Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Cameras / Gear / Photography > Being a Photographer > Business / Philosophy of Photography

Business / Philosophy of Photography Taking pics is one thing, but understanding why we take them, what they mean, what they are best used for, how they effect our reality -- all of these and more are important issues of the Philosophy of Photography. One of the best authors on the subject is Susan Sontag in her book "On Photography."

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

Old 07-04-2018   #41
PKR
Registered User
 
PKR is offline
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 2,407
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dogman View Post
If you do your work for free, you indicate it has no value. When you place your work on the internet where people can get it for free, use it for free and never think about paying for it, you're essentially saying it's without value to you. What would you expect a judge to think when faced with these facts?

I don't have a solution. I would love to show my photography online but I see too much of this attitude. Would anyone think it's okay to walk into a gallery and take a photograph off the wall and use it to advertise a product? Of course not. But the prevailing attitude is that as long as it's on the internet it's there for the taking...for free.
An excellent assessment of, the public's attitude regarding most anything found on the web.
__________________
The camera is an instrument that teaches people how to see without a camera. Dorothea Lange
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-04-2018   #42
davidnewtonguitars
Family Snaps
 
davidnewtonguitars's Avatar
 
davidnewtonguitars is offline
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Beaumont, TX
Posts: 986
Use the "Free App with Ads" model. I don't know how to do this, but wouldn't it be great to imbed advertising (that you sold) in the images that you put on the web, and if someone downloaded them to use, the advertising is activated.
__________________
Leica M2 / Leica ii
Canon 3.5cm-f2 / Nikkor 3.5cm-f2.5
http://davidnewtonguitars.squarespace.com/
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-04-2018   #43
benlees
Registered User
 
benlees is offline
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Edmonton, AB
Age: 46
Posts: 1,364
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dogman View Post
If you do your work for free, you indicate it has no value. When you place your work on the internet where people can get it for free, use it for free and never think about paying for it, you're essentially saying it's without value to you. What would you expect a judge to think when faced with these facts?

I don't have a solution. I would love to show my photography online but I see too much of this attitude. Would anyone think it's okay to walk into a gallery and take a photograph off the wall and use it to advertise a product? Of course not. But the prevailing attitude is that as long as it's on the internet it's there for the taking...for free.
Volunteers do tremendous work for free. Is that work without value? Some people like to share. Does that mean their work has no value? No one ever said life was without risk or there aren't people that cheat or steal out there. The internet didn't create that, did it? Why would that stop you from doing something you wanted to do?
__________________
flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-04-2018   #44
Huss
Registered User
 
Huss is offline
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Venice, CA
Posts: 5,640
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dogman View Post
If you do your work for free, you indicate it has no value. When you place your work on the internet where people can get it for free, use it for free and never think about paying for it, you're essentially saying it's without value to you. What would you expect a judge to think when faced with these facts?

I don't have a solution. I would love to show my photography online but I see too much of this attitude. Would anyone think it's okay to walk into a gallery and take a photograph off the wall and use it to advertise a product? Of course not. But the prevailing attitude is that as long as it's on the internet it's there for the taking...for free.
I agree with the statement about doing work for free. It's the scam content users use "can't pay you now but will on the next job" which never shows up because they use the same line on the next sucker.

But I disagree with the statement about placing your work on the internet would make a judge assume you are giving it away. There are lots and lots of pros out there who have sites.:

http://stevemccurry.com/fine-art-prints

You think a judge will say Steve Mccurry has valued his work at $0? No.
Just because we have bad actors here we should call them on it, not enable it with explanations.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-04-2018   #45
FujiLove
Registered User
 
FujiLove is offline
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 391
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dogman View Post
I don't have a solution. I would love to show my photography online but I see too much of this attitude. Would anyone think it's okay to walk into a gallery and take a photograph off the wall and use it to advertise a product? Of course not. But the prevailing attitude is that as long as it's on the internet it's there for the taking...for free.
Why not post small images online instead of nothing at all? Or post thumbnails and link to slightly bigger watermarked images, just like almost every stock library out there? No person or company of any worth (i.e. one who would actually pay you for photography) is going to use a 400 pixel wide image to advertise their product.

