporation should make money off of something they get for free.

It's a free country of course.... as for free marketing, bah. That's the line companies use when they don't want to pay you.

 

[kievman]

Here's a point I have yet seen mentioned I truly believe that anderju under values his images and I think they are much better than he realizes I have shot a lot of performing arts stuff in the past and his stuff is pretty good. If he held his work in higher regard maybe he would not of gave it away for free............ or maybe he would of.. All I know is I have supported Wikipiedia in the past. Cash -wise and I will in the future and I think the open source movement is great. But ultimately we all have to put bread on the table and that fact forces us to consider the economic side of our generosity. It is sad that for-profit organizations took advantage of this situation and used Anderju's work for their own gain. Maybe it is time Wikipidia needs to revise it licensing policy and limit usage of the images and info found on their website to non-profit use.- Kievman

 

[Roger Hicks]

You bring up an interesting concern, Roger.
That art is valued more for its monetary worth than for its contributions to social or cultural cohesion is a key to the problems we face today.

George Bernard Shaw is reputed to have said to Henry Ford, "Ah, well, there is the difference between us, Mr. Ford. You think only of art, and I think only of money." Those who created art were always paid for it throughout history. It's only since Goethe and his ilk, the 'troubled artists' of the late 18th/early 19th centuries, that people have assumed that art should be free, and that artists should not be rewarded. In other words, a refusal to value art financially is an even more convincing key to the problems we face today.

Of course, those who earn a living by their pens, brushes, cameras, etc., tend to have a different view from those who do not. That is quite apart from those who, though luck or judgement (most usually a combination of both), earn a living from their pens, brushes, cameras, etc., and who response to anyone earning less than themselves is, "F*** you, I'm all right."

Cheers,

R.

 

[andersju]

Here's a point I have yet seen mentioned I truly believe that anderju under values his images and I think they are much better than he realizes I have shot a lot of performing arts stuff in the past and his stuff is pretty good. If he held his work in higher regard maybe he would not of gave it away for free............ or maybe he would of.. All I know is I have supported Wikipiedia in the past. Cash -wise and I will in the future and I think the open source movement is great. But ultimately we all have to put bread on the table and that fact forces us to consider the economic side of our generosity. It is sad that for-profit organizations took advantage of this situation and used Anderju's work for their own gain. Maybe it is time Wikipidia needs to revise it licensing policy and limit usage of the images and info found on their website to non-profit use.- Kievman

Thanks for the compliments. 🙂

I think there are some "cultural" differences involved here. I've been involved in the free software / open source world for a long time. It consists of a lot of people who release their software for free, for various reasons; some for ethical/moral, but (probably) most do it because they believe it's the best way to produce software. And "free" here means truly free: letting anyone use it for any purpose.

It has worked quite well. The Internet, the web and much of computing in general is pretty much built on free software, from top to bottom. We all use free software directly or indirectly every day.

But of course, the business of photography is completely different. Free software might have caused the profits of (and number of jobs at) companies selling proprietary software to fall, but on the other hand it has generated plenty more jobs. This is only natural, because only a fraction of all software developers in the world work on proprietary software to be packaged and sold (Windows, Office, ..): most write custom software for a specific client, or customize existing software, etc.

Wikipedia, Creative Commons, and others have their roots in this free software world. My point here is just to clarify why a lot of people think it's perfectly fine to release their work for free and have for-profit corporations use it for their own gain. I'm certainly not saying the photography world should, or even could, work the same way; but to have a fruitful discussion I think it's important to understand where many of these people are coming from.

The Wikimedia Foundation's mission is "to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally." Allowing non-commercial-only material on Wikipedia will never happen, as that would put a ton of restrictions on distribution, which would be in direct conflict with the stated mission. They want everyone (not just Wikipedia) to be able to use the material any way they like, forever.

Do the positives of giving Wikipedia (and, indirectly, the rest of the world) a picture outweigh the negatives? In this particular case, I say yes, without hesitation. I think I Love Film put it very well in his first post. I never work for free, but this was not work. Given two options,

1) Letting the picture rot on a personal web site and most likely not ever making a dime off it
2) Uploading the picture to Wikipedia and having a few million people see and maybe enjoy it

...the choice is easy. I couldn't care less that some for-profit places also used it.

