Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

This photograph is free

standblog.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 147 posts

Re: This photograph is free

#41

Post by unreal37 »

miahi wrote: post #9

Just a couple of hours time difference and it would be copyrighted[1], and not by him. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eiffel_Tower#Image_copyright_cl...

Yes it's ironic that the Eiffel Tower has copyrighted it's nighttime light display.

I don't think that any physical 3D object (ie: buildings) should be copyrightable, even statues or art displays. The fact that the Eiffel Tower, Sears Tower, and Empire State Building are iconic (and beautiful works of art themselves even) should not be enough to grant copyright.

Re: This photograph is free

#42

Post by sethg »

mrgoldenbrown wrote: post #28
bcrescimanno wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not to digress too much from your original comment (which I completely agree with) but I think there's a certain "smugness" that I see associated with people who release anything as free--as if somehow the act of benevolence has put them on a plane above those who choose not to. I think that's unfortunate for multiple reasons; not the least of which is that people should be commended for sharing things under free / o…

I feel that any sense of smugness in this article is more than outshone by the sense of entitlement in the original. The second post acknowledges reality (that many good quality photos are available for free) while the first post seems to whine about the consequences of that reality (when free photos are so widely available, why should you be surprised/angry when someone asks you for your photos for free?)

Why shouldn’t the first photographer have a “sense of entitlement”? He’s entitled! He has the right to set prices for his work, and the rest of us have the right to pay, negotiate a better price, or walk away from the deal.

But going up to someone and saying “you should give this away” is not negotiating for a better price; it’s practically an insult. It’s like walking into a car dealership, seeing that the sticker price is $10,000, and telling the salespeople that they really should let it go for $3,000.

Also note the difference between “I want to give my work away” and “you ought to give your work away”.

Re: This photograph is free

#43

Post by potatolicious »

jenius wrote: post #8

I could not be happier about this article, and the fact that the two are presented next to each other. While I totally agree with @aspir in that both points of view are valid and deserve to be respected, I think this is the right attitude, and the one that will really get you ahead. If photography is your full time job and you are not getting paid for it, sure you have a reason to complain. You are doing good work, a…

> "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 this are unable any real exposure, or the level of exposure they control is considerably less than your position in the industry. It's such a landslide that the whole argument - while theoretically valid - just becomes a farce upon itself. Can you imagine a small-town paper asking to use Anni Leibovitz's work because it'll give her "exposure"?

If Vogue UK called me today and wanted me to work for them for free I'd jump on a plane this afternoon. Hell, if a local, well-known fashion boutique wanted free work, I'd jump too. But, for most professional photogs, the people approaching them for free work are not handing out a fair deal, and the "exposure" argument is bogus.

Not to mention, all of the pro photogs I know do hand out considerable amounts of work for free. They do already build their own exposure and reputation, so unless you are extraordinarily influential, why would they offer free work to you?

Re: This photograph is free

#44

Post by tylerritchie »

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…

>It's kind of a tragedy of the commons...

Kind of, but not really. By talented individuals charging less-nothing for some of their photos (likely already taken photos) instead of consuming and annihilating the shared resource of "money available to be spent on photography" they just move that around. This "don't give your photo away, or charge lower prices" argument is the same as all of the other NO!SPEC, anti-open-source/public domain/CC arguments, in that it's a bad argument.

Free and open source software is pretty well understood. For example, by having all of these quality web browsers for free, it allows a larger market for more companies to make more money selling their wares and services online. I believe the original argument against free browsers was something like, "free web browsers will cost jobs and lower the quality of the browser."

Whenever I read the articles or come across an individual that trashes students and amateurs for giving their work away I think a few things.

- Does this person really not understand that by Timmy the undergrad giving the bake sale a good, but not astounding, photo of a cupcake that it frees them, the professional, up to take photos of tiger sharks?

- Is this person actually just incapable of competing on quality or subject matter with amateurs and therefor unable to differentiate themselves?

Re: This photograph is free

#45

Post by underwater »

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?

Completely off-topic, but in all areas I'm aware of you are breaking the law if you ride your bike while intoxicated.

