I've just read This photograph is not free on Petapixel.com, and I should explain why I disagree with the author and decided to give away the picture below:
The photo above is free. You can reuse it, as explained in its Licensing terms. Actually, you will not be the only one. Many publications have already done so, and I've seen this pictures used in dozens of places.
I think it's a fine photo. It has cost me quite a bit of money in order to create it. A Canon SLR camera, a high-end lens, my time to take the picture, edit it, publish it. Not including the cost of the computer. Several thousands of Euros overall. But that's a silly way of looking at things. I have taken literally thousands of pictures with this camera, so the actual cost is under 1 EUR per photograph...
I took the picture because I like taking pictures. I've invested a lot of money into camera gear over the past 27 years or so and never made a dime from it. On the other hand, it has given me a lot of joy and pride. The joy to take beautiful pictures. The pride of building the reputation of being a decent photographer. The pleasure to give away my work and see people smile. The satisfaction coming from the fact that my work is useful, seeing it's reused by others[1].
Of course, after taking this picture of the Eiffel tower in Paris, I could have said that it cost me a lot of money. So I should not share it. And the picture would have stayed on my hard drive, far from the eyes of people who could "steal" it.
But I gave it instead to Wikimedia Commons[2] so that it could be reused by other people on Wikipedia articles and elsewhere. I also gave dozens of photos to Wikipedia. Some of them have been published in highly successful books.
I don't regret giving this photo to people I don't know. It has cost me a little, but brought me a lot more in return.. because I made it available to the world. It would not have happened if I decided to leave it hidden in my hard drive. So if you want to reuse it, please be my guest: I'd rather see my artwork used than forgotten. Most of all, I have realized a long time ago that in a world where everyone has a camera, a lot of free time and fantastic tools to publish stuff, there is not a lot of money to be made anymore by taking pictures.
Update, Jan 12th, 2012
Hundreds of comments later[3], I'm revisiting this post and the issue it discusses. For the record, I understand the position of professional photographers, as explained in This photograph is not free post. I should mention that my younger brother is a pro photographer, shooting fashion here in Paris, for large publications and famous brands such as Hermès and Levi's. I don't want all pro photographers to die from starvation. I completely agree that someone can refuse to see his work reused for free. I do it myself (this post for example is not under a free license).
But the world is changing, with 141 million cameras sold in 2010 (not counting gazillions of smartphones) and the ability for people to publish on the Internet and potentially reach millions of people with a touch of a button.
It's a tough world for pro photographers, but it's a great progress to see millions of people being able to do art. Thanks to the comoditization of photography (and tools that enable creativity, from music instruments to computers), we're likely to see more and better talent emerge. The downside is that average photographer will be less likely to live from their craft. I can live with that. The other option is to prevent distribution of cameras and shut down the Internet in order to come back to the "good old days" of publication scarcity. Not what I want, really.
Notes
[1] For example, I took the picture of the guy with the I Love the Web sign on a high-traffic page of the Mozilla Website.
[2] Which is approaching 12 million freely reusable media files.
[3] on Reddit, Hacker news and Hacker news again.
60 réactions
1 De Karen - 11/01/2012, 18:59
Qu'on instaure quelque chose comme le revenu de vie et j'en donnerai tout plein à la gentille et désintéressée communauté des Hommes, des jolies photos
Mais pour l'instant, elles essayent de me faire (sur)vivre dans le monde actuel, et la concurrence des amateurs fortunés et talentueux comme toi m'embête quand même un tout petit peu… Pour tout dire j'avais pas vraiment prévu ni planifié de renoncer à ce joli travail, initialement
Maintenant c'est sans doute la direction que prennent les choses et je devrai m'y adapter, prendre un "travail" salarié qui me permettra de pratiquer mon hobby en marge des heures de productivité citoyenne au service de la croissance. Ou alors me former au "marketing" personnel 2.0 à grands coups de licence CC, qui me permettra de mieux communiquer sur mon savoir faire en gagnant rien du tout mais la joie au ventre :')
Sur ce je sors shooter pour me changer les idées, tiens. Gratos
2 De DS - 11/01/2012, 19:30
"For a typical author photographer, obscurity is a far greater threat than piracy" - Tim OReilly
3 De Cyrano - 11/01/2012, 19:45
Tristan Nitot disciple du Kopimism ( http://www.courrierinternational.co... ) ?
4 De Sheeri - 11/01/2012, 20:38
I think it's great that you are willing to give away your photographs for free. However, there are people who sell their art, and that's how they make their living. Asking for someone to do work for free can be very demeaning, especially to an artist, who spends tons of time, energy and money creating a work of art to have people say "I did something like that" or "you should give it away for free."
