Part 2: Attempting to influence behavior. In this sense your analogy to IT really isn't on target. A parent giving away photos can reach a very large portion of a photographer's quarterly market.
Yes, but I never said the parent giving away photos didn't impact the photographer. But, remember, I also said nobody has a right to a particular job or to work in a particular industry. There is no "turf". This is why I don't complain about free software or outsourcing to India in anything other than a sarcastic manner. I don't have a right to my job. And I'm relatively certain that if pro photographers had their choice of an inexpensive CPU designed in India that worked as well as the CPU I design for AMD in Texas but at a far lower price they wouldn't have any problem buying that cheaper CPU that is "undercutting" my job and salary.
In other words, I'm trying to bring out the hypocrisy in the argument.
And I'm relatively certain that if pro photographers had their choice of an inexpensive CPU designed in India that worked as well as the CPU I design for AMD in Texas but at a far lower price they wouldn't have any problem buying that cheaper CPU that is "undercutting" my job and salary.
In other words, I'm trying to bring out the hypocrisy in the argument.
Here's why it's different. In your IT situation you're talking about CONSUMER behavior. Notice, myself and others aren't arguing people should stop accepting free photos. Not trying to change CONSUMER behavior. In this discussion, the parent giving away free photos isn't a consumer - they're a supplier. And, unlike a programmer in India they aren't trying to earn a paycheck. The Indian programmer can't help the fact labor is cheaper over there. They're just trying to earn money. Same as a programmer over here.
So yes it would be silly of me to tell someone - don't buy this product because it isn't made in America. But it isn't the same thing as me asking the guy giving away free magazines to not do it because it hurst the guy selling and hurts the public when the seller moves away and the guy giving away free stuff stops giving it away.
So it's supplier behavior I and others are attempting to influence not consumer behavior.
Here's why it's different. In your IT situation you're talking about CONSUMER behavior. Notice, myself and others aren't arguing people should stop accepting free photos.
I'm arguing the hypocrisy in the professional's common complaints that people give anything away for free, and yet they are more than willing to take stuff for free themselves. Its called taking your own medicine, walking the talk. You're a Sports Shooter member. You know how many times people will gripe about royalty free images and free stock hurting the photographic industry, and then turn around and ask for sources of royalty free or free music to use on their slide shows? "I'm looking to ruin some other industry but you better not ruin mine".
I'm not going to flog the dead horse of the India-designed CPU because you are focusing in on the brush strokes and avoiding the big-picture I'm trying to paint.
What I don't understand is the pros reluctance to admit the climate is changing. Its almost a unionist attitude where they try to cling to jobs that are simply disappearing.
Personally, I've acknowledged this several times in this thread.
Nobody has a right to a job. Nobody has a right to work in a particular industry. Nobody has a right to be free of competitors willing to work cheaper, or even for free.
I believe you to be very wrong on all these statements.
If I have an exclusive contract, then YES, I DO HAVE A LEGAL RIGHT TO THAT JOB.
This is America. I have a right to work in any industry I choose.
As I've stated before in this thread. If a person is selling images at or near market value, then they are indeed a competitor, and I welcome that. A person giving pics away is not. Apples to bricks...
I work in the hi-tech world. Its ground-zero for a changing world.
I worked in IT for many years. The last ones, I was a Lead Wireless Network Engineer for Ricochet/Metricom. So I'm very aware of the "hi-tech world".
I'm also fully aware of all the screaming and crying that the "hi-tech world" is doing over all the outsourcing out of the US. Crying and screaming isn't the sole voice of the pro photographer as you are trying to make out.
Sorry, but anyone who choses to make a living in an industry over-run by people willing and able to do the same thing for far less, or for free, really needs to re-think their career, or the products they offer.
If you have even read my post, you would have certainly seen that I am indeed doing that very thing, specifically which field of photography.
But, the same can certainly be said for the IT industry. Why is your industry fighting it? Why not just get out?
As I've stated before in this thread. If a person is selling images at or near market value, then they are indeed a competitor, and I welcome that. A person giving pics away is not. Apples to bricks...
Two points:
First, what you've done here is convince yourself that people are doing the same job your perform for free, and undermining your business. However, as has been repeated many times in this thread, the folks who take pictures of their kids and team mates and giving them away are simply contributing to their community. It's like a taxi cab driver complaining about parents carpooling their kids, or like a drink vendor complaining complaining about soccer moms bringing a cooler of sodas and giving them away for free. If people want to do for themselves and their community, that's their right.
