5 ms·

I was enjoying this essay and "with" the author all the way until he suddenly swerved into imploring everyone to not give their work away for free, in order to

I was enjoying this essay and "with" the author all the way until he suddenly swerved into imploring everyone to not give their work away for free, in order to preserve the market value of the work of full-time professionals. This kind of argument has been used a lot against free open source software, and I doubt many readers of HN are very sympathetic to it.

eroded 15y ago
Indeed. I'm always surprised how many people believe they should be paid proportional to the amount of time and money that went into their product, regardless of demand. Their work is worth whatever the market will bear.
sp332 15y ago
There is a good point in artist circles, that you should never do free work "for exposure". Doing work for exposure is a great way to get more work... for exposure. But I agree he went a bit overboard on this one. Edit: just for those who don't remember, here's the epic Bill Gates incident from the dawn of the software industry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Letter_to_Hobbyists https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Letter_to_Hobbyists
- timwiseman 15y ago
  I do not think this follows. Linus Torvalds got well-paying work because of his free work on Linux. Of course, Torvalds is an outlier, but Cory Doctorow also does this. It makes sense that the best way to get work in certain fields is to have a reputation. Sometimes the best way to get that reputation is to give away a certain portion of your work.
  - sp332 15y ago
    Right, Torvalds started writing free software for a hobby. But then he got hired to work for a company. He didn't work for some company for free, hoping that some other company would hire him. There's a difference between doing whatever you want for free vs. working for a company for free.
    - MartinCron 15y ago
      Three simple scenarios. Bill Gates Selling software = great! Linus Torvalds giving software away = great! Bill Gates (or anyone) telling Linus Torvalds (or anyone) not to give software away for free = lame!
- MartinCron 15y ago
  You should only do free work "for exposure" if you want to do free work for exposure. Artists should have a realistic expectation of what value they'll get in exchange for their work, but the "never do it for exposure" advice feels a little one-size-fits-all. The Bill Gates thing is a bit different. He was explicitly selling copyrighted works and other people were copying and/or re-selling that. He never tried to discourage people from making their own software and giving it away for free.
joshcrews 15y ago
Open Source work for free AND not giving away photographs 'for exposure' to for-profit businesses are both allowed in the the Should I do this for Free? flowchart http://shouldiworkforfree.com/clean.html http://shouldiworkforfree.com/clean.html
- MartinCron 15y ago
  I don't think you interpreting that chart the same way I am.
MartinCron 15y ago
I also really hate this argument. I'm what you call a serious amateur photographer. I make images because I love the process of creating and sharing art. Telling me that I shouldn't ever share my work because it erodes the value of others who have an entirely different motive is borderline price-fixing. If you, as an established professional, can't compete with hobbyists and newcomers trying to break in, then you might need to find a different business model.
- Domenic_S 15y ago
  The sentiment on this thread would be really different if instead of an unnamed calendar, the client was Coke running a $3MM international campaign and offering the author $100. Why is that?
  - mirkules 15y ago
    The discussion is about two different things: 1. The amount of money offered for the author's work 2. Imploring others to not take "lowball" offers in order to preserve a certain pricing/business model. Regarding #1: Everyone is allowed to make any kind of offer, and the author is free to refuse them, just as he did. Photography is a business, and everyone is trying to make a deal to make a buck. If Coke offered $100, that's their prerogative, and it's up to the author to either haggle up higher, or refuse them flatly. Personally, I see no reason why the author was so offended -- the emails weren't rude, they weren't demanding, and the email person "L" was almost apologetic for having only $100 to spend. Since I don't know what company this is, we cannot make assumption on why the author thinks they will sell the calendars for $12.99 (although, there are religious undertones, and my suspicion and speculation is that they will not sell these at a huge profit as the author believes) Regarding #2, that's been covered well. If I want to sell my software at $0.99 per app and it undercuts the competition, great. We saw iOS developers complain that the $0.99 games are undercutting their profits, but it turned out to be a sustainable model. It's not my problem if I give my photos (or product) away for free and undercuts his model.
  - MartinCron 15y ago
    Probably because humans have a sense of perspective and fairness that isn't always in sync with what a purely rational economic actor would do. Just a guess. Something similar did happen to me. An ad agency found a photo* I had taken and wanted to use it in a campaign. I usually give things away to non-profits, but this was going to be a large-scale thing for a major drug company. I asked what price the person thought was fair and we settled on a reasonable price. Maybe I was lowballed? I don't know and don't really care. It was more than $100, though. I didn't set a nonzero price just because I wanted to protect other artists ability to make money off of their work, I set a price because I thought it would be cool to have some extra money to buy some new camera gear. * The picture in question: http://www.flickr.com/photos/martincron/2208026093/in/set-72157603762050058 http://www.flickr.com/photos/martincron/2208026093/in/set-72...
wtvanhest 15y ago
So I implore you to think twice about your actions the next time you are approached with a similar deal. Don’t help to erode the market for high-quality artwork just because you’re not relying on that market to feed yourself. Just because someone chooses to make a fun activity in to a job does not mean that person deserves to get paid for it. If they are not delivering economic value, they don't get paid. I cannot go in to my office and decide that I would rather sit around talking to people than putting in real work which adds value and expect to make my salary. There are types of photography that do pay OK, mainly wedding and event photography. The reason they pay more is because the photographer needs to be contracted to capture a specific image at a specific time. If you decide to be a landscape artist you are competing with every image made ever. This is not a good competitive position to be in and why people will give away their work for free.
- eli_gottlieb 15y ago
  This is true only if you equate "value" with "property", rivalrous and excludable private goods.
  - wtvanhest 15y ago
    For those not aware, Eli_gottlieb is referring to this 2X2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_good http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_good Photos are Rivalrous and Excludable as long as the photographer protects them by not posting full sized images or using watermarks. (see iStockphoto). I do associate value with that property, but that property is limited in value, not due to it not being rivalrous and excludable, but rather because of substitutes.
Domenic_S 15y ago
> This kind of argument has been used a lot against free open source software, and I doubt many readers of HN are very sympathetic to it. FOSS is a foot in the door -- how many of us get consulting contracts or even FT jobs implementing or managing that FOSS? FOSS doesn't run itself, unlike a photo that anyone can ship over to snapfish or uprint.
jonnathanson 15y ago
The truth, as with many things, probably falls somewhere between the author's stance and yours. The rise of "free" simply represents a new dynamic in the market for artistic works. To be fair, it is a dynamic that places downward pressure on prices, and that's not necessarily great for most artists. But it's a dynamic that the market has created and is absorbing, and so artists must come to terms with it. As an artist, you now have to think very carefully about how to price your work. If you believe your work is of exceptional quality, then by all means, price above the market. Likewise, if you believe your work appeals very specifically to a segment that's willing to pay X price, then go with X price and target that niche. If, on the other hand, your work is fairly generic, of average quality, or generally nothing special to any special groups of people, then making a living as an artist is going to be tough for you. Your choices are to price it to market (which may be $0), or differentiate substantially (enough to bear a nonzero price). Practically speaking, moral arguments on either side are somewhat irrelevant. Instead, what matters is the artist's positioning relative to everyone else. Today, more than ever, you'll have to make yourself special -- or specialized -- if you want to earn a decent living.
underwater 15y ago
That's a good point. This is the equivalent of a customer asking a small time developer to give away their proprietary product for free because there are competing open source products. The developer can either rage against open source or change their business model. The photographer can do the same by either a) take photos amateurs can't or won't take or b) take photos to order.
olalonde 15y ago
This was discussed at length here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3451145 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3451145