One of the most ridiculous things about 'image theft' is the way people argue they have 'lost' a thousand sales because their image was used elsewhere a thousand times. The fact is, most of the time they will have lost absolutely nothing, as they wouldn't have made a single sale from any of the people who have used their image. Does that mean it's okay to just take someone's work and claim it as your own? No. Does it make it okay to use any image for any purpose you fancy? No. But it's also not okay to sue someone for thousands of pounds in damages just because they used one image inappropriately and removed it straight away when it was pointed out it was copyrighted work. Why not simply notify them and offer them a sensible price to use the image? Or if it's a site with a lot of traffic, offer it for free with a photo credit and link back to your own web site? Why is the first response always the take down notice, lawyer and p*ssed off attitude? How about being flattered that your image was chosen from the billions available? How about seeing it as a great opportunity to work with that company and source more images for them?

In my opinion, many 'artists' (not all by any means) are shooting themselves in the foot by desperately trying to stop their images being disseminated online, when, if they put a little bit more thought and work into it, they could benefit enormously from what they currently consider to be 'theft'.

Look at someone like Johnny Patience (http://www.johnnypatience.com). He posts hundreds of his photos online in low to medium quality. He seems to be getting plenty of work and I've never heard him stressing and moaning about image theft.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-04-2018   #46
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
 
Chriscrawfordphoto's Avatar
 
Chriscrawfordphoto is offline
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana
Age: 42
Posts: 8,432
Quote:
Originally Posted by FujiLove View Post
One of the most ridiculous things about 'image theft' is the way people argue they have 'lost' a thousand sales because their image was used elsewhere a thousand times. The fact is, most of the time they will have lost absolutely nothing, as they wouldn't have made a single sale from any of the people who have used their image. Does that mean it's okay to just take someone's work and claim it as your own? No. Does it make it okay to use any image for any purpose you fancy? No. But it's also not okay to sue someone for thousands of pounds in damages just because they used one image inappropriately and removed it straight away when it was pointed out it was copyrighted work. Why not simply notify them and offer them a sensible price to use the image? Or if it's a site with a lot of traffic, offer it for free with a photo credit and link back to your own web site? Why is the first response always the take down notice, lawyer and p*ssed off attitude? How about being flattered that your image was chosen from the billions available? How about seeing it as a great opportunity to work with that company and source more images for them?
Because there is no benefit to working with someone who stole your work to begin with. They'll gladly source more images from you, for free. By letting them get away with the initial theft, you've shown them you're too stupid to charge for your work. I've been doing this for 20 years, including time as a photographer for two local magazines. The editors at these publications had ZERO respect for people who let them use work for 'exposure.' None, Zero. They openly mocked them as fools and chumps.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-04-2018   #47
FujiLove
Registered User
 
FujiLove is offline
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 391
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chriscrawfordphoto View Post
Because there is no benefit to working with someone who stole your work to begin with. They'll gladly source more images from you, for free. By letting them get away with the initial theft, you've shown them you're too stupid to charge for your work.
But I didn't say give them the work for free. I said you should ask them for a sensible fee for the image. This would show you are a reasonable, 'can do' sort of person, who in my experience are exactly who most businesses want to work with. You would then have a great opportunity to show the company your portfolio and discuss their media requirements. Basically, you have a great 'in' to work with the company.

It boils down to choosing who you want to be:

Photographer A: keeps tight control of their work, doesn't share any images online for fear they may be stolen, enforces copyright at every opportunity and sues every business and individual that steals their work. They have almost no images stolen, but few people see their work. They sell one licence per week and spend a significant amount of time and money on chasing 'image thefts' and paying lawyers.

Photographer B: shares all their work online and doesn't spend any time worrying about image theft. They're happy for anyone to use the images they post online for whatever they like. They have thousands of images 'stolen', and millions of people see their work. They sell ten licences per week and spend a significant amount of time and money on exotic holidays, nice cars and the latest camera gear.

As far as I can tell, most people on this forum think it's a good idea to be Photographer A.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-05-2018   #48
FujiLove
Registered User
 
FujiLove is offline
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 391
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huss View Post
I agree with the statement about doing work for free. It's the scam content users use "can't pay you now but will on the next job" which never shows up because they use the same line on the next sucker.