Second point is that times change.
When's the last time you dropped off a roll of film processing at your processing lab? What's that you say? You don't need them any more? You're doing your OWN processing now, for free??? But don't processing labs have a right to make a living too? And what about Fuji and Kodak? Don't they have a right to continue to profit off of film sales? No of course not. Technology has shifted the paradigm. You either shift along with it, or you perish. It's evolution.
My milkman used to have a great saying about this, but I can't remember what it was. I haven't seen him in ages. Damn convenience stores popping up all over the place pretty much ran him out of business.
It's like a taxi cab driver complaining about parents carpooling their kids, or like a drink vendor complaining complaining about soccer moms bringing a cooler of sodas and giving them away for free. If people want to do for themselves and their community, that's their right.
Really - how many places were taxi cab drivers driving kids to school? Do you know any taxi drivers that were impacted by carpooling?
And with the sodas - do you know of any little league parks where there are soda vendors who are now losing money? I've never seen a little league park that has independent contractor soda vendors. So if you know of any such soda vendors, have them comment on how they adapted. Otherwise it really isn't the same situation is it?
Second point is that times change.
When's the last time you dropped off a roll of film processing at your processing lab? What's that you say? You don't need them any more? You're doing your OWN processing now, for free??? But don't processing labs have a right to make a living too? And what about Fuji and Kodak? Don't they have a right to continue to profit off of film sales? No of course not. Technology has shifted the paradigm. You either shift along with it, or you perish. It's evolution
.
Again - to beat a dead horse - this is not the same thing. You are talking about consumer behavior. NO ONE, absolutely NO ONE is saying - You must BUY MY PRODUCT. that isn't the argument. Again, if you wanted to make this apples to apples in your film processing example the argument would be someone is providing FREE image processing - be it film or digital. To the best of my knowledge that is not occuring. Again, no ones chosen behavior to give away free image processing caused companies to lose money.
My milkman used to have a great saying about this, but I can't remember what it was. I haven't seen him in ages. Damn convenience stores popping up all over the place pretty much ran him out of business.
OK, again - the milkman didn't go away because someone decided to deliver milk for free. Another business came up with a better business model. That milk man could be supplying milk to convenience stores now. Now, if he went away because someone was giving away milk for free then it would be apples to apples.
Some people seem to want to argue that just because two situations end up in the same place - (i.e. someone out of a job) that the scenarios are apples to apples. They're not.
For example - my aunt dies of cancer vs my aunt is killed by a drunk driver. Hey, what the heck - either way she's dead so it's the same thing isn't it? No, in one case someone's careless actions caused her demise. So, if you've got an example of one industry dying, not because someone had a better business model but because the service was being given away for free I'm all ears.
A guy giving free web development isn't going to interfere much with the market of a web designe making $95,000. That would be like saying Sports Illustrated and AP are using the free images from the guys with cameras. So it really isn't the same thing. This would be more akin to a guy has a magazine stand at a street corner. And you set up a stand next to him and give away free magazines on Mon & Tues.
Who are the customers for micro-stock photosites. Wouldn't some percentage of them be buying from 'real' photographers?
My father was a printer; photocopy machines forced him to change his business model. Should he be angry at Xerox?
A local photo-printing place went out of business because CVS/Target/Walmart produces 8x10s at $6 that were effectively indistinguishable from the ones they produced at $20. MPIX does 8 x 10s at ~$2 that are very nice.
A local convenience store went out of business because a big elegant supermarket opened that sells better food at lower prices.
I understand the arguements from the pro shooter side - but this is a King Canute-kind of thing. Maybe things aren't 'fair' to everyone but change is inevitable.
So, if you've got an example of one industry dying, not because someone had a better business model but because the service was being given away for free I'm all ears.
Email
web browsers
open-source freeware
portals (AOL, etc)
80% of the on-line communities
So, if you've got an example of one industry dying, not because someone had a better business model but because the service was being given away for free I'm all ears.
For example - my aunt dies of cancer vs my aunt is killed by a drunk driver. Hey, what the heck - either way she's dead so it's the same thing isn't it? No, in one case someone's careless actions caused her demise. So, if you've got an example of one industry dying, not because someone had a better business model but because the service was being given away for free I'm all ears.