 

[celluloidprop]

Photographers need to come to grips with their art not being as valuable as it once was. Today everyone with three brain cells and a DSLR can produce an acceptable image - the specialized knowledge of the past is less applicable than it used to be. That specialized knowledge is what creates most commercial value, whether you're a lawyer or a photographer. The ability for simple contract work to be done by non-lawyers or in India is not good for American lawyers.

Going forward, the people who will make money at photography are those who can work in front of and behind the camera for direct commercial reasons. Other than that it's going to be teachers and authors - and more than a few people supplementing income with print sales of their art.
The days of many people being able to make a living stringing or shooting stock are, for better or worse, gone.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Photographers need to come to grips with their art not being as valuable as it once was. Today everyone with three brain cells and a DSLR can produce an acceptable image - the specialized knowledge of the past is less applicable than it used to be. That specialized knowledge is what creates most commercial value, whether you're a lawyer or a photographer. The ability for simple contract work to be done by non-lawyers or in India is not good for American lawyers.

Going forward, the people who will make money at photography are those who can work in front of and behind the camera for direct commercial reasons. Other than that it's going to be teachers and authors - and more than a few people supplementing income with print sales of their art.
The days of many people being able to make a living stringing or shooting stock are, for better or worse, gone.

Bull****. Anyone can make a decent image, but these companies are wanting people who make GREAT images to give them away. I don't have to come to grips with anything, the law is on my side. 90% of the time, when someone asks me for free images and I tell them "Nope, not free. Here's the price....", I get a check. Sure, they could go find some fool to give them a photo free, but they wanted MINE and mine cost money. The lesson is simple. If someone liked your work enough to ask for it (or to steal it, even) then it was the one they NEED for their purpose. They'll pay. I've seen it so many times I've lost count.

 

[I Love Film]

Here's a photo by Berenice Abbott. She is basically a documentary photographer. Here's another of a storefront from a restaurant review.

You call your images of storefronts "fine art". What makes your documentary photos of storefronts "fine art" and worth a premium?

Frankly, I don't see you being able to make a livable income from your images. You may get token checks in rare instances, but you do not produce images which will generate high prices.

You act as if all clients are "greedy fools" who are barely being thwarted from mass theft of your photographs, hardly an attitude conducive to earning a living. In many posts you complain about your lack of income and difficulty earning a living, yet you feel you are the world's expert on marketing photography.

Bull****. Anyone can make a decent image, but these companies are wanting people who make GREAT images to give them away. I don't have to come to grips with anything, the law is on my side. 90% of the time, when someone asks me for free images and I tell them "Nope, not free. Here's the price....", I get a check. Sure, they could go find some fool to give them a photo free, but they wanted MINE and mine cost money. The lesson is simple. If someone liked your work enough to ask for it (or to steal it, even) then it was the one they NEED for their purpose. They'll pay. I've seen it so many times I've lost count.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Here's a photo by Berenice Abbott. She is basically a documentary photographer. Here's another of a storefront from a restaurant review.

You call your images of storefronts "fine art". What makes your documentary photos of storefronts "fine art" and worth a premium?

Frankly, I don't see you being able to make a livable income from your images. You may get token checks in rare instances, but you do not produce images which will generate high prices.

You act as if all clients are "greedy fools" who are barely being thwarted from mass theft of your photographs, hardly an attitude conducive to earning a living. In many posts you complain about your lack of income and difficultly earning a living, yet you feel you are the world's expert on marketing your images.

I don't have a job, or a a rich family, or a wife supporting me. The government doesn't give me anything. I must be doing fine. I make some money doing web design, but sales of my photos still provide about half my income, which I support myself and my son with. His mother does not contribute (actually, he hasn't seen or heard from her in months...she had a new baby and lost interest in him).

