Login or Join Now

Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more

Username:
Password:
Remember Me

Can't Access your Account?

New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!

Like 0

A different slant on the photo-theft issue

Join Now

Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!

SteveCharles
22 Nov 2012 - 1:51 PM


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.

Last Modified By SteveCharles at 22 Nov 2012 - 1:51 PM
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links 
22 Nov 2012 - 1:51 PM

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

lemmy
lemmy  71878 forum posts United Kingdom
22 Nov 2012 - 2:39 PM


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
22 Nov 2012 - 2:59 PM


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.

Last Modified By Jestertheclown at 22 Nov 2012 - 3:00 PM
779HOB
779HOB  21021 forum posts United Kingdom
22 Nov 2012 - 3:04 PM


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
22 Nov 2012 - 3:12 PM


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
779HOB  21021 forum posts United Kingdom
22 Nov 2012 - 3:16 PM


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
22 Nov 2012 - 3:16 PM


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
22 Nov 2012 - 3:18 PM


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
779HOB  21021 forum posts United Kingdom
22 Nov 2012 - 3:23 PM


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
22 Nov 2012 - 3:31 PM


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

I've no idea.

779HOB
779HOB  21021 forum posts United Kingdom
22 Nov 2012 - 3:35 PM


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
22 Nov 2012 - 4:18 PM

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
779HOB  21021 forum posts United Kingdom
22 Nov 2012 - 4:47 PM

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
779HOB  21021 forum posts United Kingdom
22 Nov 2012 - 4:54 PM

Oh look - hide member. How cool is that.

Jestertheclown
22 Nov 2012 - 4:57 PM

Who said that?

Add a Comment

You must be a member to leave a comment

Username:
Password:
Remember me:
Un-tick this box if you want to login each time you visit.