Some people write books and give it away for free, but it would be insulting to go to a bookstore and ask if you can have a book for free. Actually, it wouldn't really be insulting, but they'd look at you like you were crazy.
Some folks make a living being a freelance photographer. That means they take pictures and sell them, and that's how they put a roof over their head and food on their plate, and care for their family. I can see both sides, but I think this response is part of the reason the original blogger is frustrated -- just because one person (a hobbyist) gives away photos for free doesn't mean that everyone (including professionals) should.
5 De Pete - 11/01/2012, 20:51
Isn't the point that the cretor gets to choose how to give out his/her work?
6 De elbereth - 11/01/2012, 20:57
I just hope the author of "This Photograph Is Not Free" is an atheist. Maybe he would have to pay royalties to God for His everlasting intellectual property.
7 De elbereth - 11/01/2012, 21:02
I juste hope the author of "This photograph is free" is an atheist. Since he took a picture of te nature, hould to pay royalties to God, for His intellectual property.
8 De Grigory - 11/01/2012, 21:06
Hell yeah. This kind of math sounds a bit like… like you buy the camera and lenses and software for a single photo.
9 De EricD - 11/01/2012, 21:07
"I'd rather see my artwork used than forgotten"
congratulations for this way of thinking
10 De Jean - 11/01/2012, 21:13
Lorsqu'on est correctement rémunéré par une organisation subventionnée à hauteur de centaines de millions de dollars par de grosses entreprises internationales, on peut financer relativement facilement ses hobbies, que ce soit la moto ou la photographie et c'est une bonne chose que de partager ces plaisirs avec autrui ; lorsqu'on est photographe professionnel, payé au cliché, alors le monde ne tourne pas pareil et dans ce cas objectivement “money MUST be made” d'autant que généralement “a lot of it is done” par vos acheteurs.
11 De Yonemoto - 11/01/2012, 21:21
Bravo! Thanks for sharing your photograph. It is possible to make lots of money on things, too, on things that you give away for free. For example, Nina Paley made a feature-length animated film, gave it away completely unrestricted, and by her account, made about $100,000, which is times more than she would have made if she had found a distributor and gone through the normal channels.
12 De Photoguy - 11/01/2012, 21:36
The world would be a much better place if there were more unselfish people like you around, great article.
13 De four12 - 11/01/2012, 22:24
Thank you for this thoughtful, well-written 'rebuttal' article.
I read Mueller's post earlier this morning and initially agreed with the sentiment, for about 10 seconds, and then started to think more along your line.
While I agree that if a photo of mine is going to be used for a commercial venture, I would like to be compensated for it (I have been fortunate enough to license a few photos for that purpose), all of my images are under the Creative Commons framework and it works well.
14 De Rich - 11/01/2012, 22:48
Tineye reckons it's been used at least 463 times: http://www.tineye.com/search/51194e...
That includes weird versions like this one: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/ffx...__300x433,2.jpg
Making things free and usable is how we as civilisation make progress. Photography, code, books, information -> teaching others by enabling them to use your content is how things get better.
15 De Rich - 11/01/2012, 22:48
Tineye reckons it's been used at least 463 times: http://www.tineye.com/search/51194e...
That includes weird versions like this one: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/ffx...__300x433,2.jpg
Making things free and usable is how we as civilisation make progress. Photography, code, books, information -> teaching others by enabling them to use your content is how things get better.
16 De Marc Antoine - 11/01/2012, 23:06
Si tout le monde pensait comme toi le monde irait mieux.
17 De Joshua Spodek - 11/01/2012, 23:20
I find your picture beautiful and your act to share it adds to its beauty.
You made the other guy's picture (the not free one) and motivations look ugly by sharing yours.
I predict your picture's popularity will go the way of Wikipedia (not to become one of the biggest sites on the web, but to have its popularity increase) and his will go the way of Brittanica.
Bravo!
18 De Eli Reichman - 12/01/2012, 00:37
When anyone gives their images away for free it carries a chilling affect upon the entire photographic community.
Every time this happens, all photographs are devalued. But, the impact reaches much deeper than simply hurting those who make a living with their camera.
I first wrote about the unintended consequences when society begins to expect something for nothing. For those interested, here's the link: http://wp.me/pqgYL-6n
19 De artbuyer - 12/01/2012, 00:44
We art buyers of the world that work at for profit companies, would like to offer you a collective thank you. We continue to make even more money by choosing to use free photos such as yours rather than paying to use images from jerks that actually want money to license their images. Keep them coming.