In this 'rant' - it isn't about preventing the death of my aunt. It's about trying to educate people that a certain behavior has negative consequences to specific individuals and the community at large. To the drunk - there's nothing wrong with their behavior. They get enjoyment out of it and so do a small subgroup of the community - the friends that benefit from the drunken, gregarious behavior and potentially get a ride home with said drunk driver. There is no economic gain to the behavior for the drunk driver. But their behavior has negative consequences to those around them.
The argument here is that giving away free photos is bad behavior because it directly affects in a negative way a small subset of individuals (i.e. photographers) but indirectly negatively affects the community (i.e. the parent doesn't provide benefit to as many people just a small subset - the other people eventually lose the services of the pro because it isn't profitable so they suffer).
So, the goal is just to try and educate. In the end, the drunk can still convince themselves noone is getting hurt - they're having fun, their friends are having fun - and death is inevitable so the victims shouldn't gripe about it.
The argument here is that giving away free photos is bad behavior because it directly affects in a negative way a small subset of individuals (i.e. photographers) but indirectly negatively affects the community (i.e. the parent doesn't provide benefit to as many people just a small subset - the other people eventually lose the services of the pro because it isn't profitable so they suffer).
That's a fact. My giving away photos does hurt the pro sports shooter. It lowers the income sport shooters can make and so fewer people will be pro sports shooters. While the relative demand for free amateur shots increases compared to the demand for non-free pro shots, the supply of the former will increase and the supply of the latter will decrease.
Parents can, if they want, address the "problem". They can have rules that ban the distribution of photographs for less than a certain price. They could contract a pro shooter with exclusive rights to shoot their events. The leagues could also contract pro shooters and pay them a mutually acceptable up front fee to take the shots so that they could sell prints at a lower, more competitive price. I'm sure that there are many other ways that people can come to mutually acceptable terms.
I'm open to any solution that is freely agreed to by the league participants and the purchasers/recipients of the photographs. So far, in all the leagues I've been in, they have not asked for any restrictions on amateur or pro shooters taking or selling pictures. If they want restrictions, I'll abide by them or quit participating in league.
What I won't agree to is to stop taking and distributing pictures because a third party says that it isn't in his best interests for me to do so. If the league and the people I give the pictures to are happy with me shooting, then that's what I'll do. If they aren't, they can set different rules and I'll abide by them.
There have been a lot of examples offered in this thread trying to show that this sort of thing happens all the time, but I'm not sure any of them have accurately modeled the same situation as parents giving away free pictures. Business models changing, companies offering better/cheaper ways of doing things - none of these really fit.
The example that comes closest is parents who bring soda to a game competing with the person selling soda at the field. We actually have several fields with snack bars, so that part is valid, but I don't think the snack vendors count on the revenue from the snacks given to the players at the end of a game. They count on selling to all of the spectators. Now if a parent brought a cooler full of drinks and snacks and gave them away for free to everyone at the game, this would be a similar situation - the parent's actions (just trying to be a nice guy) would limit or eliminate the revenue generated by the snack vendor. And if before the parent did this the snack vendor mentioned that most customers prefer Coke over Pepsi, and that he buys his snacks for a great price at ABC Foods, then it fits even better.
While I am a parent who gives pictures away for free to my teams, I don't want to trivialize the original points in this thread by just saying this type of thing happens all the time. I just don't think the situation is as common as some make it out to be.
I'm open to any solution that is freely agreed to by the league participants and the purchasers/recipients of the photographs. So far, in all the leagues I've been in, they have not asked for any restrictions on amateur or pro shooters taking or selling pictures. If they want restrictions, I'll abide by them or quit participating in league.
So let me ask a clarifying question - if the league or organization has a contract with a pro as the sole seller - are you still OK with free distribution because you're not selling?
So let me ask a clarifying question - if the league or organization has a contract with a pro as the sole seller - are you still OK with free distribution because you're not selling?
I'd read the contract. Presumably, I could not compete with the pro photographer by giving away my pictures either.
I'd have issues if they tried to stop me from taking pictures for my own personal use (not for publication or distribution) from a public location. If they were in a private location, they could ban me from even taking in a camera. That's their perogative. When I go to their event, I abide by their rules.
I'd read the contract. Presumably, I could not compete with the pro photographer by giving away my pictures either.
I'd have issues if they tried to stop me from taking pictures for my own personal use (not for publication or distribution) from a public location. If they were in a private location, they could ban me from even taking in a camera. That's their perogative. When I go to their event, I abide by their rules.