But I disagree with the statement about placing your work on the internet would make a judge assume you are giving it away. There are lots and lots of pros out there who have sites.:

http://stevemccurry.com/fine-art-prints

You think a judge will say Steve Mccurry has valued his work at $0? No.
Just because we have bad actors here we should call them on it, not enable it with explanations.
When I first started out in web development over twenty years ago, I did LOADS of work for free or almost free. I did tons of small jobs and favours for tons of local businesses, and a significant amount of work for non-profits and a local hospice. The experience honed my skills and built my portfolio. One of the jobs lead to a local company getting in touch and my first big freelance e-commerce project. That lead to a full time job with the same company. That small job in a small, crappy northern town lead to being head-hunted by a big dot com, a move to London, working with teams of fantastic programmers in Silicon Valley on projects that I could only have previously dreamed about, and my career moving into high gear.

Without slogging my way through the free jobs, I wouldn't have had any experience or a portfolio, and nobody would have hired me without them. I certainly wouldn't have expected them to.

So I may be a sucker who has been scammed, but you know what? It feels really good
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-05-2018   #49
css9450
Registered User
 
css9450's Avatar
 
css9450 is offline
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,516
Quote:
Originally Posted by FujiLove View Post

Photographer A: .....but few people see their work.
Not everyone cares if people see their work.
__________________
Nikon S2, S3, F, F2, F3, FM2, FA, N90S, D80, D7000, D750, Sony a6000, Canon IIf, Leica CL, Tower type 3, Zorki 4, Vito B, Perkeo II, Rollei 35....
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-05-2018   #50
Dogman
Registered User
 
Dogman is offline
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,092
Quote:
Originally Posted by benlees View Post
Volunteers do tremendous work for free. Is that work without value? Some people like to share. Does that mean their work has no value? ....
benlees---this is outside the context of my original remark that was describing the attitude of others about images on the internet.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-05-2018   #51
leicapixie
Registered User
 
leicapixie is offline
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Toronto.Canada
Posts: 1,397
A really sad reflection of 'rights".
WE want to believe in justice and decent behavior.
Sadly justice is about "laws" not correctness.
Using othe folks images as one's own is theft.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-05-2018   #52
FujiLove
Registered User
 
FujiLove is offline
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 391
Quote:
Originally Posted by css9450 View Post
Not everyone cares if people see their work.
That misses the point, which is the more exposure a photographer has, the more work they are likely to sell.

Of course, if you don't mind making any money, then you don't need to worry about exposure.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-05-2018   #53
css9450
Registered User
 
css9450's Avatar
 
css9450 is offline
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,516
Quote:
Originally Posted by FujiLove View Post
That misses the point, which is the more exposure a photographer has, the more work they are likely to sell.
How much "exposure" does one get when one's photos appear uncredited on some company's website?
__________________
Nikon S2, S3, F, F2, F3, FM2, FA, N90S, D80, D7000, D750, Sony a6000, Canon IIf, Leica CL, Tower type 3, Zorki 4, Vito B, Perkeo II, Rollei 35....
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-05-2018   #54
FujiLove
Registered User
 
FujiLove is offline
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 391
Quote:
Originally Posted by css9450 View Post
How much "exposure" does one get when one's photos appear uncredited on some company's website?
Infinitely more than when they're not on any websites.

Also, see my earlier posts regarding how 'ownership etiquette' could be managed with a little more effort, and being open-minded to different ideas.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-05-2018   #55
Huss
Registered User
 
Huss is offline
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Venice, CA
Posts: 5,640
Quote:
Originally Posted by FujiLove View Post
When I first started out in web development over twenty years ago, I did LOADS of work for free or almost free....
You really think things are the same now as 20 years ago?

You do know you a portfolio built on paid work is waaaaay more impressive than unpaid? Because it shows your work was valued by someone so much so that they paid you.

"I love your photos! They are so good I will give you nothing for them."
"Wow, thanks! I'll put that in my portfolio that I got zero for this work".
"Think about all the experience you got!"
"Yes, it is great that I experienced getting paid nothing!"
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-05-2018   #56
FujiLove
Registered User
 
FujiLove is offline
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 391
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huss View Post
You do know you a portfolio built on paid work is waaaaay more impressive than unpaid? Because it shows your work was valued by someone so much so that they paid you.
Nonsense. Do you not value the Mona Lisa because it probably wasn't commissioned?

