https://www.dpreview.com/opinion/9312839751/what-i-ve-learned-after-sharing-my-photos-for-free-on-unsplash-for-4-years

here an interesting article from a complete idiot. personally i find so mediocre to give your stuff for free. you simply are telling, am so cheap to the buyer and the world.

in his website he sell prints and license...and then at the same time give most of the photo free on unsplash.
the new generation are even worst than other.

https://www.dpreview.com/opinion/9312839751/what-i-ve-learned-after-sharing-my-photos-for-free-on-unsplash-for-4-years

here an interesting article from a complete idiot. personally i find so mediocre to give your stuff for free. you simply are telling, am so cheap to the buyer and the world.

It's just a marketing ploy by Unsplashed, crafted as a personal contributor recommendation. You know, something like the 'I make $10k a month at this website, by working from home, and you can too!' articles you see everywhere.
 

Quote from: namussi on January 20, 2018, 07:59

Time contacted the photographer thinking he was a member of the public, so the analogy doesn't work.

No they don't. They called him asking him to give them, for free, the product of his work.
He was NOT a random person picked up from the street. And even if he was, why do they consider themselves entitled to free stuff from the public, anyway?

1) See my other posts. Members of the public contribute content for free when interviewed.
2) Time didn't consider itself entitled to free content. That's why it asked for permission.

Whatever.

There's not much else to say, is there, other than read my posts again.

Another way of looking at it...

Members of the public freely provide content to journalists when they are interviewed, for example, as witnesses to an event.

Such interviews are given voluntarily. So why should journalists pay for members of the public's video/pics of events?

Interview opinion or observed is not the same as photo or video. Interviews are sometimes paid for if the person has special access or position. If I have a special video or photo of news, I should get paid. I don't give my photos freely I want to get paid. You can give your life and work away for exposure, it won't pay the bills or put food on the table.

Your comparison is flawed. The actual video is news of current event, not some flowers in a park.

Quote from: namussi on January 20, 2018, 07:12

Lawyers are interviewed everyday by journalists and aren't paid.

This is not why I asked the question.
The question was meant to compare lawyers and photographers in from a professional point of view, not as humans. How often do you think a magazine will dare to contact lawyers asking for free legal services and justifying the call by saying that "we don't normally pay for legal services"?

A guy on a microstock website is comparing photographers to lawyers. Microstock is an industry bursting at the seams with people whose only qualification as a photographer is owning a camera. If photographers had to go through 4 years of university and then pass a rigorous screening test like the bar exam before they ever pushed the shutter release you would have A) about 400 billion fewer photos in the world and B) an appropriate comparison.

There's no shame in asking for content. You never know what you can get until you ask so why wouldn't they? In any other circumstance people on this site would praise them for asking rather than just taking.

The real question is: if this guy thinks his work has so much value why is he posting it for free on Facebook? he could have put it on his own site and posted a link. The Facebook TOS clearly state:

"For content that is covered by intellectual property rights, like photos and videos (IP content), you specifically give us the following permission, subject to your privacy and application settings: you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post..."

duh.

Right, there is no shame, indeed. Fools are those who give their work away for free, not those who ask for it.

Time is not the issue here. The issue is with people falling for such free stuff for "exposure" requests (scams?).

As you can see, even this forum has many such delusional newbies who believe they can become famous by giving their work away for free.
This fantasy is so prevalent that even big names like Time decided to take advantage of it.

About lawyers vs photographers:
mind you, the same guy compared photographers with cooks, if you don't want lawyers. Moreover, feel free to compare photographers with any other profession.
I doubt there are many, if any, with so many fools who consider normal to work for free, in exchange for the illusion of exposure.


P.S: Here is an extract from an exchange I had yesterday:
C&C: May I use this for an account I run? Will tag you or whatever you would like me to do.
Me:Thank you for your interest! You may use it, of course, as long as you will purchase the appropriate license.

You will not get paid 100% of the time where you do not ask to get paid.

Not necessarily.

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on January 22, 2018, 22:39

You will not get paid 100% of the time where you do not ask to get paid.

Not necessarily.

Ok ok. 99%.