The argument here is that giving away free photos is bad behavior because it directly affects in a negative way a small subset of individuals (i.e. photographers)
Sorry to be so blunt, but honestly, big deal. You're acting as if since you want to take photos and sell them that other people should, somehow, for some reason, refrain from doing any behavior that hinders your success at doing that. I don't understand an attitude like that.
but indirectly negatively affects the community (i.e. the parent doesn't provide benefit to as many people just a small subset - the other people eventually lose the services of the pro because it isn't profitable so they suffer).
Its quite possible that the pro's services are not valued as much by the customers as the pro photographer seem to think their service is valued. At least, that is certainly the way it appears.
Just come to grips with it. Action photography is over-supplied. Attempts to artificially lower the supply by trying to convince people to not do what they want (share their photos freely) will not succeed.
So let me ask a clarifying question - if the league or organization has a contract with a pro as the sole seller - are you still OK with free distribution because you're not selling?
Been watching this thread the whole time, and now I have a comment to make.
I have to say that I don't think that the parents (most of them) will care about contracts. If an official comes to them at the game and says "you have to stop taking pictures" they will stop...for that game. If they are giving prints away at the game, or talking about it at the game and an official says "you can't give away or sell pictures of the game, the photographer has a contract" the parent will say "ok", chuckle and still email all the other parents the pictures later.
I am basing this hypothosis totally on my experiances with parents in general, I have not had any experiance shooting sports. However, let's take the Safekey parents as an example:
There is a parking lot at the school, and a driving area for dropping kids off but it is clearly labeled "NO PARKING, FIRE LANE" everywhere, the school even puts up cones to help show people they can't park there. In 3 years, I have seen only 4 parents that park in the parking log to sign the kid in/out of safekey, most of the parents park in the fire lane right in front of the doors. Walking 15 feet is just too far for them I guess. Better to endanger the lives of all the kids if there was a fire. Of course, if there is a school official van or "officer" standing out there,the parents all suddenly remember the parking lot. Amazing huh?
That example is for gradeschool kids. The parents of the Middleschool kids are even worse, they won't drive into the parking lot even. They stop in the middle of the road to let the kids out of the car (right at the crosswalk). They are all extremely rude and care nothing about the safety of others, just about them not haveing to lose time and thier kid being on time.
I am giving this example because it shows what kind of people these parents are (generalizing). If you expect the parents to care about your business (photographer) or your contract, it won't happen. Most of them care only about themselves and making themselves look good to other parents.
Again, this is just based on my experiance so take it with a bag of salt. In general most people around here (vegas) are pretty rude actually.
I am giving this example because it shows what kind of people these parents are (generalizing). If you expect the parents to care about your business (photographer) or your contract, it won't happen. Most of them care only about themselves and making themselves look good to other parents.
exactly so. There are likely some that are truly altruistic. But I'm betting a vast majority of people against this aren't as interested in the other parents having photos as they are in being the SUPPLIER of those photos. Same is true in other aspects of parenting. You have people volunteer to be a coach when one is needed. You have other parents who NEED to be the coach. In the end the people that NEED to be the supplier - no argument will change their behavior.
At this point I agree - the horse has been beaten to death.
When I started reading this topic it was only 11 pages long. The horse is definately dead, as I was reading everything that I could come up with adding has already been laid out.
The actuall bottom line is the distribution of photos by parents for free will not stop.
My only other note, I think it is arogant of a pro to incinuate that ego is the prevalent motivation for a pwac to share photos.
and
It is A-hole-ish of the "pwac's" to wrap quotes around the word PRO
Just come to grips with it. Action photography is over-supplied. Attempts to artificially lower the supply by trying to convince people to not do what they want (share their photos freely) will not succeed.
It seems to me that we need to agree to disagree on this subject.
Bill has been one of the biggest antagonist onm this subject.
Let me see if I have it right.
(1) You are going to do what you want and could care less what anyone says.
(2) You have the right to take pictures when and where you want to. You are right, you do.
(3) It seems everyone has "COME TO GRIPS WITH IT" except you.
Every Pro know that you have the right to give pictures away for free. If you feal thats is what you need to do.
But know matter how you phrase it, it still hurts the professionals buisness and don't expect us to like it. We can respect your rights to do it but you are not going to change our opinions.
Please lets just agree to disagree.
Hi. Welcome to Dgrin. I am a participant, not a mod, but I note that this is only your fourth post. Maybe you should visit awhile before getting so aggressive.