Why should I care what someone was paid for a piece of work? If someone can show they interpret briefs with creativity, flair, originality, passion, and deliver fantastic pieces of work, I couldn't give the tiniest sh*t whether they were paid a million bags of gold or absolutely nothing for them. It's completely irrelevant to me if I'm hiring a creative or buying their work. It's as irrelevant as the colour of their skin, their accent or height. I'm interested in the work they produce, full stop. If fact, if I found out they weren't paid for them and had instead been slogging their guts out for months on the breadline to put a portfolio together, I'd be even more likely to hire them. I'd see that as someone who was dedicated to their craft and determined to succeed. Someone who would perhaps put their heart into my project and not just see it as 'this months rent'.

If your hypothesis was true, there would be no need to review a photographer's portfolio...only their pay cheques.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-05-2018   #57
css9450
Registered User
 
css9450's Avatar
 
css9450 is offline
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,516
Quote:
Originally Posted by FujiLove View Post
When I first started out in web development over twenty years ago, I did LOADS of work for free or almost free. I did tons of small jobs and favours for tons of local businesses, and a significant amount of work for non-profits and a local hospice.
Volunteering and doing small jobs and favors for free isn't exactly the same thing as having your work pirated without your knowledge or permission, now is it? Actually, its the polar opposite.

Especially if you aren't even aware its happening until many months later.
__________________
Nikon S2, S3, F, F2, F3, FM2, FA, N90S, D80, D7000, D750, Sony a6000, Canon IIf, Leica CL, Tower type 3, Zorki 4, Vito B, Perkeo II, Rollei 35....
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-05-2018   #58
NY_Dan
Registered User
 
NY_Dan's Avatar
 
NY_Dan is offline
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: New York City area
Posts: 1,136
Here's a good way to look at the issue. Actors get residuals each time their performances are aired. So to should photographers receive compensation each time their photos are reproduced - unless there is a negotiated agreement to the contrary - such as a buyout, or licensing fee for specified usage.

It's sad that there's so much in-fighting among photographers.

If a photographer chooses to work on spec or pro-bono - well than that is a negotiation between the photographer and the photo user. In such cases the photographer agree to this arrangement in the belief that some benefit will accrue to them. Whether it be the potential of a new revenue stream, exposure, or access to portfolio-worthy photo opps - whatever it is - the photographer is being compensated - and most importantly they are not being dictated to.
__________________
Never Seeing Nothing, published by inkBooks.
Schmendrick, published by PoliwagBooks.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-05-2018   #59
FujiLove
Registered User
 
FujiLove is offline
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 391
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huss View Post
But I disagree with the statement about placing your work on the internet would make a judge assume you are giving it away. There are lots and lots of pros out there who have sites.:

http://stevemccurry.com/fine-art-prints

You think a judge will say Steve Mccurry has valued his work at $0? No.
Just because we have bad actors here we should call them on it, not enable it with explanations.
I assume you only class people as 'bad actors' when they are using 'stolen' copyrighted images for commercial purposes and making money from the use of those images? Or do you object to all copyrighted material being shared on the web, whatever the reason?

I'm asking because you've shared a still from the movie Kong Skull Island on your Flickr stream. You haven't transformed it, or commented about the movie on that Flickr page, so a judge may well find you in breach of copyright unless you've received written permission from Warner Brothers to share it on Flickr.

Seems ridiculous, I know. But hey, not my rules!


Brie Larson by desmolicious, on Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-05-2018   #60
FujiLove
Registered User
 
FujiLove is offline
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 391
Quote:
Originally Posted by css9450 View Post
Volunteering and doing small jobs and favors for free isn't exactly the same thing as having your work pirated without your knowledge or permission, now is it? Actually, its the polar opposite.

Especially if you aren't even aware its happening until many months later.
If you read the thread, you'll see my comment was in response to Huss's comment where he said, "I agree with the statement about doing work for free. It's the scam content users use "can't pay you now but will on the next job" which never shows up because they use the same line on the next sucker."