20 De Orclev - 12/01/2012, 01:01
We'll see which of the two photos is still floating around 10 years from now. My money is on yours. The single greatest thing any person can do in their life is to create something that outlasts them. If you can do that and still charge people for it, more power to you, but as you rightly point out doing so as a photographer (or really almost any kind of artist) these days is becoming increasingly difficult to the point of near impossibility. I await with baited breath the emergence of whatever system of promoting art emerges to replace the dieing content distribution monopolies.
21 De Andre - 12/01/2012, 02:52
You guys are missing the point behind the "this photograph is not free" photographer. He is listing his costs to simply make it obvious that this is something he spent money and energy on, that it's his livelihood, and that because of these things it makes sense to charge for it.
Intellectual property is a good thing, and this is an example. America's current laws on it aren't, but it doesn't mean the idea is garbage.
22 De mfragin - 12/01/2012, 02:59
Nice post. I throw most of the stuff I create out there free of charge. Money comes in various ways, but not all of them involve putting a price tag on intellectual property.
Personally, I make a point to send $ in the direction of those "free" products that, after some testing, prove themselves to be worth their weight in gold.
23 De Marie-Aude - 12/01/2012, 03:52
"Most of all, I have realized a long time ago that in a world where everyone has a camera, a lot of free time and fantastic tools to publish stuff, there is not a lot of money to be made anymore by taking pictures."
Well, when you write that, you have no clue what a professional photographer is paid for. Apart from "art" of course.
What a professional photographer is paid for is not an "accidental" beautiful image. Actually, a large number of people with a decent equipment, some free time and a little bit luck and sense of composition would be able to produce such an image.
Good timing, correct framing, though not very original, good exposure, maybe good photoshopping, or Gimping. Fine. The place to be was not really demanding (like the mountains where the Rowells made so many wonderful pictures and lost their lifes), the weather was not too hard, and for someone who knows the whereabouts, being there on time did not require to stand up at four oclock in the morning, or to have hours of patience.
In other words, nice postcard. Sorry to be a little bit rude, but sunsets over monuments are the "piece of cakes" of photography.
Professional photography is to be able to deliver a usable image whatever the conditions are. Professional photography is much more technicity, when shooting a bottle of wine, because if you don't know a trade that you have learned through months, and if you don't have the right studio equipment, you will not be able to produce a real good image. Professional photography is to know exactly in advance how to set up speed and aperture, and to avoid all the tricky details that spoil a shot, because if you don't, you spend hours and hours in post production, and loose your margin. Professional photography is to be able to make hundreds of portraits during an event, and still to produce interesting images, and to remember who was already photographed, not to forget anybody, and not to concentrate on the same "easy faces". Professional photography is to have backup equipments, batteries, cameras, cards, "in case", because unlike a sunset, the decisive moment in a wedding never comes back. Professional photography is to be able to make wonderful portraits of obnoxious kids you did not know one hour ago. Professional photography is to find good angles in boring places, make a sausage the most attractive stuff you've ever seen even if you're a vegan, and be able to photograph a realistic ice cream, still looking cold and delicious after half an hour under the sunlights.
And all that have a price. And you still have a lot of people making money with that.
Of course it becomes more and more difficult.
Not because of people giving for free their images of the Eiffel Tower in the sunset.
But because of the argument "But that's a silly way of looking at things. I have taken literally thousands of pictures with this camera, so the actual cost is under 1 EUR per photograph..."
I'm sorry, that's silly. Even for an amateur.
How woud you consider a pianist saying "I have played millions of notes with my piano, so the cost of playing a song is under 1 euro per song ? "
Reducing the cost of an intellectual work, of an artwork, to the material cost necessary to produce this artwork is nonsense.
You can decide to distribute your images for free. That does not threaten professional photographers. That has just suppressed a part of the market, but at the same time new opportunities opened for them... so no big deal.
But reducing the "price" to an amortization of a material ?
Now, in answer to Joshua, I'm really shocked by the fact that you find someone trying to make a living from his passion has "ugly motives".
He and Tristan has a common motive "The pride of building the reputation of being a decent photographer".
He and Tristan don't want their work to be used for free without their agreement. Tristan"s pictures on Flickr have a BY NC SA licence, which means basically "don't make money with my photos without my agreement". (And does the book respect the "share alike" ?)
Now, if you'd taken a picture that would have required much more effort and difficulties than a sunset on the Eiffel Tower, and it would be widely reused without you even being credited (because people who don't ask don't credit), do you think the pride of building the reputation of being a decent photographer would be fulfilled ?
Do you think that for someone who dedicates his life to photo, and gets all his revenues from it, it is so ugly to require that professional publishers do not make money at the expense of his professional practice ? Unfortunatly people who steal pictures are not only the guys on skyrock or overblog. They are also professional journalists, editors, getting well paid for what they do. And the worse is... they steal pictures when they can even find free ones !