Hi. Welcome to Dgrin. I am a participant, not a mod, but I note that this is only your fourth post. Maybe you should visit awhile before getting so aggressive.
He's been a pro for thiry years and can say whatever he wants when he posts on a subject.
Four posts, four hundred or four thousand he can also be as aggressive or calm as he chooses within his posts.
"The important thing is to just take the picture with the lens you have when the picture happens." Jerry Lodriguss - Sports Photographer
Sorry to be so blunt, but honestly, big deal. You're acting as if since you want to take photos and sell them that other people should, somehow, for some reason, refrain from doing any behavior that hinders your success at doing that. I don't understand an attitude like that.
Its quite possible that the pro's services are not valued as much by the customers as the pro photographer seem to think their service is valued. At least, that is certainly the way it appears.
Just come to grips with it. Action photography is over-supplied. Attempts to artificially lower the supply by trying to convince people to not do what they want (share their photos freely) will not succeed.
This is a succinct rephrasing of what the 'pro' s seem to be saying. It isn't an arguement.
It seems to be just the fact that the community doesn't believe that the loss of professional action pictures is a big deal. The community is getting what it wants and, however angry the pro action shooters might be, the community is exercising its right not to buy their product and to substitue something else.
Fair or disagree has nothing to do with it. People don't want to pay more money for what they see as the same thing or close to it.
Shoemakers don't make many shoes anymore for the same reason.
The pro's can be angry at other photoraphers but that is missplaced. The community isn't saying,"No, I want those crisp, clean pro expensive shots", they're opting for the other way out.
There's no disagreement. The pro's have all the right in the world to be angry that their business model is disappearing but being angry doesn't change the reality.
do not ever, at any point offer anything away for free. As cool as it would be to see your name in lights, you are killing the industry. giving images away for free does not make a competitive market; it makes no market because the work is for free. it also pigeon holes you, now that have worked for free, how will you charge that client next time, or charge a client that was referred to you by another client who you did work for free for. just imagine if someone came into your office and said “i can do so & so’s job for free”, you wouldn’t be too pleased now would you...my .o2:whip
He's been a pro for thiry years and can say whatever he wants when he posts on a subject.
Four posts, four hundred or four thousand he can also be as aggressive or calm as he chooses within his posts.
Every one cool your heels for a min or so please.
Your post is incorrect Bodwick. The poster cannot say what ever they like and they most certainly cannot ever be as aggressive as they like. I dont know what has put that idea into your head.
You are right that it make no difference if the poster has 2 or 2000 posts with putting their opinion fwd in d/grin but if anyone wishes to participate here then we ask that everyone extend some common courtesy to each other in their replies.
Whilst this is an interesting thread I will close the thread at the drop of a hat if it again becomes a slinging match. We are all adults & i will ask that every one take others opinions on board & that they do not pop a valve simply because someone somewhere on the internet has a different opinion to their own.
giving images away for free does not make a competitive market; it makes no market because the work is for free.
But here is the thing. I would venture that most of the PWAC's (of which I am not one) would not consider their taking pictures to be work. They are not charging market value because they are not working, they are merely doing a hobby. This hobby has added benefit that a, they can be recognized as doing a good job by other parents, and they can be thanked for their efforts. More importantly for them it is probably intrinsically pleasing to have a photo that they enjoy that they took themselves rather than having to pay for a professionals photo.
Yes, some people try to make a living with this hobby, but people try to make a living doing plenty of things others think of as hobbies. Farming, basket weaving, carpentry, cooking, web page development, painting, sewing, interior design, counseling, speech writing and debate, etc. etc.
I will be the first to admit that not all of these fit exactly with what is being talked about, except that in pretty much all of these and many more there are people who will more than willing to give away the products they earn even though there are people who do it for a living.
Comments
In other words, I'm trying to bring out the hypocrisy in the argument.
A former sports shooter
Follow me at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/
My Etsy store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mercphoto?ref=hdr_shop_menu
Here's why it's different. In your IT situation you're talking about CONSUMER behavior. Notice, myself and others aren't arguing people should stop accepting free photos. Not trying to change CONSUMER behavior. In this discussion, the parent giving away free photos isn't a consumer - they're a supplier. And, unlike a programmer in India they aren't trying to earn a paycheck. The Indian programmer can't help the fact labor is cheaper over there. They're just trying to earn money. Same as a programmer over here.