I was pointing out that doing free work is sometimes a necessary evil, particularly for people starting out who have little experience or portfolio.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-05-2018   #61
PKR
Registered User
 
PKR is offline
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 2,407
Quote:
Originally Posted by FujiLove View Post
That misses the point, which is the more exposure a photographer has, the more work they are likely to sell.

.

In my case, and in the cases of many others in my field, it's select exposure to a particular set of individuals that's important. Exposing my work to the general public, is a waste of time and energy for me and others. I sometimes spend serious money on a portfolio of work that's created to impress just one person, or group working at one agency.

For me, putting my work on the web would be an act of vanity, and I'm not inclined in that thing.

More exposure on the web (there is some by agents) get's me nothing but trouble and image theft.

So, you're wrong in your remark, as it pertains to many working photographers.
__________________
The camera is an instrument that teaches people how to see without a camera. Dorothea Lange
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-06-2018   #62
FujiLove
Registered User
 
FujiLove is offline
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 391
Quote:
Originally Posted by PKR View Post
In my case, and in the cases of many others in my field, it's select exposure to a particular set of individuals that's important. Exposing my work to the general public, is a waste of time and energy for me and others. I sometimes spend serious money on a portfolio of work that's created to impress just one person, or group working at one agency.

For me, putting my work on the web would be an act of vanity, and I'm not inclined in that thing.

More exposure on the web (there is some by agents) get's me nothing but trouble and image theft.

So, you're wrong in your remark, as it pertains to many working photographers.
If you have an agency promoting your work, I guess you have much less need for self publicity. Many (most?) other people are not lucky enough to be in that position and need to work hard to promote themselves. Probably harder than ever these days.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-06-2018   #63
Sarcophilus Harrisii
Brett Rogers
 
Sarcophilus Harrisii is offline
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,317
The judgement is going to be appealed.
More here:
https://www.pixsy.com/copyright-case...ens-creatives/
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-06-2018   #64
Steve M.
Registered User
 
Steve M. is offline
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,830
"For me, putting my work on the web would be an act of vanity, and I'm not inclined in that thing."

Vanity has zero to do with this. People post images online for many reasons. To show how a lens or film images, to illustrate something they might want some feedback on, to share w/ friends and family. What's the definition of a working photographer who shoots for clients or agencies anyway? A commercial photographer by any other name? Someone who is a hired employee. No thank you.

"Because there is no benefit to working with someone who stole your work to begin with." Amen. That would seem to be self evident, yes?
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-06-2018   #65
rfaspen
Registered User
 
rfaspen's Avatar
 
rfaspen is offline
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Corvallis, OR
Posts: 1,447
Interesting thread. I like to hear all these viewpoints and then think critically about them.

I can say that there are many content users who are ruthlessly exploiting photographers with the "exposure con". Its absolutely disgusting. And as pointed out in previous posts, the exposure con is not the same as volunteer work.

When I volunteer, its clear that my content is valued and appreciated by the people/groups who use my photography. I absolutely gain something from genuine volunteer work -- including genuine exposure: I feel good about the cause I'm supporting (I have several), and when people see my credit they associate me with the good cause I'm supporting. Just knowing I helped my cause is an immediate direct benefit to me, and the "higher value" exposure being associated with my cause has led to actual work. BTW, I tend to volunteer for environmental and social justice groups.

I must clarify that this is true only when its a genuine volunteer situation -- I've seen the "exposure con" wrapped up in the volunteer disguise. When I see that, it makes me sick to my stomach and think violent thoughts. And it can come from what would seem like a great cause. Its a life skill to know when you are being "played" and then respond accordingly.

Years ago I made money as a photographer. I doubt I could have made a living at it though. It was a tough gig 20-30 years ago, and its much harder now. I feel bad for David's son. He's experiencing that difficulty and is clearly being taken advantage of; and, its such a hard process to fight, as evidenced by the discussion in this thread. FujiLove has some points about how to try and work with current technology and attitudes. However, the internet has facilitated theft and appropriation in such an amazing way, I just don't know. I wish the best of luck to David's son. FWIW, I personally know a few genuine successful professional photographers. They do exist!!! Some here at RFF. So there must be a way....

