Chris Anderson’s FREE! essay in Wired is certainly a good think and is the culmination of a lot of thinking around what digital technologies mean for the economy. As a photographer, I immediately think about what Chris is saying in terms of photography. Of course, I’m not the only one. Chase Jarvis has posted some thoughts, and John Harrington has posted some contrary thoughts. And, in the comments two both articles, there is some good discussion. But, in that discussion—and in other discussions on similar topics—there’s often a missing point: Free is not a constant state that encompasses every use.
To use an example outside of photography for a minute, let’s look at music. Sure, the music business at the macro level isn’t the same at this point, and is made less so by the presence of the RIAA of which there’s no photographic equivalent. But, the end object files of both music and photography are the same in a digital world: encoded digital files that are used for enjoyment of one kind or another. Once made, they have a zero marginal cost to copy and share.
Most music today is effectively free, at least for most people and many purposes. Sure, there are those like myself who buy all the music that’s on their iPod from sources like the iTunes Music Store or Amazon or even from physical CD’s. But I know from talking with all of my friends that I’m in the minority on this. Many people I know pay for only a small amount of the music they possess. Some of them think I’m crazy for paying. Others think I’m just silly. But I pay because I want to support artists I like. And evidently, based on the success of the iTunes Music store and Amazon’s music service, there’s enough of us to support a business, although one that looks different than it did in years past.
But that’s not the only business for music. There are many other markets of music beyond personal enjoyment. To illustrate this, here’s a question for you. Even if you are in the majority that doesn’t pay for most of your music, do you believe that nobody should have to pay? And, I don’t just mean all of your friends with their iPods. I’m also including the big corps that use music in their advertising and their products which they use to derive a profit from? In other words, even if it’s OK for you to snag a track from a friend to listen to for your own enjoyment, is it OK for Coca-Cola to use that same track to put into an advertisement to sell you sugar high fructose corn syrup water on which they make their money?
Didn’t think so. The distinctions here form marketplaces. And the value to each marketplace is expressed differently.
Let’s apply this to photography: Is it OK for Fox to use a picture of a pug put onto Flickr as part of a football game telecast? Would it be OK for Toyota to use a picture you took that has a Prius in it to help sell more hybrids?
In a nutshell, the is one of the bright glowing lines that defines the border between markets. Commercial and non-commercial are the easiest distinction to see, but there are many others. As well, different markets will express their value of your product differently. Some, like the personal use market, can best express the value in terms of notoriety, respect, and attention. The value to other markets, like commercial advertising, is best expressed in cold hard cash.
This is what it means to say that free is not a constant state. Free in one market doesn’t mean free in all markets. And, by definition, if some uses shouldn’t be free, then you’ve just found some markets you can sell into even if you give your photographs away for free in others. Of course, the nature of the markets we have now is much different than in those in years past. In order to make a go of it, you’ll need to have two things: enough of a brand to be visible and the skills and vision to create great work.
This last point is one which I’m sure that Chase and I agree on totally. He says it well: “Hone your vision, develop your recognizable style, and get in gear to land commissions.” I’m taking that advice to heart on a daily basis these days.
Coming from a “free software” (as defined by the FSF) background, often the commercial/non-commercial line is blurred, especially in derivative (aka “right to tinker") uses.
Examples of this in the world of art and music example would be Andy Warhol’s use of the Campblell’s soup can, or sampling as goes on in most DJ-created music. The end result is far different from the original product, and may or may not result in royalties being owed to the original creator.
Fundamentally what you’re saying about things been free for one market but not for all is a standard capitalistic “charge what the market will bear” argument, minus the ability to set prices.
You’re probably not as annoyed that someone is using your photo, but that they’re profiting from it, and you’re not getting a cut.
I do consulting for a living. I charge based on time, and don’t expect to generate future income on a piece of software or script that I created. While may be annoying if someone took something I created and made a million bucks off of it, for me the start and end of my fiscal expectation is what I was originally paid.
One of the reasons I picked this type of work was specifically to avoid the quandary you mention. Find work you can get paid for and after you’ve been paid, don’t expect the results of that work to continue to bring in money.
Well that’s one way. The other is: here is my art. Use it for any non-commercial purpose you want. The second you want to make money from it, we have to renegotiate.
Seems like a perfectly reasonable approach to me, and only someone trying to rip you off would object.
Zack: Not all fields of endeavor are the same. Having worked on both open and closed source software and being a photographer, I've seen first hand how you can't apply one generalization to all fields. For example, one of the major benefits of sharing software is that software is fundamentally a collaborative effort. There are others, but it's a full essay on its own.
We do agree at one point tho, which I'd paraphrased from your comment as: Find work you can get paid for and do it.
Ryan: Exactly.
Interestingly, this happened to me recently (at least I discovered it recently). Ridelust, a car enthusiast blog, ripped off one of my photos. No attribution, no 'hi can we use this'... nothing. They also seem to be ignoring my attempts to contact them.
He's the flickr link for posterity: http://flickr.com/photos/ryanbooker/2573920526/