A good friend of mine, who is a professional animal photographer, another difficult field in photography, that necessitates a lot of time, effort, money, luck and skill, has seen one of his image on the cover page of a french magazine, with a distribution around 100.000 for an issue. Do you think not normal that he send a heavy invoice ?
(And yes, I make a part of my revenues as a photographer, and I do also give free stuff, but I also heavily invoice people who take not free stuff, and no, I never felt threatened by stock images, and yes, I regret the disappearance of good stock agencies, because "user generated content" is not very well labeled, usually always the same views, but that's another discussion)
24 De cptvideo - 12/01/2012, 04:09
So Tristan, what do you do for a living? How about giving *that* away "for free" too. Why are we talking only about photos? What about cars, dishwashers, brain surgery, legal services, food, large pieces of sculpture, handmade violins??
There's nothing wrong with making a gift, but there's nothing morally superior about it either. Charging a price for your work means that you value it and expect others will value it too. Then you find out if they really do.
25 De Some Guy - 12/01/2012, 05:23
Thank you for posting this!
26 De Elle - 12/01/2012, 05:32
This "argument" is as terrible as the "argument" it's supposedly countering. The original post was terrible logic. This one has no logic. I'm not sure which is worse.
27 De Tdot - 12/01/2012, 05:53
It's wonderful that you feel you should let this image and many others be used for free. I agree with at least one poster above who said that it should be up to the photographer to choose how their images are used.
Consider this, McDonalds gives away their coffee for free at certain times a year to help promote it. Now, because I can go into McDonalds and get their coffee for free one day, doesn't mean that I can go into Starbucks and steal their coffee. I can't say, well I got free coffee at Mcdonalds, so obviously all coffee is free!
McDonalds is well within their right to give away their coffee for free and Starbucks is well within their right to charge for it.
Photography is the same, if you create the image then you choose if you give it away or charge for it. If someone takes your photo without your consent then they are stealing and it is wrong and you have every right to be upset about it.
There are enough people willing to give thier photos away for free that nobody should be stealing from those who are trying to make a living at it. Photos like this, photographers like this, make it even worse when someone steals a photo because they remove any and all justification for it. Excellent photos are available for free, if you can't find one that suits your needs pay for one that does or pay a photographer to capture it.
28 De Eleg - 12/01/2012, 06:31
I totally agree, Tristan.
I'm sorry for this guy, but the world is changing and Internet is here now, and for a long time.
I would have been sorry for the french "public writer" of the Middle Age, but public schools have killed his job too! (as at the time only monks and well educated high class people were able to write)
No more "public writers" now, and probably no more "private pro photographers" in the future.
Only the more talented ones will be able to do this for a living and get paid, as do artists in general (painters, poets,writers,... ).
I'm sorry for this guy, but have no regrets to be able to express /myself/ now by writing this comment because public schools are all around there today... ;o)
29 De Zeno Popovici - 12/01/2012, 08:08
You really didn't get the point.
30 De Mike - 12/01/2012, 09:04
Your photograph SHOULD be free. There is not shortage of cliched Eiffel Towel photos. Why would anyone pay for another one? On the other hand, would you travel to the Congo, risk getting killed, take some photos, and then give them away to newspapers for free? Of course not. You're not a professional, you have another way of making money that enables you to make mediocre photos and then give them away. Good for you. Do you want a medal?
31 De esfa - 12/01/2012, 09:11
Pour une fois, je ne partage pas ton point de vue Tristan. Si le Monsieur veut être rémunéré pour ses photos, on doit respecter son choix ; qu'il soit photographe professionnel ou amateur, il est libre de choisir.
Tu as choisi d'offrir tes photos, c'est ton choix. J'apprécie.
Il ne faut sombrer dans l'excès.
32 De Uli - 12/01/2012, 10:16
Fun fact, you would not own a picture of the lit Eiffel Tower at night even if you made it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eiffel...
And don't miss the important point, if you choose to give your photographs away for free for a good cause its your choice. But the mindset of publishers on- and offline that image material downloadable should be free for them to reuse in profit making efforts is questionable. Which was the point of "this photograph is not free" ..
33 De Matthias - 12/01/2012, 10:28
No, this picture is not free.
Crazy fact; these fountains in the foreground with their artistic ambient lights and stuff seem to happen personal rights and a copyright on it.
It's very hard to explain, because there is no logic in it, but I'll try with the help of 2 examples. Here in germany, every non-celebrity person has "the right on his own picture". This means: You can take a photo of me, or you can memorize me an draw a picture of me, but you may NOT publish a photo or picture of me unless I've given you permission. I can sue you. There are exceptions, which don't matter here. The same "right on his own picture thing" seems to be the case with these fountains.