Personally, I mostly post images that "only a mother could love", and keep resolutions low. My "good" photographs exist as digital files on an external HD, and/or as physical prints. I'm old fashioned; a photo a photo until it exists as a print. My print sales this year: $0. Year before: $250. I'm a little worried the IRS will track me down
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-06-2018   #66
Corran
Registered User
 
Corran is offline
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 1,112
Quote:
Originally Posted by FujiLove View Post
I'd be even more likely to hire them.
And with that attitude I'd be less likely to work with you, because I would guess you'd steal my work and think it was okay.

The problem here is you seem to have missed the part where the photographer has an issue with an image taken without consent, without credit, and without any useful benefit to the photographer. It is true that pursuing every last case of copyright theft is unreasonable (due to cost vs. benefit) but it is still important that the creator gets, at the very least, notified and then credit/compensation or disallows the use. This is basic human decency.

Two stories. Years ago the local paper where I lived used to use my photos ALL the time, no credit, and once even credited their own in-house photographer. I talked to that photographer and told them they needed to stop. I didn't sue them but I mentioned that it was not right and they could be liable. They seemed to get the message but I moved away so who knows.

Second story: once I donated a large print to a charity auction. Pretty big one. It sold for triple what I was "asking" for when it was in a gallery. The two people fighting over it was a doctor and the owner of an interior decorating firm. I talked to both of them about the work and mentioned I had many other similar images and could print to whatever size they needed. I followed up with them afterwards. Neither of them talked to me again and obviously no sales were made. "Exposure" is a complete waste of time in many cases. In this instance, some rich people wanted to flaunt their money in a "charity" auction.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-06-2018   #67
PKR
Registered User
 
PKR is offline
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 2,407
Quote:
Originally Posted by FujiLove View Post
If you have an agency promoting your work, I guess you have much less need for self publicity. Many (most?) other people are not lucky enough to be in that position and need to work hard to promote themselves. Probably harder than ever these days.
The agent, in the instance of my web exposure, is an art gallery. As far as getting photo work, I do that without outside help.

And, I would prefer that my gallery work not be included in their "artists" site. artnet also has my bio online. That again, is the galleries PR machine. It was a problem for a time, but not so much lately. My work has shown up on eBay. I got an email from someone I didn't know, regarding an auction/sale. It was a secondary sale and, had nothing at all to do with me. I was interested in the final price, as it was an early dye transfer print. The inquiring party got the address with little trouble. My email address isn't published anywhere on the web. Likely a call answered by a current or previous gallery, got them the address. Now, they forward any inquiries, and give out nothing.

The portfolios I create are in the form of a book of prints or memory media. They are made, as I said before, for a specific person or group. Group meaning the people working on a project. The print books are returned to me. A DVD is left with the recipient.

Because of problems with image and intellectual property theft, few ever question my lack of web exposure. I often launch temporary sites that are project specific. The only people who would know about them, are those involved in the project. They rarely stay up longer than a month. I've never had any problem in doing this kind of thing.
__________________
The camera is an instrument that teaches people how to see without a camera. Dorothea Lange
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-06-2018   #68
FujiLove
Registered User
 
FujiLove is offline
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 391
Quote:
Originally Posted by FujiLove View Post
I'm interested in the work they produce, full stop. If fact, if I found out they weren't paid for them and had instead been slogging their guts out for months on the breadline to put a portfolio together, I'd be even more likely to hire them. I'd see that as someone who was dedicated to their craft and determined to succeed. Someone who would perhaps put their heart into my project and not just see it as 'this months rent'.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corran View Post
And with that attitude I'd be less likely to work with you, because I would guess you'd steal my work and think it was okay.
That makes no sense at all. You wouldn't work with a client who sees value in someone working hard and being determined to succeed? I guess you'd rather work for people who hire graduates with neither experience nor portfolio, just a certificate and a huge sense of entitlement?

