Take your photography to the next level and beyond...

  • NEWS
  • REVIEWS
  • INSPIRATION
  • COMMUNITY
  • COMPETITIONS

Why not join for free today?

Join for Free

Your total photography experience starts here


A different slant on the photo-theft issue


SteveCharles
12 2.3k 18 England
22 Nov 2012 1:51PM

Quote:We're not a threat to the photographer's jobs.
Their jobs are ceasing to exist because they have become an expense which the employers have decided that they can no longer justify.



You don't seem to be making the connection between these 2 concurrent statements. What is the reason the cost can no longer be justified? (Focused asked the same question).

I don't think it's as black and white as free photos = no photography jobs, it has to be a major factor but digital technology itself is the root cause. The rise in digital photographic technology has produced an explosion in the number of people attempting to make a career out of photography, many of which don't know how to price their work and are happy just to see their work in print, thus in effect destroying the very profession they are attempting to break into by giving their work away.

At the same time, digital technology is also putting pressure on traditional print media, as phones, tablets and connectivity get more sophisticated, and the prevailing mindset is that what is online shouldn't be paid for. People literally want more content for less. Digital technology is literally killing the professions it was developed to aid, by the looks of it.

When you have people entering a market giving the stuff away, of course it devalues the product. After the Metro came on the scene, the Evening Standard had to become a freesheet, for example. So if you have to charge less for your product, you have to cut costs, and if people are willing to give you content... it's a vicious cycle.

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

lemmy e2
7 2.1k United Kingdom
22 Nov 2012 2:39PM

Quote:The rise in digital photographic technology has produced an explosion in the number of people attempting to make a career out of photography


I think that digital photography has killed off camera operators, not photographers.

People with ideas, originality and drive who happen to wield a camera are still making good careers in photography. People who once could make a living simply because their pictures always 'came out' (anyone remember that phrase?) are falling by the wayside because even a monkey's pictures will 'come out' with a digital camera.

Referring to the OPs point, common sense dictates that you do not put in a public place any image which has commercial value or which you would not want someone to copy. If you made a 10x8 print of a favourite image, you wouldn't pin it up on a billboard in town. But that is exactly what you are doing on 'net.

I used to do short movie cartoons for the Telegraph. Every now and again I'd find someone had downloaded one of my cartoons and claimed to have done it themselves. I just had to be philosophical. I put my work in a public place - why am I surprised that some pathetic lamebrain, incapabale of doing anything original him/herself has nicked them?

Still irritating, though, philosophical or not.
Jestertheclown
6 6.6k 242 England
22 Nov 2012 2:59PM

Quote:I wasn't talking about assistants. If a fully qualified teacher walked in the door and offered to work for free, would that put a paid teacher at risk or stop to school from advertising for one.

You're just being pedantic now.
I gave you suitable response to your analogy by referring to the TAs. I rather fancy that you weren't expecting me to be able to give you an example.
As for applying your logic to fully qualified photographers; that's not the issue here.
No-one's suggesting that I, or anyone that gives away an image to a newspaper is offering our services as full time, fully qualified photographers for free.
779HOB
2 1.1k United Kingdom
22 Nov 2012 3:04PM

Quote:I rather fancy that you weren't expecting me to be able to give you an example.


I fear you're fancy wrong. If you want to talk about TAs surely a freebie TA means someone doesn't get a paid job. But as you obviously feel giving services away is fine and effects no-one I don't think there's really any point in continuing with this.
Jestertheclown
6 6.6k 242 England
22 Nov 2012 3:12PM

Quote:You don't seem to be making the connection between these 2 concurrent statements. What is the reason the cost can no longer be justified? (Focused asked the same question).

Presumably you're suggesting then, that by giving away the occasional shot, I'm putting these people's jobs at risk? My contribution is tiny compared to the numbers of shots published each day.
Or are they more likely to be at risk because they're being paid more than their bosses think that they're worth and therefore, an expense that companies can do without?
779HOB
2 1.1k United Kingdom
22 Nov 2012 3:16PM

Quote:Presumably you're suggesting then, that by giving away the occasional shot, I'm putting these people's jobs at risk? My contribution is tiny compared to the numbers of shots published each day.


There are hundreds, or maybe thousands of you out there so yes you make a difference.


Quote:Or are they more likely to be at risk because they're being paid more than their bosses think that they're worth and therefore, an expense that companies can do without?


Because........oh, they can get free images from you and others like you.
Jestertheclown
6 6.6k 242 England
22 Nov 2012 3:16PM

Quote:surely a freebie TA means someone doesn't get a paid job

No.
There's no compulsion to employ TAs in any classes other than Key Stage 1, and only then if the class is of a certain number.
If the freebies weren't there, the teachers would have to cope ion their own.
They aren't actually preventing anyone from getting a paid job.
Jestertheclown
6 6.6k 242 England
22 Nov 2012 3:18PM

Quote:Because........oh, they can get free images from you and others like you.

That doesn't relate in any way to the size of a photographer's salary.
779HOB
2 1.1k United Kingdom
22 Nov 2012 3:23PM

Quote:There's no compulsion to employ TAs in any classes


Exactly. Which is way I used the proper teacher as the example.


Quote:That doesn't relate in any way to the size of a photographer's salary.


So, photographers have traditionally been over paid then.
Jestertheclown
6 6.6k 242 England
22 Nov 2012 3:31PM

Quote:So, photographers have traditionally been over paid then.

I've no idea.
779HOB
2 1.1k United Kingdom
22 Nov 2012 3:35PM

Quote:I've no idea.


Then I am not sure how you can ask "That doesn't relate in any way to the size of a photographer's salary."
Jestertheclown
6 6.6k 242 England
22 Nov 2012 4:18PM
Please explain exactly how my giving away the occasional image relates to the salary offered to or earned by a photographer.

I'm not talking about whether or not I'm depriving his or her children of their Christmas presents by causing the end of the photographic industry as we know it.

I'm talking about the amount that he or she is paid to do the job.
779HOB
2 1.1k United Kingdom
22 Nov 2012 4:47PM
You're right, you and all the others like you make no difference to anything. I should know better than to try and explain anything to a superior intellect such as yours. If you haven't got it yet you never will.
779HOB
2 1.1k United Kingdom
22 Nov 2012 4:54PM
Oh look - hide member. How cool is that.
Jestertheclown
6 6.6k 242 England
22 Nov 2012 4:57PM
Who said that?

Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.