The second thing is copyright. Which leads me to my second example. Those fountains are considered as art, so there is a copyright. You can't go into an art gallery, take a photo of an image hanging at the wall and publish this photo for free. Same with these fountains.
Once a magazine in germany had to pay a huge amount of €€ to the copyright holder because the used a cheap stock art photo like the one above.
34 De Edwin Martin - 12/01/2012, 10:33
You're lucky the lights of the Eiffel tower were still turned off. Otherwise the photo would not be free.
"As a result, it is no longer legal to publish contemporary photographs of the tower at night without permission in France and some other countries."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eiffel...
35 De Sourav Chakraborty - 12/01/2012, 10:53
The value of a photograph, a painting or a novel does not come from the cost of materials required to produce it. If that was so, my pictures of my cat using my uber-costly camera would be much more valuable that the Monalisa, and probably ALL the literature ever produced.
The value of "art" comes from the enjoyment people get from it, and what they are willing to pay for that enjoyment. Remember that, and you are good to go.
36 De dbl - 12/01/2012, 11:29
John Mueller is making (great) pictures for living. You are also making great pictures as a hobby and, for what I can understand, to support a system of moral values you defend. I view both motivations as equally acceptable. If someone does not want to pay to use John's pictures, well, he can't. It's as simple as that.
Problems are the economics. Free (i.e. given) pictures are competing with pictures you have to pay for. Thus it is making the situation harder for people who try to live on making pictures. They have to provide something that is not already given for free to expect people paying them for their work (better quality, more artistic sense, whatever). I can understand that they are not delighted by this idea.
Whether this shift is a good thing is unclear to me.
37 De j - 12/01/2012, 11:33
Great gesture, but isnt't the Eiffel tower copyrighted right now? Or only the light show?
38 De gary livingston - 12/01/2012, 11:43
I take it you are not a professional photographer making a living from your photography.
It's all well and good to have this sort of mentality if you're not putting food on your table and paying for your health bills through the income earned from your photography. You're not losing out on anything. You're not devaluing your work. You're not creating a situation for yourself to fail as a professional...as a business person.
But, for those of us that make a living from their photography this is a terrible manner in which to engage for all the reasons mentioned in the post you are arguing against.
Also, my photographs don't simply sit on my hard drive because I refuse to give them away for free to the world.
I have been published many times and paid by those publishing my photos. Magazine articles, advertisements, bilboards, CD covers, etc.
I could have given my photos away for free to those people. But, I believe my photographs have value. I believe that the people that want to use my photos owe me something to have the right to benefit from using my photos. I believe that it is only fair to be compensated for that exchange. Otherwise, I am allowing others to walk all over me and all over my work.
Photography is a very strange business. Doing work for free rarely benefits the photographer. The only real exception is when you are doing so with a serious plan.
Example: Shooting an editorial fashion piece for Vogue so you can get direct exposure to the art buyers for the coming season's ad campaigns. Those ad campaigns pay ridiculously well and one of the easiest ways to get noticed by the art buyers is to have a prominently published editorial piece.
Another example: Shooting an editorial celebrity portrait session for free for any publication. This allows you to build up a image bank of exclusive celebrity images that you can earn royalties on through stock agencies once the initial license expires. This is a very lucrative career and allows you to earn repeatedly because publications all over the world have a high demand for celebrity portraits or editorial shots.
In both these cases you only engage in working for free...giving your image(s) away for free for very specific reasons under very specific terms. As a means to an end. As a means to raise your overall wealth and open up many new opportunities.
I hope no one reading this takes what you wrote as business advice.
If the images are good enough to be published they deserve to be paid for.
I will agree with you on one point...the value of an image is not determined by the actual or perceived costs associated with creating the image. It's determined by the value gained by the entity using your image (either for private enjoyment or public alignment with the image to advertise their product/brand or commercial purposes to earn money from directly).
39 De Rich Beaubien - 12/01/2012, 12:03
Yup you get to decide how to give out your work. But if you decide to give it away you've lost all control. Imagine if someone, or an organization who you disagree with ethically and morally decides to use your photo. You lose.
40 De sporniket - 12/01/2012, 12:34
My favorite quote theese days :
"You have to remember that it’s only a few hundred years, if that much, that artists are working with money. Artists never got money. Artists had a patron, either the leader of the state or the duke of Weimar or somewhere, or the church, the pope. Or they had another job. I have another job. I make films. No one tells me what to do. But I make the money in the wine industry. You work another job and get up at five in the morning and write your script. " Francis Ford Coppola.
