|
Search this group's discussions
|
To the point.
|
Please let me first state that I do not mean to offend anyone by joining this group and starting this conversation.
That said, I feel as though I need to open a healthy debate to discuss not only the beneficial aspects of a CC license and the specific purpose of this group, but the negative aspects of such realities as well.
When I first entered the realm of photography, the internet was in its infancy and websites like Flickr weren't even a glimmer in Ludicorp's mind. However, times have obviously changed and we now find ourselves in a world of seemingly unlimited access to millions of easily downloadable photographs.
I once studied under a photographer who harbored a certain level of animosity toward the digital age and the increasing willingness of budding photographers to "share" their work online for the benefit of exposure, recognition and attention. At the time, I scoffed at the stance with a mindset of "what's wrong with that?"
What's wrong is this: By offering high resolution photographs to websites, blogs or other media at no charge, you not only hurt photographers that strive endlessly to make a living off their art but you hurt yourselves. Exposure, recognition and attention are wonderful things but at what expense does that need to come?
I'm not asking you to get rid of the CC license on your photographs. Rather, I'm asking you to discuss the reason(s) behind your decision to relinquish those particular aspects of your rights as an artist, the consequences of that decision and the cost/benefit ratio of such actions.
Posted at 9:31PM, 20 July 2008 PDT
(permalink)
|
|
I guess I missed this, but I will reply now. I've been creating art for well over 25 years, and I want my work to live on... to live beyond me, to share it with the world. It's my choice what to do with my creation, I can give it away if I like. I share my art, my writing, my photos, my music, with the world, asking some simple things in exchange. To me, sharing is what creates community, and what creates a better world for us all, a more richer experience, where people can work together. I'm a proponent of sharing and learning in an open environment, and using a Creative Commons license is an extension of this.
Now, I don't put my work into the public domain, relinquishing all rights to it, I still hold the copyright on the work that I produce, but... if some kid wants to print one of my photos for a school project, I'm proud to say he can do so under the license I use (as long as I get attribution) and he doesn't have to go back and forth with me to determine an appropriate 'price' for the use of my work.
Exposure, recognition and attention and fine, but some of us believe in bigger things, like the growth of our collective culture.
Posted 43 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Monkey Pile on the Anti-Creative Commons Rhetoric masquerading as rational discussion!!
I don't need to justify why I believe in Creative Commons, exept to say that I'm secure enough in my self identity as an artist and creative person that I'm honored when someone likes my works well enough to share them.
What I _don't_ believe in is campaigning against someone's willingness to share their creative works because it might hurt someone else's bottom line. A professional photographer who scoffed and held animosity toward the proliferation awesome photographs believes more in his bottom line than he believes in the medium.
To the guy who states: "Exposure, recognition and attention are wonderful things but at what expense does that need to come?"
Gabe Responds:
I guess the expense of f-ing things up for mediocre photographers current business models. Boo Hoo. If your heart doesn't break for the RIAA, it certainly shouldn't break for Pro Photogs who can't adapt.
Adapt and Improve. If ignorance of the process or of the cost of tools are the only thing protecting your business model-- you've got bigger problems than Creative Commons.
Welome to the Tar Pit of Obscurity, Dinosaurs. Sink! Sink along with the railroad barons, the newspapers, and mass produced audio cassettes.
Originally posted 43 months ago.
(permalink)
HeyGabe (a group admin) edited this topic 43 months ago.
|
|
@heygabe the railroad barons actually sank because the government heavily regulated them and subsidized other transportation methods. Freight companies today are huge, and Amtrak is seeing record numbers, but anyway.
@discussion
I take photos for the pure joy of seeing my work elsewhere, not for the monetary reward. I don't do it full-time, although I do take quite a few photos. If my taking photos and essentially giving them away destroys someone else's way to make a living, I think they might need to rethink what they are doing.
Mark, your photos are light years better than mine, I don't think my largely stock image quality compares with your beautiful images. Do mine get used a lot on the web? Yes. Are they cutting into areas you could have sold photos in? I don't think so.
