Why I do not like Flickr and Wikipedia
On Saturday I found myself reading a newspaper at the airport. I knew them - I had been selling images to them over the past couple of years. Mind you, it was never a big business, just a photo now and then appearing in their travel section. And when I came to the travel section of the current issue I saw the photos: one huge photo, 10.8" x 6.5", and three smaller shots, all of them not particularly nice shots, but not ugly either. I'd say average photos, well almost. The by-lines read "Photo: flickr by Joe-Artur"*, "Photo: flickr by Christopher Halworth"*, "Photo: Wikipedia by Markus Schmitt"*, and finally "Photo: Wikipedia by Hannes Grosse"*. Gosh - are Flickr and Wikipedia in the photo agency business now?
Of course not. The photos were -as far as I can tell- licenced as "Creative Commons" content on Flickr and Wikipedia, i.e. the authors are explicitly allowing to use the photos for any use. Nothing wrong with that, but seeing a commercial newspaper dedicating huge space to FREE photos, that makes me just sick. And I wonder why? Sure, the newspapers could not care less about the photographers. Give free stuff to newspapers to fill their pages, the more the merrier, and they'll happily take all of it, giving just a by-line and a good laugh to the photographers, before they continue to count the money from the ads surrounding the photos.
But why are the photographers giving their photos away for free? Is it just to see their work in print? Are they so desparate to get their stuff published that they just click "creative commons" when uploading photos to Flickr and Wikipedia? Or careless? Don't they know that they could earn money with their photos? Or do they think they are doing something "good" by giving the photos away for free? Don't they know that they are actually hurting (professional) photographers around the world by publishing photos expecting nothing more than a by-line in return?
Honestly, I don't get it. But it makes me sick. Really sick.
* Name changed to protect the photographers.
Of course not. The photos were -as far as I can tell- licenced as "Creative Commons" content on Flickr and Wikipedia, i.e. the authors are explicitly allowing to use the photos for any use. Nothing wrong with that, but seeing a commercial newspaper dedicating huge space to FREE photos, that makes me just sick. And I wonder why? Sure, the newspapers could not care less about the photographers. Give free stuff to newspapers to fill their pages, the more the merrier, and they'll happily take all of it, giving just a by-line and a good laugh to the photographers, before they continue to count the money from the ads surrounding the photos.
But why are the photographers giving their photos away for free? Is it just to see their work in print? Are they so desparate to get their stuff published that they just click "creative commons" when uploading photos to Flickr and Wikipedia? Or careless? Don't they know that they could earn money with their photos? Or do they think they are doing something "good" by giving the photos away for free? Don't they know that they are actually hurting (professional) photographers around the world by publishing photos expecting nothing more than a by-line in return?
Honestly, I don't get it. But it makes me sick. Really sick.
* Name changed to protect the photographers.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home