41 De JS - 12/01/2012, 13:34
So if photografie is just a hobby for you, it might be ok to give away photos for free. Now imagine you have to pay your bills with your photos because taking photos is your job. How many butchers do you know who give away meet for free because they enjoy to butcher???
I think that "PetaPixel" just wanted to mark an example. Of course the price is way to high but as a prfessional photographer there are many things you have to pay money for and not only the hardware.
42 De Laurent Claessens - 12/01/2012, 14:12
Toutes ces histoires de droits d'auteurs, que ce soit photo, musique, vidéo ou logiciels, seraient plus simples en respectant un principe très simple :
1. le créateur a le droit de garder sa production pour lui tout seul.
2. si il veut diffuser, il a le droit d'en contrôler les modalités.
Si l'un veut être payé à l'unité, qu'on le paye à l'unité; si l'autre veut juste qu'on cite son nom, qu'on cite son nom; le troisième veut la FDL, qu'on respecte la FDL.
Tout cela me semble une telle évidence que je ne comprends pas comment la blogosphère produit 1000 pages de prose par jour sur le sujet ...
43 De RafaQuiM - 12/01/2012, 15:34
"I'd rather see my artwork used than forgotten"
This-photograph-is-not-free's author has the same point. And you two guys are doing exactly the same: letting the world use your work for something in return, it could be money, it could be self-satisfaction. For me, the only difference between these approaches is that you do not need to make any extra effort to obtain your price (in your case, see how people use your stuff) whereas tpiNf guy have to spend more time to get his.
44 De Akis - 12/01/2012, 18:01
Dear Nitot
If your photo is free and sure its free please send me in my email the original size.
Thanks
Akis
45 De Glen A Stromquist - 12/01/2012, 18:32
Another free one..
http://bit.ly/wNf26l
46 De Tristan - 12/01/2012, 19:36
In response to comment #24 who writes "So Tristan, what do you do for a living? How about giving *that* away "for free" too"
Sounds like a very cool idea. Actually, I do work on a little piece of software that is being given for free. you may have heard of it. You may even have it on your computer. It's called "Mozilla Firefox". I hope you enjoy it. If you don't you should give it a try.
47 De Marie-Aude - 12/01/2012, 21:08
I'm very sorry to inform Eleg that you still have a lot of "public writers" making money nowadays. Either for private purpose, either for people who want to have their memories written and published... either for filling websites, etc.
As always, as for photo... you have to see what the "job" is really, and not define a public writer as someone who stands in a shopwindow with a quill and ink.
That's not the point of this post, but I start to be fed up with people who say a profession will die just because they don't want to pay.
48 De Marie-Aude - 12/01/2012, 21:43
I'm not sure your answer is really accurate, Tristan.
What you are doing for a living is "managing and communicating", and you are not giving that away for free. Unless your payslip amounts to zero ?
49 De John Mueller - 12/01/2012, 23:46
Hey Tristan,
This is John, the photographer and author of the photo you referenced here.
I've argued this point with many people, who might be taking what I wrote a little too literal. My point was that everything has a value. Whether it be a photo, the written word, a though, property, or anything. But it's also relative to the situation.
Yeah, my rant was sparked by a buddy of mine here at work who also shoots. A local magazine contacted him asking to use one of his photos for an editorial spot. They said they would give him credit which would up his exposure. We looked them up and they are part of a conglomorate of about 30 different wealth-oriented, fine-living magazines FILLED with ads. He replied to them stating this fact and they said back to him that they shouldn't have to pay for using him image because they could just give him credit and that he'd get exposure. if not, they would just find someone else on Flickr who would donate their image. Telling me all this made me wordsmith a little rant, and it kinda got picked up. Again it's not about me, it's about the value of our skill and art. We don't have any sort of organization backing us up like the recording and movie industry does. We're on our own.
I've heard lots of stories and anologies inspired by what I wrote. And some people do take what I wrote a little too literally. The point I was trying to make is that just because it's digital, doesn't mean it's free, or has no value.
Lets say a student wants to use one of my photos for a term paper. Obviously the student isn't making any money, and even if he steals it, it only benefits him. Now lets say... Sony wants one of my photos, and their intent is to use it to market a new technology product, potentially selling millions of units and profiting the company greatly. At this point the photo is worth something and the person furnishing it should be compensated for it. Both are extreme examples.
Now like you, I've donated a lot of time and photos to Wikimedia. I was contacted by them back in 2007 while they were first being setup to cover some red carpet events in Hollywood, so I went down there, photographed hundreds of celebrities and uploaded it right away to help get their Media off-shoot a little start. Free. I asked nothing in return because it felt good to give back. At my local church I have photographed plenty of weddings, maternity, newborn and family sessions for free. I also photograph things for my local community and park & rec... free. But what it comes down to is that is it MY choice to donate my time, talent and resources, not anyone elses. And to assume otherwise is wrong.
