This photograph is free • Hacker News Board

Re: This photograph is free

#101

Post by potatolicious » Thu, Jan 12, 2012, 12:49 AM UTC

jenius wrote: post #88

potatolicious wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "Because when you don't, it will spread, people will enjoy it, your reputation will go up, and you will end up making money from it either way." This is actually precisely the point the original blog post was arguing against. Do you know how many times professional creatives hear that argument? "You should do this for free, because it'll offer exposure and reputation." Except, 99% of the time, the people saying thi…

I'd also like to mention, since I apparently got downvoted because of this response, that it completely misinterpreted my original comment, quite clearly. When people ask me to do work for them for free, there's no way I'd agree. Of course that's stupid, and I've heard that plenty of times, and turned it down every time. What I was saying, and what I thought I made clear but apparently didn't enough, was that you sho…

I get your distinction, though I don't see how it's relevant.

Work that one does out of pure interest and passion, in their free time, is still valuable. I have a family friend who's retired, and intensely interested in woodwork. He has a workshop you wouldn't believe, and honestly doesn't need the money - and yet we always pay him for his work, custom or otherwise. And by this we don't mean simply covering his costs, either.

I'm going to specifically object to your characterization here: "you shouldn't be throwing a hissy fit when you aren't making immense profits from it"

That's just plain disingenuous, misleading, and putting words in the original blog author's mouth. He never said anything about charging immense sums to license his photos. His objection isn't being lowballed, it's that advertisers, magazines, and other for-profit entities value his work at $0 - zero.

The second thing he complains about is how advertisers only offer "exposure" in return. This is, of course, a line of bullshit. Either the people trying to license his photos are ignorant, or they're deliberately trying to take advantage of him. Being credited in the fine print of an ad, or worse, at the very bottom of a page in the back of a magazine, far from the actual photo itself, is worth zero publicity, especially when your photo is being used stock (as it is, in this case). The magazine/advertiser knows this, the photographer knows this - simply putting that on the table shows extremely poor faith, which is probably what triggered the rant in the first place.

> "He took it himself, because he wanted to, in his free time. And now he's complaining that he put it online and people want to use it. That's where I call bullshit."

So, again, if I am reading you correctly, you're saying that anything you produce in your free time out of personal interest is worth no monetary compensation, even when being used by commercial entities?

Disregarding the fact that, as a professional freelance photographer, everything he takes a picture of is a source of income. One does not have to be specifically commissioned to be on the job.

Re: This photograph is free

#102

Post by joshwa » Thu, Jan 12, 2012, 1:11 AM UTC

timwiseman wrote: post #95

joshwa wrote: post #92

The comparative advantage the professional assignment or stock photographer brings to the table isn't just creating a "good enough" photograph, it's about creating the RIGHT photograph for the client. This is why microstock and craigslist haven't completely destroyed the market, since the professional can reliably create the RIGHT photo for the assignment (or in the case of stock, consistently predict and create the…

Nobody actually cares about quality, and given the choice, they'll go for cheaper and "good enough" over expensive and good. I agree with your overall point. But this one is more nuanced. In things that are of little significance, "good enough" is, well, good enough, and people won't pay more than they have to. But you can charge a premium for even a tiny advantage, when that advantage matters to the people buying. T…

I should rephrase that to "the organization doesn't care about quality". The customer (you) might care, but since you're only consuming the end-product your decision has a lot less influence.

This is definitely an organizational behavior, as the person buying the product isn't the same person that consumes it.

Re: This photograph is free

#103

Post by pm90 » Thu, Jan 12, 2012, 1:35 AM UTC

mrgoldenbrown wrote: post #36

yangez wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not entirely accurate. The original "this photograph is not free" article wasn't an attempt to prevent his own images from being copied. It was an attempt to influence OTHER photographers not to give away their photos for free. I've worked for a long time in the photography industry. In my experience there are two things that justifiably piss photographers off in a very major way: 1. Getting their photo rippe…

I can understand why this would piss photographers off, but I can't agree with the "justifiably" part. When I ride my bike home from a bar instead of taking a cab, the cab driver might be pissed. Should he pissed at bike manufacturers? I'm sure horse whip makers were pissed at Ford for selling cars, and lowering the overall value of their industry. Why should photographers get special protection from market forces?

Yes, but I think you are missing an essential point in your examples: a) A bike is not really a replacement for a cab (say you want to carry some goods) b) Cars are a different technology from horse-carriages The thing is that the photos produced by all kinds of photographers are almost the same ( of course, the better ones produce photographs of better quality, but they are still photographs). I think that the analogy that you used was perhaps not accurate..

Re: This photograph is free

#104

Post by pm90 » Thu, Jan 12, 2012, 1:44 AM UTC

_delirium wrote: post #75

funkah wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This author is partially refuting the original, though. It's not just saying "I give away my photos", it's also saying that it is unrealistic to expect to make money from photography because so many people have a camera and the tools to publish their photographs. I don't really agree with this because the skill and artistic inclination of the photographer is still a critical factor in how the photo turns out. But it…

That's true, but I think part of the problem that's happened over the last 10 years is that a lot of people have realized that they don't really need the top-quality work, and now have an option not to buy it. A simplified view: 30 years ago, there were amateur photographers who, for small amounts of money or free, could get you a snapshot of 0/10 through 3/10 quality; and there were professional photographers, who f…

That's a really good analysis. I will add just one thing : what you said is precisely the reason why there is so much complaining. The photographers who can take a 10/10 photograph probably put in an extraordinary amount of time and money to learn their skills, and since the market is (greatly) reduced, they feel it is unfair that they are not being sufficiently compensated for all the work that they put in.

