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?

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?

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.

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...

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.

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"?

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.

We work practically for free submitting to Microstock 

Maybe you do. A lot of us make good money despite competition from fame seekers.

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"?

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?

Please take part in this poll.

Would you Offer Your Work Free to Large Publications such as Time?

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.

Quote from: niktol on January 20, 2018, 10:32

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.

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%.