eroded 15y ago

Indeed. I'm always surprised how many people believe they should be paid proportional to the amount of time and money that went into their product, regardless of demand. Their work is worth whatever the market will bear.

sp332 15y ago

There is a good point in artist circles, that you should never do free work "for exposure". Doing work for exposure is a great way to get more work... for exposure. But I agree he went a bit overboard on this one. Edit: just for those who don't remember, here's the epic Bill Gates incident from the dawn of the software industry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Letter_to_Hobbyists https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Letter_to_Hobbyists

timwiseman 15y ago
I do not think this follows. Linus Torvalds got well-paying work because of his free work on Linux. Of course, Torvalds is an outlier, but Cory Doctorow also does this. It makes sense that the best way to get work in certain fields is to have a reputation. Sometimes the best way to get that reputation is to give away a certain portion of your work.
- sp332 15y ago
  Right, Torvalds started writing free software for a hobby. But then he got hired to work for a company. He didn't work for some company for free, hoping that some other company would hire him. There's a difference between doing whatever you want for free vs. working for a company for free.
  - MartinCron 15y ago
    Three simple scenarios. Bill Gates Selling software = great! Linus Torvalds giving software away = great! Bill Gates (or anyone) telling Linus Torvalds (or anyone) not to give software away for free = lame!
MartinCron 15y ago
You should only do free work "for exposure" if you want to do free work for exposure. Artists should have a realistic expectation of what value they'll get in exchange for their work, but the "never do it for exposure" advice feels a little one-size-fits-all. The Bill Gates thing is a bit different. He was explicitly selling copyrighted works and other people were copying and/or re-selling that. He never tried to discourage people from making their own software and giving it away for free.

