MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Even Time is asking for free stuff? C'mon man!  (Read 6226 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: January 19, 2018, 19:30 »
+4
https://petapixel.com/2018/01/19/turning-times-request-free-user-generated-content/

Kudos to the copyright owner!
I would have done the same with no hesitation nor regrets.

What about you?
« Last Edit: January 20, 2018, 17:42 by Zero Talent »


« Reply #1 on: January 19, 2018, 19:59 »
+6
This guy is a Facebook friend of mine.  He was posting this from day one.  Simply amazing what big corporations are becoming. I would NOT cave in for free content, either.  Time, NewsWeek, none of them.  Once one does it the snowball rolls and grows bigger and bigger until there is nothing left for those of us who rely on photography as a source of income.

PaulieWalnuts

  • On the Wrong Side of the Business
« Reply #2 on: January 19, 2018, 20:12 »
+5
Exposure can be helpful if you have a purpose to gain something immediately or in the future. Like maybe adding Time to your list of clients will help you attract clients who actually will pay. Or attract higher end customers who will pay more money.

But just giving away photos for "exposure"? Never. Many of my clients pay me and also give me credit. And even doing that I can't trace even one time that the exposure directly resulted in someone contacting me for a sale. Does exposure help? Sure maybe sometimes. But not by itself. 

Some of the people in the comments say selling photos for money is dead. Social media is where the money is. That may be true for a small percentage of photographers who can get a bazillion followers. How many of you here are making more money from social media than from selling photos?

When photographers stop giving stuff away, people will stop asking for free stuff.

ETA: Does anyone find it ironic that the article is about freely using user generated content on a site that earns money from advertising by freely using user generated content?
« Last Edit: January 19, 2018, 20:18 by PaulieWalnuts »

namussi

« Reply #3 on: January 20, 2018, 03:33 »
0
Payments for UGC peaked at $150k in 1963 for the Zapruder film and have been dropping ever since.

Noedelhap

  • www.colincramm.com

« Reply #4 on: January 20, 2018, 06:24 »
+2
I see it often on Twitter. Someone tweets a self-made photograph of some event (say, the aftermath of a rainstorm or a fire) and national newspapers or news networks ask for permission to publish the photo online on their website or in the paper, with credits.

Which is fine, of course, they're at least asking permission instead of stealing it.
But most of the time the photographer in case is an amateur and gives his permission because he simply doesn't care about the money (being credited is fun enough, right?) or doesn't value his own work in terms of money.

Of course, the majority of amateur content creators is uneducated about this issue, so newspapers and magazines often get away with it.

namussi

« Reply #5 on: January 20, 2018, 06:56 »
+1
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?



« Last Edit: January 20, 2018, 07:07 by namussi »

« Reply #6 on: January 20, 2018, 07:09 »
+3
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. Why shouldn't they also provide video/pics of events for free?

Because I wonder if this will work the same way if, for example, you replace the photographer with a lawyer or any other profession...

namussi

« Reply #7 on: January 20, 2018, 07:12 »
0
Lawyers are interviewed everyday by journalists and aren't paid.

niktol

« Reply #8 on: January 20, 2018, 07:20 »
0
I don't see anything wrong with giving stuff away for free, it happens all the time  (no pun intended), but the dialog is strange
- I am a working journalist [translation - I don't do what I do for free]
-I am sorry, but TIME does not pay for ugc [translation - get bent]
and the weird response
-No problem, I fully understand...

If there is no problem and full understanding, why make a fuss later? Just tell them what you think on the spot.

namussi

« Reply #9 on: January 20, 2018, 07:22 »
0
I don't see anything wrong with giving stuff away for free, it happens all the time  (no pun intended), but the dialog is strange
- I am a working journalist [translation - I don't do what I do for free]
-I am sorry, but TIME does not pay for ugc [translation - get bent]
and the weird response
-No problem, I fully understand...

If there is no problem and full understanding, why make a fuss later? Just tell them what you think on the spot.

Nail on head.

« Reply #10 on: January 20, 2018, 07:39 »
+2
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"?
« Last Edit: January 20, 2018, 07:46 by Zero Talent »

namussi

« Reply #11 on: January 20, 2018, 07:59 »
0
Time contacted the photographer thinking he was a member of the public, so the analogy doesn't work.


niktol

« Reply #12 on: January 20, 2018, 08:00 »
+1
remove regulations, that is the obligation to get a formal education and pass the bar exam to be called a lawyer, very soon there will be more lawyers then photographers and there'll be plenty of free advice available. For exposure.