Two things I've noticed on this thread:

1. Despite the ire directed towards the Internet, most examples of image theft seem to have occurred offline.

2. Maybe it's due to the subject being discussed, but the pro photographers on here come across as being rather bitter and cynical. Character traits which are not conducive to getting hired or being successful in business.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-06-2018   #69
Corran
Registered User
 
Corran is offline
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 1,112
Quote:
Originally Posted by FujiLove View Post
You wouldn't work with a client who sees value in someone working hard and being determined to succeed?
Stealing someones work IS NOT OKAY.

NO I do not want to work for someone who does that to me!

You are delusional.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-06-2018   #70
FujiLove
Registered User
 
FujiLove is offline
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 391
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corran View Post
Stealing someones work IS NOT OKAY.

NO I do not want to work for someone who does that to me!

You are delusional.
I don't understand how you equate hiring someone (fully paid!) who has demonstrated they are determined and hard working, with stealing their work. Where on earth did I say I'd not pay them, steal from or exploit anyone? You're not making any sense...but you are confirming conclusion (2) above.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-06-2018   #71
FujiLove
Registered User
 
FujiLove is offline
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 391
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corran View Post
You are delusional.
Tell us about those UFOs again...

LOL
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-06-2018   #72
Corran
Registered User
 
Corran is offline
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 1,112
You have clearly outlined your position here:

Quote:
Originally Posted by FujiLove View Post
How about being flattered that your image was chosen from the billions available? How about seeing it as a great opportunity to work with that company and source more images for them?

In my opinion, many 'artists' (not all by any means) are shooting themselves in the foot by desperately trying to stop their images being disseminated online, when, if they put a little bit more thought and work into it, they could benefit enormously from what they currently consider to be 'theft'.
So a photographer should be flattered a company stole his image, and then hope that said company, after stealing their work, would "hire" them for paid work? In no universe does this happen. Stealing work online to use, as happened in the court case in question, is not some kind of pre-interview selection process.

You have a defective moral compass with regards to stealing. As already seen by your statements on the internet and how everything is free.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-06-2018   #73
PKR
Registered User
 
PKR is offline
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 2,407
Quote:
Originally Posted by FujiLove View Post

2. Maybe it's due to the subject being discussed, but the pro photographers on here come across as being rather bitter and cynical. Character traits which are not conducive to getting hired or being successful in business.
You come across as someone who has lifted photos, and thought nothing of it. Please correct me if I'm wrong? If that's the case, it makes you an image thief, correct ? Or, in simpler terms, a thief.

My photos, the ones that have been stolen, are sometimes images that were made for clients or taken when working for a client. I prefer that these are the ones taken, as an Ad Agency's legal bull dogs go after the thief.

So, you are again wrong. I've never had a client think it foolish of me to protect my work. Just the opposite.

An old friend, who's passed away, Jim Marshall, was the most tenacious of all the photographers I've known, in going after image thieves. He told me that one year in the late 90s, he collected as much money in settled law suits for image theft, as he made that year on his photography. Jim was a professional AH. You would know that about him, if you knew him. He worked about as much as he wanted to. He died a wealthy man.

Marshall's site is pretty well covered as far as copyrighted work goes.
http://www.jimmarshallphotographyllc.com/

.
__________________
The camera is an instrument that teaches people how to see without a camera. Dorothea Lange
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-06-2018   #74
FujiLove
Registered User
 
FujiLove is offline
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 391
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corran View Post
You have a defective moral compass with regards to stealing. As already seen by your statements on the internet and how everything is free.
Nope. I simply understand the nature of the Internet and choose to embrace, not fight it. Perhaps it's because I've worked in a community for decades where people share their hard work with others for no reward. Some developers spend months, even years on projects, and freely share the code on places like Github so other people can use it in their own projects. It's what they do for a living and yet they don't ask for credit or payment. I realise it's a different medium, and what's being shared are often 'components' rather than entirely finished pieces of work, or projects, but it still feels like the antithesis of the 'copyright and sue' culture that we see with other professions these days.

And how about your moral compass?...I presume you must have been the kid who didn't copy a few of their friend's albums onto tape?

  Reply With Quote

Old 07-07-2018   #75
FujiLove
Registered User
 
FujiLove is offline
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 391
Quote:
Originally Posted by PKR View Post
You come across as someone who has lifted photos, and thought nothing of it. Please correct me if I'm wrong? If that's the case, it makes you an image thief, correct ?
You are completely wrong. I've never used any image that I haven't either purchased from a stock library, commissioned or created myself. I've bought thousands of stock photos over the course of my career, some of which were easily 5000+ for a single-use 12 month licence, and the commissioned work several times that amount.