50 De Bob - 13/01/2012, 09:57
There's some kind of darwinism in this post and its update I don't like much. Everybody should have the opportunity to practice the job he likes the most. Of course you need talent to make a living out of your job, but if you never get the chance to start working it will just never happen. Egg and chicken. Not everybody have a rich father, high incomes, access to higher education and it's quite unfair these people being in competition with ones who have it all on the market.
With the "all is free on the internets" trend, while it's damn cool at first glance, I must admit that it involves a few stincky consequences for the not so rich/well born/naturally skilled/strong of us, which somewhat defeats one of the purpose of internet.
Though I don't have any solution, not even a suggestion, so I can't definitely make my mind on this topic.
51 De Sven - 13/01/2012, 16:11
I didn't read all the comments above, so sorry if I'm repeating something here.
The problem with nobody making a living from photography (or any art for that matter) is that it means nobody can dedicate their entire time and life to the art, due to having to have another "real" job to make money. Yes, we may find more talented people, but none of those people are able to completely immerse themselves in the art and develop their talent to their fullest. We get quantity, but lose quality.
Unless we count the lucky few who, from the start, do not have to worry about money in the first place. If that is the case, then this whole "democritization" of art turns into its polar opposite, the "aristocratization" of art.
52 De eleg - 13/01/2012, 23:16
@Marie-Aude #47
There's *400* official "public writers" in France now (source: Wikipedia): only the most talented survived! (and you are one of them: bingo!) ;-]
More seriously, I didn’t mean that your job isn't useful or interesting. Only that it is /less/ useful in some everyday activities, as far less people are illiterate than during the Middle Age. Most people needn't now a "public writer" to announce their wedding to their over-sea's family, or that some relative has died. That's all. I intended by no mean being offensive.
And I think it is/will be the same for pro photographers. Quite everybody use now a photo booth (FR photomaton) for their ID card or passport. Or free (beautiful) photos for their website. But I don’t worry at all about “Studio Harcourt” life expectancy!
53 De Jean - 13/01/2012, 23:16
Dishonesty in comment #47 from Tristan:
“Actually, I do work on a little piece of software that is being given for free. you may have heard of it. You may even have it on your computer. It's called ‘Mozilla Firefox’.”
Perhaps are you working on the software but you're comfortably paid by the foundation as chairman of Mozilla Europe! If I were in a same wealthy social situation I could give a lot…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trista...
54 De Marc - 15/01/2012, 13:39
Sharing is caring... Elles sont jolies tes photos Tristan. Et puis quand je vais sur Flickr je ne m'arrette pas aux tiennes... Je voyage dans le monde de ceux qui partagent leur photos. Et j'y ai trouvé de belles choses. Donc oui le partage ouvre un chemin sur le monde de l'humain. D'ailleurs je crois que ce qui n'est pas partagé est perdu. Je partage aussi mes photos et, si je ne suis pas sûr qu'elle soit appréciées (je veux dire réussie)
l'intention y est. Il ya encore des cas où l'argent n'a pas de droits sur l'homme. C'est une bonne chose. Je crois...
55 De Tristan - 16/01/2012, 12:33
@Jean (Comment #53) : when I took this photo (January 2005), I was unemployed and working as an unpaid volunteer for Mozilla. I was laid off in July 2003 by AOL/Netscape and hired by Mozilla in April 2005.
The fact is that now that my job is taking most of my time I have significantly less time to contribute to Wikimedia Commons...
56 De Marie-Aude - 16/01/2012, 18:32
@eleg #47 actually, I'm not a public writer (and I'm not in France neither, though I work mainly in French). And you were not offensive at all. The only point I intended to stress is that ones must not confuse a function or a job, or a profession, however you want to call it, its circumstances.
If you consider a public writer as someone writing for illiterate people, yes, the profession is disappearing. If you consider a public writer as someone writing texts for other people who are not able to write as well as he does, just think about the huge number of people writing texts for SEO, and reconsider the disappearance.
That's just the same for photographer.
The other point is that many of my fellow photographers complain about the cheap competition of "friends, cousins and so on" for weddings (amidst other occasions), but they have a strong tendancy to forget that a lot of people who take the cousin and give him a few buckets would never have paid a professional photographer, because they could not afford it. Or just for a shot outside the church.