Brasilnut

  • Author Brutally Honest Guide to Microstock & Blog

« Reply #13 on: January 20, 2018, 08:03 »
+1
We work practically for free submitting to Microstock  ;D

« Reply #14 on: January 20, 2018, 08:16 »
+5
We work practically for free submitting to Microstock  ;D

Maybe you do. A lot of us make good money despite competition from fame seekers.
« Last Edit: January 20, 2018, 08:32 by Zero Talent »

« Reply #15 on: January 20, 2018, 08:29 »
+4
Lawyers are interviewed everyday by journalists and aren't paid.

Apples and oranges.  An interview isn't legal advice - every lawyer I know is going to charge you $300 an hour even for briefly answering an e-mail.

I would have done the same as the photographer.  Time certainly can pay.  I suppose since he posted the video originally on facebook they assumed he didn't care about the money - can't blame them for that.  But once he said he wanted to get paid they should have ponied up something if they wanted unlimited access.

When I was younger I used to work sometimes as a musician.  I was always surprised by how often people wanted us to donate our time, especially to organizations that had plenty of money.  We didn't charge much but definitely expected to get something for our efforts.  Our motto then was the same I would use now: no pay, no play.

« Reply #16 on: January 20, 2018, 08:30 »
+1
remove regulations, that is the obligation to get a formal education and pass the bar exam to be called a lawyer, very soon there will be more lawyers then photographers and there'll be plenty of free advice available. For exposure.
All for removing regulations.
But there are so many cooks in the world already. Is Time calling them asking for free lunches, because "they don't normally pay for UGF or user generated food"?
« Last Edit: January 20, 2018, 08:41 by Zero Talent »


« Reply #17 on: January 20, 2018, 08:32 »
+6
Make an offer to the guy - show some goodwill
Good gawd, how cheap can companies be?

« Reply #18 on: January 20, 2018, 08:36 »
+4
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?
« Last Edit: January 20, 2018, 08:39 by Zero Talent »

niktol

« Reply #19 on: January 20, 2018, 09:17 »
0

All for removing regulations.
But there are so many cooks in the world already. Is Time calling them asking for free lunches, because "they don't normally pay for UGF or user generated food"?

No idea. Maybe they do.

« Reply #20 on: January 20, 2018, 09:46 »
0

« Reply #21 on: January 20, 2018, 09:56 »
0

All for removing regulations.
But there are so many cooks in the world already. Is Time calling them asking for free lunches, because "they don't normally pay for UGF or user generated food"?

No idea. Maybe they do.

Lol, no they don't. Rest assured they don't. I never saw Time articles about the cook across the street from their HQ, who gave them free food in exchange for credit or fame. And also no articles giving credit to people from the general public, who gave them free UGF or "user generated food"
« Last Edit: January 20, 2018, 10:01 by Zero Talent »

niktol

« Reply #22 on: January 20, 2018, 10:32 »
0
this is all storm in a teacup thing. My boss looked at me funny 30 years ago, and now I am on metoo all enraged. The guy couldn't make a sale, now he's pissed. This whole "they've got so much money" is total nonsense. I have so much money compared to locals when I am in Vietnam, but if I am paying more than local market price or pay money for what I can get for free, then I am the sucker. Welcome to the free market. No government imposed prices, that means zero value for a job is possible too.

« Reply #23 on: January 20, 2018, 11:01 »
+1
this is all storm in a teacup thing. My boss looked at me funny 30 years ago, and now I am on metoo all enraged. The guy couldn't make a sale, now he's pissed. This whole "they've got so much money" is total nonsense. I have so much money compared to locals when I am in Vietnam, but if I am paying more than local market price or pay money for what I can get for free, then I am the sucker. Welcome to the free market. No government imposed prices, that means zero value for a job is possible too.

You are barking at wrong tree here, my friend
I'm not against Time trying to get free stuff. Far from that! They are free to try as long as it works. Heck, I will probably try to get free stuff for myself, if it works.
Fools are not those asking for free stuff, but those who fall for it.
Fools are those "wannabe artists" seeking some illusory fame nobody gives a sh.t, about except maybe their mom.

That's my message: don't be that fool!

niktol

« Reply #24 on: January 20, 2018, 11:31 »
+1
this is all storm in a teacup thing. My boss looked at me funny 30 years ago, and now I am on metoo all enraged. The guy couldn't make a sale, now he's pissed. This whole "they've got so much money" is total nonsense. I have so much money compared to locals when I am in Vietnam, but if I am paying more than local market price or pay money for what I can get for free, then I am the sucker. Welcome to the free market. No government imposed prices, that means zero value for a job is possible too.

You are barking at wrong tree here, my friend
I'm not against Time trying to get free stuff. Far from that! They are free to try as long as it works. Heck, I will probably try to get free stuff for myself, if it works.
Fools are not those asking for free stuff, but those who fall for it.
Fools are those "wannabe artists" seeking some illusory fame nobody gives a sh.t, about except maybe their mom.

That's my message: don't be that fool!

I agree with you there.

« Reply #25 on: January 20, 2018, 14:32 »
0
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.

