pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Even Time is asking for free stuff? C'mon man!  (Read 5981 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« 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
4012 Views
Last post April 28, 2009, 14:39
by WarrenPrice
5 Replies
4492 Views
Last post March 17, 2011, 07:50
by ProArtwork
27 Replies
5170 Views
Last post October 09, 2011, 15:47
by cthoman
0 Replies
1101 Views
Last post October 30, 2014, 15:17
by createstock
4 Replies
1854 Views
Last post August 22, 2018, 11:04
by mindstorm

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results