Re: This photograph is free

#105

Post by pm90 » Thu, Jan 12, 2012, 1:55 AM UTC

tikhonj wrote: post #74

synth wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we put on our blinders and ignore the larger issue, asking an artist for free stuff is rather condescending. As Mueller says, why should magazines, advertisers, websites or corporations expect or ask for free work? (Let's not pretend it's anything other than this) If the artist didn't already put it on a Creative Commens license or similar (or has indicated that he is willing to give non-commercial licenses to peo…

It might just be a difference in cultures, but in my experience if you, for example, ask a sys-admin for Linux help, they are more than happy to spend time on it. There is no stigma about asking for this sort of help even though you're basically asking a professional to work for free (at least in the Linux communities I'm familiar with). I've seen people spend hours helping others debug some issues. Also, most progra…

There is just one thing that I would point out: the sys admins and programmers are most likely already making money through their employment. In the case of a photographer, (s)he is selling the photographs for a living. I'm sure that if you ask a professional photographer for help in taking better photographs, he will gladly help you.

Re: This photograph is free

#106

Post by TWAndrews » Thu, Jan 12, 2012, 2:04 AM UTC

yangez wrote: post #27

aspir wrote: post #5

I hope everyone understands, including the authors themselves, that each author in this back-and-forth is correct. The right to give and the right to charge are inherently personal decisions that only the owner of the photo can make. This was the main frustration that I had with the "this photograph is not free" comments, as well as the tone the author of this article takes. It doesn't matter what the commentators cl…

This is not entirely accurate. The original "this photograph is not free" article wasn't an attempt to prevent his own images from being copied. It was an attempt to influence OTHER photographers not to give away their photos for free. I've worked for a long time in the photography industry. In my experience there are two things that justifiably piss photographers off in a very major way: 1. Getting their photo rippe…

Being upset at the first is perfectly reasonable. The second is cartel behavior, and should be opposed.

If good photographers are constantly giving photos away and not charging, professional photography prices and value naturally goes down. It's kind of a tragedy of the commons - photographers who DO give away work get more recognition, but they lower the overall value of their industry.

It doesn't drive value down, it drives prices down for the same photographs. The same photos at a lower price means the value actually goes up. This is actually the opposite of the tragedy of the commons--instead of the commons being destroyed because no one has incentive to care for it, the commons grows over time because people contribute to it directly.

What it does do is force photographers to find new business models. They need to sell valuable hard copies of their work (Have you seen how much a quality wedding album costs?), or they need to charge for their time prior to taking the photographs. For some types of photography this is quite difficult (travel photography, various types of stock photography), for others relatively easy (fashion and event photography).

Re: This photograph is free

#107

Post by vilya » Thu, Jan 12, 2012, 2:19 AM UTC

_delirium wrote: post #73

vilya wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which I'm sure will be a great comfort to them when they're struggling to feed themselves, because they've donated all that wealth to the "community". Would you apply the same argument to your own line of work?

I think most of us in tech do. There are people who rail against how open-source software is "stealing their livelihood", but I think most people realize that there is nothing immoral about people choosing to write open-source software. If the only way you could earn a living is to wish for the non-existence of free software, then you just need to find a new line of work, because you can't wish it out of existence...

At risk of putting words into your mouth, what you're saying here is "some software is open source and that's ok". I couldn't agree more - I've even made a few small contributions to open source projects myself. But the way I read the parent post, it seemed to be saying (the equivalent of) "all software should be open source", which is something quite different and which I disagree with quite strongly.

Re: This photograph is free

#108

Post by feralchimp » Thu, Jan 12, 2012, 2:30 AM UTC

mrgoldenbrown wrote: post #22

"Most of all, I have realized a long time ago that in a world where everyone has a camera, a lot of free time and fantastic tools to publish stuff, there is not a lot of money to be made anymore by taking pictures." For me that is the best rejoinder to the somewhat whiny tone of the "this photo is not free" post. The author has missed the point that certain types of photos are accurately valued at "free for credit",…

I'm surprised that more people here aren't focusing on that line of the post. It was the most interesting line to me, and even more interesting is that your reaction was a mirror opposite of mine.

There is not a lot of money to be made anymore by taking competently focused, competently-exposed sunset pictures of the Eiffel Tower.

Great tools lower the barrier of entry for achieving technical competence in capturing an ever-widening variety of beautiful subjects. So for someone who expects to turn their ability to do that into a professional photography career, fine, "there is not a lot of money to be made in doing that."

But there is a shitload of money to be made taking pictures, even when a 100 megapixel camera and .96 lux 50mm prime lens can be had for the same price as a pack of cigarettes, because professional photographers tend not to get paid to walk around tourist destinations snapping pretty shit all year.

Re: This photograph is free

#109

Post by ynd » Thu, Jan 12, 2012, 2:57 AM UTC

The main thing I take away from this is that he is not a professional photographer. Of course an amateur can afford to give away photos for free! However, I'm not sure he even realizes that what he says doesn't make any sense for a professional photographer trying to earn his livelihood.

Re: This photograph is free

#110

Post by projectileboy » Thu, Jan 12, 2012, 3:03 AM UTC

The underlying attitude that bothers me in these discussions on HN is that most of us are in the software business, so what it amounts to is "my intellectual property (software) is super valuable, and your intellectual property (photos, music, writing) is worthless". Do we really want to live in a world where people can't make a living from photography or writing or music?