« Reply #26 on: January 20, 2018, 14:36 »
+1
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.


« Reply #27 on: January 20, 2018, 15:49 »
+1
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.

Wow, Millennials, incredible.  I suspect he must have a trust fund or some other source of income - over 1.7 million downloads, for free.  I can't imagine.

Towards the end he says "Photography isnt about making money as a freelance photographer".  No, actually it kind of is.  The point he was trying to make (I think) is that fame is more important than money.  Easy to say if you have money, or maybe that's the Millennial ideal.  I don't do photography because I need the money, but I certainly wouldn't go to all the trouble of processing, keywording and uploading just for a brief fame.  For me, I'd rather have money in the bank than fame any day (although of course if you're smart and lucky you can parlay fame into fortune, there's no guarantee of that).

Noedelhap

  • www.colincramm.com

« Reply #28 on: January 20, 2018, 17:03 »
+1
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.
 

« Reply #29 on: January 20, 2018, 18:16 »
0
what interest me more is how the spoeple think of living of photography....
then to answer myself i go directly to their page and i see three commissioned job and a bunch of personal project. so how this people live from? earning 50k year blogging? with instagram=?
the world in my opinion is simply living out of family money or some monthly fee from investment or house rented.
99&^% of these millennial don't earn a dim.

namussi

« Reply #30 on: January 21, 2018, 05:50 »
+1
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.

« Reply #31 on: January 21, 2018, 08:48 »
+1
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.

Grasping at straws. See my other posts.

Let me quote you: "I think I won this skirmish", lol  :P
« Last Edit: January 21, 2018, 08:50 by Zero Talent »

namussi

« Reply #32 on: January 21, 2018, 09:10 »
0
Whatever.

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

PaulieWalnuts

  • On the Wrong Side of the Business
« Reply #33 on: January 21, 2018, 20:10 »
+2
I wonder what would happen if I contacted Apple and said "Hey I'd like to download your songs. In return I'll make sure I give you credit to improve your exposure".

The songs don't cost them anything right? Why would they care. It's just a digital copy. Not like they're losing anything. And they'll get more valuable likes and shares.

Oh wait, maybe that's why Itunes did over $8 billion in sales last year and artists are always starving. Because smart businesses don't give away their products and artists do.

I'll just leave these here for your viewing enjoyment.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mj5IV23g-fE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=essNmNOrQto

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2a8TRSgzZY






JimP

« Reply #34 on: January 21, 2018, 20:19 »
+2
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.

namussi

« Reply #35 on: January 22, 2018, 07:32 »
0
Interview opinion or observed is not the same as photo or video.

Why? Interviews are content that the member of public is giving for free to the broadcaster/website/newspaper.

Interviews are sometimes paid for if the person has special access or position.

That's rare, except in the world of tabloids.

If I have a special video or photo of news, I should get paid.

Market forces?

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.

Fair enough. But nobody is forcing you to give stuff away for free.

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


It's hardly the Zapruder film.

« Reply #36 on: January 22, 2018, 08:44 »
0
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.


« Reply #37 on: January 22, 2018, 08:53 »
0
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.

« Reply #38 on: January 22, 2018, 09:56 »
+1
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.
« Last Edit: January 22, 2018, 14:33 by Zero Talent »

PaulieWalnuts

  • On the Wrong Side of the Business
« Reply #39 on: January 22, 2018, 22:39 »
0
You will not get paid 100% of the time where you do not ask to get paid.

namussi

« Reply #40 on: January 23, 2018, 01:30 »
0
You will not get paid 100% of the time where you do not ask to get paid.

Not necessarily.

ShadySue

« Reply #41 on: January 23, 2018, 12:19 »
0
[aside] I remember years ago there was an issue of Time having used an iS pic (and on the cover, so easily seen!) without paying an EL ... then it happened again a few months later.
However, with Time being such a common word, I'd have no hope of finding the link to the old iS forum where these were discussed.

PaulieWalnuts

  • On the Wrong Side of the Business
« Reply #42 on: January 23, 2018, 19:16 »
0
You will not get paid 100% of the time where you do not ask to get paid.

Not necessarily.

Ok ok. 99%.

namussi

« Reply #43 on: January 23, 2018, 19:18 »
0
You will not get paid 100% of the time where you do not ask to get paid.

Not necessarily.

Ok ok. 99%.

I think we are in agreement :)


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
12 Replies
4110 Views
Last post April 28, 2009, 14:39
by WarrenPrice
5 Replies
4597 Views
Last post March 17, 2011, 07:50
by ProArtwork
27 Replies
5329 Views
Last post October 09, 2011, 15:47
by cthoman
0 Replies
1120 Views
Last post October 30, 2014, 15:17
by createstock
4 Replies
2089 Views
Last post August 22, 2018, 11:04
by mindstorm

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results