So yes it would be silly of me to tell someone - don't buy this product because it isn't made in America. But it isn't the same thing as me asking the guy giving away free magazines to not do it because it hurst the guy selling and hurts the public when the seller moves away and the guy giving away free stuff stops giving it away.
So it's supplier behavior I and others are attempting to influence not consumer behavior.
I'm not going to flog the dead horse of the India-designed CPU because you are focusing in on the brush strokes and avoiding the big-picture I'm trying to paint.
A former sports shooter
Follow me at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/
My Etsy store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mercphoto?ref=hdr_shop_menu
Personally, I've acknowledged this several times in this thread.
I believe you to be very wrong on all these statements.
If I have an exclusive contract, then YES, I DO HAVE A LEGAL RIGHT TO THAT JOB.
This is America. I have a right to work in any industry I choose.
As I've stated before in this thread. If a person is selling images at or near market value, then they are indeed a competitor, and I welcome that. A person giving pics away is not. Apples to bricks...
I worked in IT for many years. The last ones, I was a Lead Wireless Network Engineer for Ricochet/Metricom. So I'm very aware of the "hi-tech world".
I'm also fully aware of all the screaming and crying that the "hi-tech world" is doing over all the outsourcing out of the US. Crying and screaming isn't the sole voice of the pro photographer as you are trying to make out.
Can't speak for anyone else, but I don't. I use PS-CS2. The pro photogs that I know also use PS. And, I've never seen that for free.
Your sarcasm is definitely evident. I believe your point to be off base.
If you have even read my post, you would have certainly seen that I am indeed doing that very thing, specifically which field of photography.
But, the same can certainly be said for the IT industry. Why is your industry fighting it? Why not just get out?
Two points:
First, what you've done here is convince yourself that people are doing the same job your perform for free, and undermining your business. However, as has been repeated many times in this thread, the folks who take pictures of their kids and team mates and giving them away are simply contributing to their community. It's like a taxi cab driver complaining about parents carpooling their kids, or like a drink vendor complaining complaining about soccer moms bringing a cooler of sodas and giving them away for free. If people want to do for themselves and their community, that's their right.
Second point is that times change.
When's the last time you dropped off a roll of film processing at your processing lab? What's that you say? You don't need them any more? You're doing your OWN processing now, for free??? But don't processing labs have a right to make a living too? And what about Fuji and Kodak? Don't they have a right to continue to profit off of film sales? No of course not. Technology has shifted the paradigm. You either shift along with it, or you perish. It's evolution.
My milkman used to have a great saying about this, but I can't remember what it was. I haven't seen him in ages. Damn convenience stores popping up all over the place pretty much ran him out of business.
Cheers,
-joel
Link to my Smugmug site
And with the sodas - do you know of any little league parks where there are soda vendors who are now losing money? I've never seen a little league park that has independent contractor soda vendors. So if you know of any such soda vendors, have them comment on how they adapted. Otherwise it really isn't the same situation is it?
Second point is that times change.
Again - to beat a dead horse - this is not the same thing. You are talking about consumer behavior. NO ONE, absolutely NO ONE is saying - You must BUY MY PRODUCT. that isn't the argument. Again, if you wanted to make this apples to apples in your film processing example the argument would be someone is providing FREE image processing - be it film or digital. To the best of my knowledge that is not occuring. Again, no ones chosen behavior to give away free image processing caused companies to lose money.
OK, again - the milkman didn't go away because someone decided to deliver milk for free. Another business came up with a better business model. That milk man could be supplying milk to convenience stores now. Now, if he went away because someone was giving away milk for free then it would be apples to apples.
Some people seem to want to argue that just because two situations end up in the same place - (i.e. someone out of a job) that the scenarios are apples to apples. They're not.
For example - my aunt dies of cancer vs my aunt is killed by a drunk driver. Hey, what the heck - either way she's dead so it's the same thing isn't it? No, in one case someone's careless actions caused her demise. So, if you've got an example of one industry dying, not because someone had a better business model but because the service was being given away for free I'm all ears.
Who are the customers for micro-stock photosites. Wouldn't some percentage of them be buying from 'real' photographers?
My father was a printer; photocopy machines forced him to change his business model. Should he be angry at Xerox?
A local photo-printing place went out of business because CVS/Target/Walmart produces 8x10s at $6 that were effectively indistinguishable from the ones they produced at $20. MPIX does 8 x 10s at ~$2 that are very nice.