What I'm doing is giving people a safe way to use photography to complete a project (whether it be a blog entry, website logo, or updating their desktop wallpaper) that they otherwise wouldn't have been able to do legally. That safe way doesn't exist with "all rights reserved", and legal access often dies with the creator. I'm clearly defining how much work can live longer than I can.
I love looking at old photos of Milwaukee, and hope that someday someone will enjoy looking at my photos.
I don't think many people are printing my ten megapixel photos and putting them on their walls that would have otherwise bought a photo. The people who are actually going to buy artwork aren't the ones who are going to download your photo and have it printed.
What we need to work on as a community is making a better model for photographers to sell their work as prints (or license it) as well as having it licensed under the Creative Commons. There is a huge market opportunity for a better way for photographers to sell their works with the advent of massively popular services such as Flickr.
I don't want a nickel per page view, and I don't want a dime for allowing you to use my photo on your blog, but I do want to make it really easy for you to buy a print of my photo. Sure you could save it and have it printed somewhere, but I'm not concerned about that person that wants to do that. I want the person that genuinely likes my work and is willing to encourage me to make more of it.
At the end of the day no one would care about my work if it wasn't licensed under the Creative Commons, because it would be one of a million other Milwaukee photos that couldn't legally be used elsewhere. The Creative Commons gives my work value.
Posted 43 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I'm officially torn on this topic.
I completely side with Raster on this, I think the extension of copyright to longer and longer periods has stifled the creation of new art based on previous works. Around that fact, I completely agree. If someone can end up using my work to make something even better, so be it.
Where I do see the "pro photog" side is in areas where artist are selling themselves short. They may allow usages that ends up netting someone a huge payday. When approached a lot of folks often don't realize what people will pay for an image. They may sell usage to an agency for less than $100, then the agency tuns around and sells the usage to their client for several thousand. I think this is where some of the crusade of the pros is good. They got to me early enough that I made a decent sale earlier this year (granted the sale was in July and I just got paid last week, but that's a different issue).
This angle probably has less to do with CC itself, since there are licenses covering commercial use (i.e. forbiding it), but I think often some people don't understand that.
Overall, I probably need to re-think my strategy. I do make money off of some of my imagery - a good portion of it probably has no market value outside of the person in the photo (i.e. for portraits). I probably need to investigate the various non-commercial licenses and pick one I can live with so I'm not a hypocrite.
I have had CC images of mine re-used and properly credited. I just wish there was some form of the license that said I need to also be notified - not so I can put the kibosh on the use, but so I actually see it.
Posted 43 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Derek, as far as notification, I can see that you, like Jeramey and myself, really do enjoy when someone else can use our work in some way. I always try to notify someone when I use their work, as I know that I like to be notified as well. I can see it getting crazy though if 1000 people used your photo and each one let you know about it. :)
Posted 43 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Also worth a read: Why give it away for free
Posted 43 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I might offer software and open source as a metaphor for CC, because I started off making living making money writing proprietary code, but make more money today writing code for a community of people, and some of that is now open source.
When you develop something for a closed group, not only do you have full ownership, but you have the full responsibility to maintain it, market it, and promote it. However when you open something up, you demonstrate or perform your unique skill for the world. Many will copy what you have done and use it to perform themselves, but even more will want to have you perform for them. To challenge your self for their project or their show, and so in an age when production has NO value, its the act of unique performance that has value.
Today I am earning a living by helping the web find better ways to connect people, and there is no amount of will or force that can copy the knowledge and experience I have to move that ball forwards. So yes, someone can copy my work, and they can promote it, market it, and maintain it; while I get paid to provide the next.
So, I find that people that are willing to give back are confident in their ability to do something challenging in the future. People who close stuff off, are fearful that they have provided the most they already have and need to siphon off from what they have already done.
Posted 41 months ago.
(permalink)
|
Would you like to comment?
Sign up for a free account, or sign in (if you're already a member).
|
|
Milwaukee - (High Resolution) Creative Commons /
Discuss
Feed – Subscribe to Milwaukee - (High Resolution) Creative Commons discussion threads