May we steal your photo please?

Well, at least they asked.

I got an email today that is edging me closer to pulling all my work off of Flickr. In it, a company, Schmap.com, said that they "selected" one of my photos for the "short-list" for inclusion in their Vancouver Guide. They got the photo off of Flickr. Here's an excerpt.

"While we offer no payment for publication, many photographers are pleased to submit their photos, as Schmap Guides give their work recognition and wide exposure, and are free of charge to readers. Photos are published at a maximum width of 150 pixels, are clearly attributed, and link to high-resolution originals at Flickr."

This is a commercial, ad-supported site, that is harvesting free content from Flickr. I declined their generous offer (they included a link and an easy check-box to remove the photos). I think maybe they're trying to behave ethically in a morally dubious morass. And they're probably right about the pleasure this gives some photographers. There is a enormous pool of people with shiny new digital cameras who would be tickled that someone likes their photo enough to publish it. Payment? Value? That's sooo 20th Century. All content should be free, right?

Comments

[Martin McClellan]

I got one of these too, and I decided to let them use my image. Or, in their vernacular, continue with the "short-listing" of my image.

I allowed it because I'm not a professional photographer -- hell, I'm barely an amateur -- and I publish my shots using a creative commons license.

But, I was on the edge of saying no (mostly due to the schmarmy marketing-speak of the email that tried to make me feel honored that they picked me), and would have if I made any money as a photographer.

This is a fault of Flickr, in that there is no differentiation between me, a complete hack, and pro photographers who share their work. Sometimes, very generously.

While some of the social sites that allow for a flat social structure can be beneficial to professionals (such as MySpace, and the perceived one-to-one relationship between bands and fans), this is one area where professionals don't benefit at all.

[Aaron B. Hockley]

They saw your photo. They wanted to use it. They asked.

What's the problem?

[Doug Plummer]

No problem with them. I said no.

The larger problem is the erosion of the percieved value of creative work, and the presumption that it ought to be available for little or nothing. I am a content provider. It's my livelihood. I need to protect, such as I can, the notion that, if you want to make money off of my creative output, then I get a piece of it.

Now communities that I feel an affiliation toward, such as the contra and community social dance crowd, I gladly give my work to. That's my choice. But don't presume that, because of a value set that says all information wants to be free, that you have the right to take it.

[Aaron B. Hockley]

But perhaps the value of that work has in fact gone down? In a lot of cases, a photo which used to require a professional photographer with a few thousand dollars worth of equipment can now be replicated with a $200 digicam used by someone who read a few photography "how to" pages on the 'net.

[Robin Shapiro]

Aaron,
A particular photo might be replicated, but not a professional multi-photo, complicated lighting situation. I've watched Doug's business go from primarily stock to primarily assignment work as the whole environment changed. I've also watched as magazine and other media images have become degraded, if they were any good at all.
It's making me think of the TV writers' strike. The environment changed, the industry is making huge profits from digital sales, and they don't want to pay the writers their cut. The price of making a living is eternal vigilance, when you're dealing with corporations.

[A. Marques]

At least they asked...
I can see it in two ways. Flickr allows for extended exposure and that is perfect for amateur photographers as well as professionals. But as Robin mentioned, not every photo is easy to shoot and photographers should take their share of it. Mostly, the almost for free feeling comes from the microstock agencies. If, as Doug mentioned, the value has indeed gone down (which is possible due to the availability of good equipment), and photos are easily reproduced, then why not having them hiring a photographer and taking all the photos they need? At least they would be honest.

[Sean McCormick]

"But perhaps the value of that work has in fact gone down? In a lot of cases, a photo which used to require a professional photographer with a few thousand dollars worth of equipment can now be replicated with a $200 digicam used by someone who read a few photography "how to" pages on the 'net."

Are you off your nut, man?

Try and duplicate one of my 20 minute exposures with a $200 digicam. You can't do it. Not with a sensor that small unless you want to spend the next decade working around hot pixels in Photoshop.

So, no, the $200 digicam won't do. Other things I've paid for:

- Photoshop
- $10K of Canon lenses
- $8K in Canon bodies
- $30K for SUV I travel in
- $1.5K for secondary vehicle
- $2K for truck and camper
- $2K for misc accessories
- $4K (at least) for training
- $200/mth for gas (at least)

I'm an advanced amateur who sells a print here and there. I'm not a stock photographer, although I am a devoted one, I would hope. I put a lot of time and money into creating the best art that I can.

So it's insulting as hell when someone comes along and tries to skim off that investment -- and commitment -- for free. If you're going to make money off my work, I expect a cut. To not offer anything devalues my work and insults me.

And let me be the first to say it here: anyone who truly values their work yet posts it to Flickr is a moron and deserves whatever trouble comes their way as a result.

[stephen connor]

In response to Sean's rather peevish response, there seem to be a lot of folks who actually make a living at photography (i.e. "professionals" as opposed to people spending over $50,000 for, um, nothing, evidently) happily posting to Flick'r with no problems whatsoever. Don't want to let someone use your photo for free? "No", seems a reasonably appropriate (and simple) response.

[romanlily]

Yes, I would hope that there's more to this situation that Sean's comment suggests.

I value my work and I post it to Flickr. The site has actually led to some good stuff for me. I've found a lot of great connections through Flickr (friendships, clients, buddies to talk gear with). Some of these connections have yielded legitimate, fully legal photo sales for me.

I know that I need to be careful. Yes, the sharks are out there. It's a mixed bag. By and large, Flickr has brought me good things.

(I also said "no" to the Schmap people.)

[Sean McCormick]

Flickr is a snapshooter community. It's not a place where the professional or fine-art photographer who would like to be taken seriously should hang out.

[Doug Plummer]

Wow, has this post hit a nerve.

I think it's because it touches on several trends in the creative marketplace right now. There's a lot of tension over copyright. There are actors, such as the record companies, that give copyright a bad name by chasing down college kids and demanding tens of thousands of dollars for downloading music. In response is the anti-corporate Creative Commons scheme that, as far as I can detect, is simply a means to codify transferring everything you create into the public domain. With a credit.

I think romanlily has the right attitude about Flickr. I use it to show my neighbors photos of the block party. Contra dancers ask me if I've posted anything from the dance weekend yet so they can see what I've done. I don't want to give up that social aspect.

What worries me are the infringements I don't know about. Shemap behaved honorably by sending out their email. I credit them for that. It's the ones who don't want to do the right thing that trouble me.