Re: This photograph is free

#46

Post by sethg »

potatolicious wrote: post #40
noonespecial wrote: post #15

All of the professional fotogs I know are paid not for photos the have taken, but for photos people would like them to take. The photos that they have taken are just proof that if you hire them to take photos for you, they will be good. In this way, I think this author's point of view is slightly more economically advantageous than the "this photo cost $6500" guy.

> "All of the professional fotogs I know are paid not for photos the have taken, but for photos people would like them to take" You don't know any stock photogs?

Is it possible to make a living as a stock photographer these days? I’m curious how people manage that.

Re: This photograph is free

#47

Post by synth »

tikhonj wrote: post #23
synth wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I give my work away for free because it makes other people smile and I like that" is not a rebuttal to "people shouldn't be taking other people's work for free if the author doesn't want them to". If anything it's just a smug attempt at being holier-than-thou.

Of course you're also misrepresenting the other guy's argument: he wasn't arguing against "intellectual property theft" (what a loaded term!); rather, he was arguing against people's asking for the photograph for free. Moreover, his particular argument (ignoring the larger issue) was fairly obviously flawed and overbearing.

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 people who ask), then flat out asking artists for free stuff to further your own company is tantamount to asking for a free lunch.

In this narrow sense, Tristan's "giving things away for free makes me and people all over the world happy" post is not an argument against that either. It's just a feel-good argument for using a CC-type license in the first place, which was never the issue.

Re: This photograph is free

#48

Post by tiles »

jenius wrote: post #32
tiles wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wasn't this exactly the point of the other author's article? He was irate with people saying they would like to take the photo for free in exchange for promises of "exposure" or because taking photos are something anyone can do these days. What isn't being addressed is those asking him weren't copying the photo for the love of photography; they were suggesting they take the photo for free and to print it in a magazin…

"I worry that this leaves creativity at a social disadvantage to physical commodities, selling Coke or furniture or razors or stocks, which are jobs that provide a steady salary that help people live" -- you're on to something here. And you're right. Since anything and everything that is digital can be pirated, if you are trying to make a living only selling digital goods to the masses, it makes it a lot tougher. The…

This is the conclusion I'm generally coming to, with regard to creative works. I think this is reasonable, in the same vein as HN really advocates you form a startup in a space where there is a unique opportunity-- you won't be able to be self-sustaining with your own product unless there are people willing to pay for it. Perhaps this is why being bought is such a common and lauded occurrence. Your startup was a demonstration and valuation of your skills, before finding profitable work in a similar field.

Yet I wanted to draw attention to specifically the hypocrisy of our implicitly boxing things like magazine sales and advertisements together as having 'viable market' and photo licensing as somehow not. In regard to the original article, maybe the photographer is being unrealistic in trying to sell sunset photos per se, but he certainly has the right to not let others profit off of his work in any part (a la the GPL), in his case, at least without compensation.

And in the long run, pure digital copying will change a lot of how we perceive creative works, but also traditional areas like magazines, movies, textbooks, games, etc. We need to accept a world when all these items are free, and understand how they will become sustainable. Let's not assume because small photographers and artists are the easiest to duplicate that we can criticize their marketing strategies and leave these larger industries alone.

Re: This photograph is free

#49

Post by vectorpush »

Photographers have a right to demand payment for their photos.

Nobody has a license to use a photographer's photos without her permission.

Photos are an incredibly cheap commodity (that span the gamut of relative price and quality, like everything else)

It is not unreasonable that photo consumers expect low to no cost photographs.

I think we're all mostly in agreement here.

Re: This photograph is free

#50

Post by dchest »

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…

The right to give and the right to charge are inherently personal decisions that only the owner of the photo can make.

It's not that simple. There are two "rights" here: 1) the right to publish a photo, and 2) the ability to restrict other people's freedom to copy the photo.

The first one is simple -- you can choose to publish your photos, or you can choose to keep them for yourself and never publish.

The second one -- the ability to restrict other people's actions on further distribution -- is a personal decision only for a limited amount of time, and only in certain circumstances and for certain works. Even if your personal decision is not to let me publish photos shot by you in my "Silly photographs" magazine, I will be able to do so once you die + 70 years (according to my country laws). Why is this? Because every author's work belongs to public once author publishes it. The author is just given a temporary monopoly on it. This was intended to make authors produce more such works; for example, here's what US Constitution says:

[Congress shall have the power] to promote the Progress of Science and the useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

Post reply on HN