I've spent thousands on commissioned and stock illustrations and a small fortune on desktop fonts and web font licences. I've also commissioned logos, and had typefaces customised by their original designers.

I've created and shot thousands of my own images, illustrations and graphics for use online and offline, mostly for use on websites as background images, textures etc.

How much have you spent supporting the creative industries I wonder?
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-07-2018   #76
Corran
Registered User
 
Corran is offline
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 1,112
Quote:
Originally Posted by FujiLove View Post
I realise [...] what's being shared are often 'components' rather than entirely finished pieces of work, or projects
Thank you for pointing out that your example is not relevant at all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FujiLove View Post
I presume you must have been the kid who didn't copy a few of their friend's albums onto tape?
Equating end-user piracy with someone stealing work for commercial usage is idiocy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FujiLove View Post
I simply understand the nature of the Internet
The Internet has nothing to do whatsoever with the issues of Copyright. Just because the phonograph was invented doesn't mean all music should be free. Just because the VHS was invented doesn't mean all movies should be free. The Internet is just a data storage and transmission medium. Just because it is easier to send data to anywhere in the world doesn't mean creators shouldn't be compensated.

What you are saying is that people who make a living from their creative output don't deserve to be able to put food on the table or have a roof over their head, unless I guess they are working for someone else. Screw creatives, right? Just get back to making that caramel frappucino and keep pumping out those nice photographs freely so MY business can use them and profit from your work.

This is an insane worldview.

Now there is plenty to discuss and debate when it comes to copyright. I think copyright laws need some serious revamping. The case of the 'Happy Birthday' song is a great case study. But citing the "Internet" as some talisman that should allow everything to be free? Absolutely insane.

Regardless, as has already been discussed, this case will probably not stand. It is obvious to everyone here that mere cropping is not transformative, as it pertains to Fair Use. I am certain the higher court will overturn this decision.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-07-2018   #77
FujiLove
Registered User
 
FujiLove is offline
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 391
My apologies, did I misunderstand your reply?

You didn't reply to my direct question about music piracy, so I assumed that you DID copy music onto blank tapes. Did I get that wrong? If not, my point is that it's a bit rich for you to be whining about the theft of copyrighted photographic material if you have been ripping off musicians by depriving them of income from their album sales.

[And BTW, you want to quit with the personal insults? You've now called me 'delusional', told me I have a 'defective moral compass', inferred I'm an idiot, said I have an 'insane world view' and finally told me to 'grow up'. I'm happy to forcefully debate with your alternate point of view, but I don't appreciate being called names you wouldn't dare to use if we were sat in the same room. Okay?]
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-07-2018   #78
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
 
Rob-F's Avatar
 
Rob-F is offline
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: The Show Me state
Age: 77
Posts: 5,447
"It was only a crop."

Okay, but then is it OK to copy just one chapter from a copyrighted book? That's only a crop, too.
__________________
May the light be with you.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-07-2018   #79
Corran
Registered User
 
Corran is offline
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 1,112
Quote:
Originally Posted by FujiLove View Post
My apologies, did I misunderstand your reply?

You didn't reply to my direct question about music piracy, so I assumed that you DID copy music onto blank tapes. Did I get that wrong? If not, my point is that it's a bit rich for you to be whining about the theft of copyrighted photographic material if you have been ripping off musicians by depriving them of income from their album sales.
Tu quoque fallacy. And you are still ignoring the concept. End-user piracy is not being discussed. Commercial appropriation of a piece of media is.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-07-2018   #80
PKR
Registered User
 
PKR is offline
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 2,407
Quote:
Originally Posted by FujiLove View Post
.

How much have you spent supporting the creative industries I wonder?
If you consider all the image theft over the years that wasn't pursued (local Art School students, etc.), more than my fair share.

I donate my time and money to feeding the poor. The internet creative community seems well cared for.
__________________
The camera is an instrument that teaches people how to see without a camera. Dorothea Lange
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:43.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.