chez wrote:
I just have one question here. How many of you downloaded music illegally. How many made copies of software? How many used music in their slideshows without permission from the authors?
I believe I see everyone's hands up.
Just something to ponder while you get off your high horses.
How many of you recognize that it's ethically wrong and legally questionable? I believe I see everyone's hands up. It's one thing to make an informed decision to break a law, and quite another to be totally ignorant of the law altogether.
mdude85 wrote:
How many of you recognize that it's ethically wrong and legally questionable? I believe I see everyone's hands up. It's one thing to make an informed decision to break a law, and quite another to be totally ignorant of the law altogether.
Not sure the quote is verbatim but,"ignorance of the law does not justify breaking the law.".. I believe that the owners of this track where not intentionally trying to steal something, but truly believed they had the right to demand the results due to them allowing you access. If having this knowledge forehand, and then refusing to turn over the images, The photographer would have been wrong.. A deal is a deal even if it is a bad deal.. But on the other hand, had they allowed the photographer to shoot and then demand the images without recompense would have likewise been wrong.. Moral:: Get the rules / regulations upfront.. If unacceptable, Do not do it!!
When you are dealing with the lower levels of the industry and shooting on spec you will run into a lot of idiots. On both sides of the camera. Nmost who talk about copyright know about 20% of what they should. And bluff or bully the rest.
I have a friend who used to shoot a lot of x games type action sports, for magazines. That market has totally dried up, he could not compete with free. Between the fanboys who will shoot for free and participants who have friends shoot their own stuff the mags wouldnt want to pay him to go shoot an event. they'd pay $20 to somebody instead of assigning him.
And the free pix didn't suck as much as some photographers hoped, some were great....
This happens a lot with sports and racing events
Micky Bill wrote:
When you are dealing with the lower levels of the industry and shooting on spec you will run into a lot of idiots. On both sides of the camera. Nmost who talk about copyright know about 20% of what they should. And bluff or bully the rest.
I have a friend who used to shoot a lot of x games type action sports, for magazines. That market has totally dried up, he could not compete with free. Between the fanboys who will shoot for free and participants who have friends shoot their own stuff the mags wouldnt want to pay him to go shoot an event. they'd pay $20 to somebody instead of assigning him.
And the free pix didn't suck as much as some photographers hoped, some were great....
This happens a lot with sports and racing events...Show more →
Whenever you shoot on private property you can be subject to all sorts of rules, fair or not.
Micky Bill wrote:
When you are dealing with the lower levels of the industry and shooting on spec you will run into a lot of idiots. On both sides of the camera. Most who talk about copyright know about 20% of what they should. And bluff or bully the rest. I have a friend who used to shoot a lot of x games type action sports, for magazines. That market has totally dried up, he could not compete with free. Between the fanboys who will shoot for free and participants who have friends shoot their own stuff the mags wouldnt want to pay him to go shoot an event. they'd pay $20 to somebody instead of assigning him.
And the free pix didn't suck as much as some photographers hoped, some were great... This happens a lot with sports and racing events...Show more →
That's pretty much exactly what's going on in many sports, and it is getting harder for companies (industries?) to argue with 'free'. Until the neighbor-down-the-street-with-a-fancy-camera starts saying "no" to such 'access' offers, I doubt anything is likely to change in the near future.
Jeff wrote:
Whenever you shoot on private property you can be subject to all sorts of rules, fair or not.
That's pretty much exactly what's going on in many sports, and it is getting harder for companies (industries?) to argue with 'free'. Until the neighbor-down-the-street-with-a-fancy-camera starts saying "no" to such 'access' offers, I doubt anything is likely to change in the near future.
Having been around for a long time I have seen many a trend come & go.. This one could stick around for awhile.. Thank you
Mark_L wrote:
The sad thing is, they probably really will get someone for free but hopefully they will get what they pay for.
Yes, pros should be paid but these days I see so many substitutes for pros (i.e amateurs with gear and some skills) in the high profile areas of sports and event photography that it is no surprise that the operators expect free.
The take home lesson here is that one should work for the organizations that demand a working pro and not a weekend warrior AND look to work in niches that amateurs have not flooded.
markd61 wrote:
Yes, pros should be paid but these days I see so many substitutes for pros (i.e amateurs with gear and some skills) in the high profile areas of sports and event photography that it is no surprise that the operators expect free.
The take home lesson here is that one should work for the organizations that demand a working pro and not a weekend warrior AND look to work in niches that amateurs have not flooded.
Thank you.. In this part of Texas you are hours away from anything so you tend to take what is available.. Not ideal, but necessary..
pappawheely wrote:
Lots of people love to cook but I don't see a ton of free restaurants around. Not sure why this is so prevalent in photography but it is.
Probably because everybody can push a shutter button and pray.. Two idioms come to mind,
"Spray & Pray," and "Even a blind acorn finds a hog occasionally.."
oldrattler wrote:
Probably because everybody can push a shutter button and pray.. Two idioms come to mind,
"Spray & Pray," and "Even a blind acorn finds a hog occasionally.."