I do complain about not making enough money. I live in Indiana. When I moved back here from New Mexico to care for my son, I lost 2/3 of my income! So yeah, that sucks. My son is worth it, though. He's a freshman in high school. When he graduates, we're going to move back to Santa Fe so I can make a decent living and live in a place where art has value once again.

I do not think most of my clients are greedy fools. You need to learn to read. I said that 90% of those who ask for a free photo do end up paying, because they want the photo bad enough to pay. Most people who ask about licensing my photos, thankfully, do not ask for them for free...they email or call and ask what the price is. People who buy prints never ask for free prints, ever. They just pay. The asking for free stuff is from people wanting to use the photos for commercial uses.

There are people here making a lot more money than I do; most are living in places like New York where that is easier to do (of course the cost of housing is 4 times as much there, so I may not be as 'poor' as a simple income comparison would show). I think that my advice is relevant to those who, like me, live in backwater places and still want to sell their work. Like anything you read online, people can take it or leave it.

 

[I Love Film]

Living in New York is my choice because I like it. I pay a fortune in rent, taxes, health insurance and everything else. I support a family. I don't have rich family, wife, etc etc....

I don't need to live in New York to do what I do. I could do it living in a cardboard box in your front yard as long as I had a laptop and an internet connection.

What does living in Indiana or New Mexico have to do with the online marketing of your photos?

I know how to read very well. Your attitude is hostile. So, someone calls and asks for a free photo. You say no, then they pay. So what? That's human nature.

Why do you call your photography fine art? Because you went to art school? What difference does that make? What gives your photos more "value" in Santa Fe rather than where you are?

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Living in New York is my choice because I like it. I pay a fortune in rent, taxes, health insurance and everything else. I support a family. I don't have rich family, wife, etc etc....

I don't need to live in New York to do what I do. I could do it living in a cardboard box in your front yard as long as I had a laptop and an internet connection.

What does living in Indiana or New Mexico have to do with the online marketing of your photos?

I know how to read very well. Your attitude is hostile. So, someone calls and asks for a free photo. You say no, then they pay. So what? That's human nature.

Why do you call your photography fine art? Because you went to art school? What difference does that make? What gives your photos more "value" in Santa Fe rather than where you are?

In Santa Fe, I did a lot of commercial work, which isn't available in Fort Wayne. That's what made the difference in my income. I'm actually selling more prints off my website now than I did then. Why is my work art? Documentary work has always been important in fine art photography. I know there are people who think more conceptual work is the only kind of photography that is art, but given the amount of work like mine that is in museums of art, I think that question has been settled a long time. You keep asking about my credibility, but you're still hiding. People here may disagree with me, and some even think I'm a big fat dickhead, but at least they know who they're talking to.

 

[I Love Film]

I'm not asking about your credibility. You don't have to prove anything to me. I also don't care what you believe or think about me. I can take you at face value or not, and you can do the same about me. They also know what you present to them. They don't really know who they are really talking to.

I find it interesting how people rationalize the choices in their existence. Personally, I would never call anything I did or do "fine art". I am more of a schlockmeister, or, as Roger Hicks said, a prostitute. I exchange imagination and fantasy for money.

 

[I Love Film]

Who said that?

 

[mfunnell]

Your attitude is hostile.

Now that is amusing!

...Mike

 

[Jack Conrad]

George Bernard Shaw is reputed to have said to Henry Ford, "Ah, well, there is the difference between us, Mr. Ford. You think only of art, and I think only of money." Those who created art were always paid for it throughout history. It's only since Goethe and his ilk, the 'troubled artists' of the late 18th/early 19th centuries, that people have assumed that art should be free, and that artists should not be rewarded. In other words, a refusal to value art financially is an even more convincing key to the problems we face today.

Of course, those who earn a living by their pens, brushes, cameras, etc., tend to have a different view from those who do not. That is quite apart from those who, though luck or judgement (most usually a combination of both), earn a living from their pens, brushes, cameras, etc., and who response to anyone earning less than themselves is, "F*** you, I'm all right."

Cheers,

R.

You sure give away a lot of words for nothing around here, Roger. 😀