57 De Jean - 16/01/2012, 19:40
@ Tristan
Tristan, #24 question is about now days: “what do you do for a living? How about giving *that* away ‘for free’ too”, and your answer for now days too is: “I do work on a little piece of software that is being given for free”, omitting the fact that you are paid by the foundation. IMHO your answer is not fair.
58 De Jean - 16/01/2012, 19:53
@ Marc
« Il ya encore des cas où l'argent n'a pas de droits sur l’homme. »
Vous me faites rire. Comme si Flickr n’était pas une pompe à fric. Vous vous imaginez que c'est développé pour les (beaux) yeux des internautes ? Cela dit je suis respectueux du droit d’auteur qui est un droit de l’homme, et pour moi chacun est libre de faire cadeau de ses œuvres. Mais je m’oppose à ce qu’on oblige.
59 De copain - 18/01/2012, 10:40
Salutations.
Totalement hors sujet mais je n'ai pas trouvé d'autre moyen de contact.
Serait-il possible de modifier l'apparence des liens dans les billets. Étant daltonien, je suis obligé de parcourir le texte à la souris pour détecter un lien (mais l'indication de langue m'aide un peu quand même) et j'ai du utiliser firebug pour voir que les liens étaient marrons.
Un soulignement serait parfait.
Quelques liens qui argumentent sûrement bien mieux que moi :
http://www.ideose.eu/documents-acce...
http://forum.alsacreations.com/topi...
http://www.la-grange.net/w3c/wcag1/...
http://checklists.opquast.com/11/cr...
60 De Cédric G. - 20/01/2012, 12:14
Bonjour
Tout d'abord mes excuses pour mon intervention en français, je ne souhaite pas froisser les anglophones avec mon niveau d'anglais misérable...
Je suis (je pense
) le photographe animalier dont Marie-Aude parle dans l'une de ses interventions.
Pour ma part, la photographie ne représente qu'une partie de mes revenus, ayant d'autres activités à côté qui me permettraient de vivre sans la photo (même si cette dernière représente un tiers de mes revenus). Je précise par ailleurs que travaillant dans l'informatique, il m'arrive régulièrement de contribuer à des programmes Open Source et à partager mes compétences au travers de mes blogs, faire des interventions gratuites, et partager également au travers des diverses communautés auxquelles je m'identifie. Bref !
Ce n'est pas pour autant que je donne mes photos, car le fait de gagner sa vie ailleurs est pour moi un argument tout simplement irrecevable : il s'agit d'abord de RESPECT envers celles et ceux qui vivent d'un métier, certes devenu difficile du fait d'une "concurrence" virtuelle de plus en plus forte mais aussi et surtout de pratiques de bas étage liées d'une part à l'apparition des microstocks, et d'autre part aux mauvaises habitudes encensées par toute une frange de la population utilisatrice de ressources photographiques : vol caractérisé, réutilisation sans autorisation, non citation de l'identité de l'auteur, j'en passe et des meilleures...
Il est également illusoire d'affirmer que la valeur d'une photo revient à prendre le coût d'acquisition du matériel et des logiciels, et de le diviser par le nombre de photos réalisées : c'est un raisonnement un peu trop simpliste ! Quid du temps passé à réaliser la photographie, à retraiter les fichiers, les trier, les indexer, les préparer pour les rediffuser ??? Quid des coûts liés aux déplacements parfois nombreux et nécessaires, au temps passé dans les réglages ?
En photographie animalière par exemple, la réalisation d'une photographie peut demander des semaines de préparation, voire des mois puisque les conditions étant liées aux saisons, on peut vouloir réaliser tel ou tel cliché à tel endroit dans telles conditions de lumière et/ou de météorologie, avec telle espèce que l'on va amener à un emplacement précis, avec une attitude précise... Sans garantir de pouvoir rassembler toutes les hypothèses désirées !
J'ai des amis qui ont réalisé un reportage sur les busards cendrés au nid, qui a demandé 3 années de préparation, afin de s'assurer qu'ils ne représentaient aucun dérangement pouvant mettre en danger les couvées.
Cela demande un savoir-faire, une expertise technique (et pas seulement photographique d'ailleurs !) qui donne aux clichés réalisés une valeur autrement plus élevée qu'une simple division "coût du matériel / nombre de photos réalisées" ! Dans le prix de la photographie, on trouve donc un part liée à la compétence technique, et pas seulement quelques basiques notions d'amortissement de matériel.
Du coup, votre raisonnement peut peut-être s'appliquer à un cliché fait lors d'une promenade dans Paris où vous avez eu la chance d'avoir des conditions idéales, mais ne peut CERTAINEMENT PAS être généralisé à l'ensemble des photographes (ou alors vous avez une vision très étriquée de ce qu'est le métier de la photographie !)