That comment from you is pretty high on the hog. I've seen work from many amateur photographers that will blow away most pros here. Many attitudes like yours is why the amateurs are coming in and cleaning up. The entitlement to a job because you are the PRO is a quick way to unemployment.
chez wrote:
That comment from you is pretty high on the hog. I've seen work from many amateur photographers that will blow away most pros here. Many attitudes like yours is why the amateurs are coming in and cleaning up. The entitlement to a job because you are the PRO is a quick way to unemployment.
Thank you for sharing you opinion.. It must be refreshing being the only photographer that is a "legend in their own mind".. # 1.. I have never called myself a "Pro".. I am a work in progress.. #2.. The First Time I heard of the "spray & Pray" method of shooting was at a Moose Peterson workshop.. He / Himself, advocates taking numerous images to capture the precise moment.. Is he "Pro" enough for you?? #3.. I openly admit to covering every aspect of a scene attempting to find "The One".. Frequently I prefer the image my wife gets by stepping out of the car and taking the shot.. Success is not all skill & gear, luck & timing play a part.. #4:: The only poster on this post that mounted he "Big Horsey is YOU.." Have a good evening... Jim
pappawheely wrote:
Lots of people love to cook but I don't see a ton of free restaurants around. Not sure why this is so prevalent in photography but it is.
Probably because even the most expensive photo gear is significantly cheaper than a building, waitstaff and other cooks, the correct licensing for both food and alcohol service, etc.
jbregar wrote:
Probably because even the most expensive photo gear is significantly cheaper than a building, waitstaff and other cooks, the correct licensing for both food and alcohol service, etc.
Your analogy sucks.
Thank you for analogizing the posters comments... Webster defines analogy as, "resemblance of similarities"... Analogy by use of metaphor is commonplace... Your analysis (breakdown) therefore, to quote a previous poster, "Sucks"..
oldrattler wrote:
Thank you for analogizing the posters comments... Webster defines analogy as, "resemblance of similarities"... Analogy by use of metaphor is commonplace... Your analysis (breakdown) therefore, to quote a previous poster, "Sucks"..
I think you need to use Webster to look up the definition of "metaphor". Hint: it involves using tangible things to illustrate intangible things. "Sam was a speeding bullet down the track." is a good example of metaphor. "Lots of people love to cook, but you don't see a ton of free restaurants" is an attempt to analogize running a restaurant with being a professional photographer since both are activities people enjoy doing for recreation. There's no metaphor there.
The restaurant analogy is poor because while there are tenuous threads of similarity between the two, they're such different circumstances that making analogies and then puzzling about why the restaurant business isn't seeing amateurization is poor rhetoric. It's obvious.
To veer back on topic and away from being the English police, the reason there aren't a ton of people out there running a free restaurant because they love to cook is because there are huge fixed costs in the food service industry as well as legal regulation (that costs a ton to comply with) that just don't exist in the photography industry. If you've ever seen the books on a restaurant, you'd realize how quickly they can suck even the fattest wallet dry if they're not making money.
Also, people don't buy restaurants for fun. They DO buy cameras for fun then figure "hey, I can get MORE camera gear if I start charging people to shoot their wedding."
If you can't see the gigantic valley of disconnect between buying nice cooking gear (the best equivalent to kitting up for photography) and running a restaurant, then I can't really help you.
jbregar wrote:
I think you need to use Webster to look up the definition of "metaphor". Hint: it involves using tangible things to illustrate intangible things. "Sam was a speeding bullet down the track." is a good example of metaphor. "Lots of people love to cook, but you don't see a ton of free restaurants" is an attempt to analogize running a restaurant with being a professional photographer since both are activities people enjoy doing for recreation. There's no metaphor there.
The restaurant analogy is poor because while there are tenuous threads of similarity between the two, they're such different circumstances that making analogies and then puzzling about why the restaurant business isn't seeing amateurization is poor rhetoric. It's obvious.
To veer back on topic and away from being the English police, the reason there aren't a ton of people out there running a free restaurant because they love to cook is because there are huge fixed costs in the food service industry as well as legal regulation (that costs a ton to comply with) that just don't exist in the photography industry. If you've ever seen the books on a restaurant, you'd realize how quickly they can suck even the fattest wallet dry if they're not making money.
Also, people don't buy restaurants for fun. They DO buy cameras for fun then figure "hey, I can get MORE camera gear if I start charging people to shoot their wedding."
If you can't see the gigantic valley of disconnect between buying nice cooking gear (the best equivalent to kitting up for photography) and running a restaurant, then I can't really help you.
Thank you for the grammatical intervention.. Allow me to quote from the Webster New International Dictionary," Metaphor, from the Greek Metaphoricus (to transfer) :: a figure of speech where one object / action is replaced by another to suggest a likeness for analytical comparison." Therefore, the epistemological evidence shows you to be incorrect.. What bothers me more that your faulty circular reasoning is why you believe you have the right to cast snide innuendos at another FM'er.. There is a schism (valley / divide) but it your misunderstanding of my original post.. If you want to join in discussions you are free to do so, but please remember everybody has the same right and it is not your job to educate the poor ignorant masses..
tcphoto wrote:
If someone says it enough, a certain number of intellectually challenged will start believing it. I suggest that you simply roll your eyes and move on, do you really want to work with those kinds?