A local convenience store went out of business because a big elegant supermarket opened that sells better food at lower prices.
I understand the arguements from the pro shooter side - but this is a King Canute-kind of thing. Maybe things aren't 'fair' to everyone but change is inevitable.
Email
web browsers
open-source freeware
portals (AOL, etc)
80% of the on-line communities
In this 'rant' - it isn't about preventing the death of my aunt. It's about trying to educate people that a certain behavior has negative consequences to specific individuals and the community at large. To the drunk - there's nothing wrong with their behavior. They get enjoyment out of it and so do a small subgroup of the community - the friends that benefit from the drunken, gregarious behavior and potentially get a ride home with said drunk driver. There is no economic gain to the behavior for the drunk driver. But their behavior has negative consequences to those around them.
The argument here is that giving away free photos is bad behavior because it directly affects in a negative way a small subset of individuals (i.e. photographers) but indirectly negatively affects the community (i.e. the parent doesn't provide benefit to as many people just a small subset - the other people eventually lose the services of the pro because it isn't profitable so they suffer).
So, the goal is just to try and educate. In the end, the drunk can still convince themselves noone is getting hurt - they're having fun, their friends are having fun - and death is inevitable so the victims shouldn't gripe about it.
Exactly, now you've got it.
I knew you'd come around.
That's a fact. My giving away photos does hurt the pro sports shooter. It lowers the income sport shooters can make and so fewer people will be pro sports shooters. While the relative demand for free amateur shots increases compared to the demand for non-free pro shots, the supply of the former will increase and the supply of the latter will decrease.
Parents can, if they want, address the "problem". They can have rules that ban the distribution of photographs for less than a certain price. They could contract a pro shooter with exclusive rights to shoot their events. The leagues could also contract pro shooters and pay them a mutually acceptable up front fee to take the shots so that they could sell prints at a lower, more competitive price. I'm sure that there are many other ways that people can come to mutually acceptable terms.
I'm open to any solution that is freely agreed to by the league participants and the purchasers/recipients of the photographs. So far, in all the leagues I've been in, they have not asked for any restrictions on amateur or pro shooters taking or selling pictures. If they want restrictions, I'll abide by them or quit participating in league.
What I won't agree to is to stop taking and distributing pictures because a third party says that it isn't in his best interests for me to do so. If the league and the people I give the pictures to are happy with me shooting, then that's what I'll do. If they aren't, they can set different rules and I'll abide by them.
The example that comes closest is parents who bring soda to a game competing with the person selling soda at the field. We actually have several fields with snack bars, so that part is valid, but I don't think the snack vendors count on the revenue from the snacks given to the players at the end of a game. They count on selling to all of the spectators. Now if a parent brought a cooler full of drinks and snacks and gave them away for free to everyone at the game, this would be a similar situation - the parent's actions (just trying to be a nice guy) would limit or eliminate the revenue generated by the snack vendor. And if before the parent did this the snack vendor mentioned that most customers prefer Coke over Pepsi, and that he buys his snacks for a great price at ABC Foods, then it fits even better.
While I am a parent who gives pictures away for free to my teams, I don't want to trivialize the original points in this thread by just saying this type of thing happens all the time. I just don't think the situation is as common as some make it out to be.
So let me ask a clarifying question - if the league or organization has a contract with a pro as the sole seller - are you still OK with free distribution because you're not selling?
I'd read the contract. Presumably, I could not compete with the pro photographer by giving away my pictures either.
I'd have issues if they tried to stop me from taking pictures for my own personal use (not for publication or distribution) from a public location. If they were in a private location, they could ban me from even taking in a camera. That's their perogative. When I go to their event, I abide by their rules.
Then Mark -you and I are in 100% agreement.
Its quite possible that the pro's services are not valued as much by the customers as the pro photographer seem to think their service is valued. At least, that is certainly the way it appears.
Just come to grips with it. Action photography is over-supplied. Attempts to artificially lower the supply by trying to convince people to not do what they want (share their photos freely) will not succeed.
A former sports shooter
Follow me at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/
My Etsy store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mercphoto?ref=hdr_shop_menu
Been watching this thread the whole time, and now I have a comment to make.
I have to say that I don't think that the parents (most of them) will care about contracts. If an official comes to them at the game and says "you have to stop taking pictures" they will stop...for that game. If they are giving prints away at the game, or talking about it at the game and an official says "you can't give away or sell pictures of the game, the photographer has a contract" the parent will say "ok", chuckle and still email all the other parents the pictures later.
I am basing this hypothosis totally on my experiances with parents in general, I have not had any experiance shooting sports. However, let's take the Safekey parents as an example:
I am giving this example because it shows what kind of people these parents are (generalizing). If you expect the parents to care about your business (photographer) or your contract, it won't happen. Most of them care only about themselves and making themselves look good to other parents.
Again, this is just based on my experiance so take it with a bag of salt. In general most people around here (vegas) are pretty rude actually.
exactly so. There are likely some that are truly altruistic. But I'm betting a vast majority of people against this aren't as interested in the other parents having photos as they are in being the SUPPLIER of those photos. Same is true in other aspects of parenting. You have people volunteer to be a coach when one is needed. You have other parents who NEED to be the coach. In the end the people that NEED to be the supplier - no argument will change their behavior.
At this point I agree - the horse has been beaten to death.
The actuall bottom line is the distribution of photos by parents for free will not stop.
My only other note, I think it is arogant of a pro to incinuate that ego is the prevalent motivation for a pwac to share photos.
and
It is A-hole-ish of the "pwac's" to wrap quotes around the word PRO
Keith Tharp.com - Champion Photo
It seems to me that we need to agree to disagree on this subject.
Bill has been one of the biggest antagonist onm this subject.
Let me see if I have it right.
(1) You are going to do what you want and could care less what anyone says.
(2) You have the right to take pictures when and where you want to. You are right, you do.
(3) It seems everyone has "COME TO GRIPS WITH IT" except you.
Every Pro know that you have the right to give pictures away for free. If you feal thats is what you need to do.
But know matter how you phrase it, it still hurts the professionals buisness and don't expect us to like it. We can respect your rights to do it but you are not going to change our opinions.
Please lets just agree to disagree.
__________________
www.browngreensports.com
http://browngreensports.smugmug.com
He's been a pro for thiry years and can say whatever he wants when he posts on a subject.
Four posts, four hundred or four thousand he can also be as aggressive or calm as he chooses within his posts.
Jerry Lodriguss - Sports Photographer
Reporters sans frontières
This is a succinct rephrasing of what the 'pro' s seem to be saying. It isn't an arguement.
It seems to be just the fact that the community doesn't believe that the loss of professional action pictures is a big deal. The community is getting what it wants and, however angry the pro action shooters might be, the community is exercising its right not to buy their product and to substitue something else.
Fair or disagree has nothing to do with it. People don't want to pay more money for what they see as the same thing or close to it.
Shoemakers don't make many shoes anymore for the same reason.
The pro's can be angry at other photoraphers but that is missplaced. The community isn't saying,"No, I want those crisp, clean pro expensive shots", they're opting for the other way out.
There's no disagreement. The pro's have all the right in the world to be angry that their business model is disappearing but being angry doesn't change the reality.
Every one cool your heels for a min or so please.
Your post is incorrect Bodwick. The poster cannot say what ever they like and they most certainly cannot ever be as aggressive as they like. I dont know what has put that idea into your head.
You are right that it make no difference if the poster has 2 or 2000 posts with putting their opinion fwd in d/grin but if anyone wishes to participate here then we ask that everyone extend some common courtesy to each other in their replies.
Whilst this is an interesting thread I will close the thread at the drop of a hat if it again becomes a slinging match. We are all adults & i will ask that every one take others opinions on board & that they do not pop a valve simply because someone somewhere on the internet has a different opinion to their own.
But here is the thing. I would venture that most of the PWAC's (of which I am not one) would not consider their taking pictures to be work. They are not charging market value because they are not working, they are merely doing a hobby. This hobby has added benefit that a, they can be recognized as doing a good job by other parents, and they can be thanked for their efforts. More importantly for them it is probably intrinsically pleasing to have a photo that they enjoy that they took themselves rather than having to pay for a professionals photo.
Yes, some people try to make a living with this hobby, but people try to make a living doing plenty of things others think of as hobbies. Farming, basket weaving, carpentry, cooking, web page development, painting, sewing, interior design, counseling, speech writing and debate, etc. etc.
I will be the first to admit that not all of these fit exactly with what is being talked about, except that in pretty much all of these and many more there are people who will more than willing to give away the products they earn even though there are people who do it for a living.
-Nate
Equipment
Canon Stuff (and third party stuff as well)
Tampa Bay Wedding Photography