joshcrews 15y ago

Open Source work for free AND not giving away photographs 'for exposure' to for-profit businesses are both allowed in the the Should I do this for Free? flowchart http://shouldiworkforfree.com/clean.html http://shouldiworkforfree.com/clean.html

MartinCron 15y ago
I don't think you interpreting that chart the same way I am.

MartinCron 15y ago

I also really hate this argument. I'm what you call a serious amateur photographer. I make images because I love the process of creating and sharing art. Telling me that I shouldn't ever share my work because it erodes the value of others who have an entirely different motive is borderline price-fixing. If you, as an established professional, can't compete with hobbyists and newcomers trying to break in, then you might need to find a different business model.

Domenic_S 15y ago
The sentiment on this thread would be really different if instead of an unnamed calendar, the client was Coke running a $3MM international campaign and offering the author $100. Why is that?
- mirkules 15y ago
  The discussion is about two different things: 1. The amount of money offered for the author's work 2. Imploring others to not take "lowball" offers in order to preserve a certain pricing/business model. Regarding #1: Everyone is allowed to make any kind of offer, and the author is free to refuse them, just as he did. Photography is a business, and everyone is trying to make a deal to make a buck. If Coke offered $100, that's their prerogative, and it's up to the author to either haggle up higher, or refuse them flatly. Personally, I see no reason why the author was so offended -- the emails weren't rude, they weren't demanding, and the email person "L" was almost apologetic for having only $100 to spend. Since I don't know what company this is, we cannot make assumption on why the author thinks they will sell the calendars for $12.99 (although, there are religious undertones, and my suspicion and speculation is that they will not sell these at a huge profit as the author believes) Regarding #2, that's been covered well. If I want to sell my software at $0.99 per app and it undercuts the competition, great. We saw iOS developers complain that the $0.99 games are undercutting their profits, but it turned out to be a sustainable model. It's not my problem if I give my photos (or product) away for free and undercuts his model.
- MartinCron 15y ago
  Probably because humans have a sense of perspective and fairness that isn't always in sync with what a purely rational economic actor would do. Just a guess. Something similar did happen to me. An ad agency found a photo* I had taken and wanted to use it in a campaign. I usually give things away to non-profits, but this was going to be a large-scale thing for a major drug company. I asked what price the person thought was fair and we settled on a reasonable price. Maybe I was lowballed? I don't know and don't really care. It was more than $100, though. I didn't set a nonzero price just because I wanted to protect other artists ability to make money off of their work, I set a price because I thought it would be cool to have some extra money to buy some new camera gear. * The picture in question: http://www.flickr.com/photos/martincron/2208026093/in/set-72157603762050058 http://www.flickr.com/photos/martincron/2208026093/in/set-72...

wtvanhest 15y ago

So I implore you to think twice about your actions the next time you are approached with a similar deal. Don’t help to erode the market for high-quality artwork just because you’re not relying on that market to feed yourself. Just because someone chooses to make a fun activity in to a job does not mean that person deserves to get paid for it. If they are not delivering economic value, they don't get paid. I cannot go in to my office and decide that I would rather sit around talking to people than putting in real work which adds value and expect to make my salary. There are types of photography that do pay OK, mainly wedding and event photography. The reason they pay more is because the photographer needs to be contracted to capture a specific image at a specific time. If you decide to be a landscape artist you are competing with every image made ever. This is not a good competitive position to be in and why people will give away their work for free.

eli_gottlieb 15y ago
This is true only if you equate "value" with "property", rivalrous and excludable private goods.
- wtvanhest 15y ago
  For those not aware, Eli_gottlieb is referring to this 2X2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_good http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_good Photos are Rivalrous and Excludable as long as the photographer protects them by not posting full sized images or using watermarks. (see iStockphoto). I do associate value with that property, but that property is limited in value, not due to it not being rivalrous and excludable, but rather because of substitutes.

Domenic_S 15y ago

> This kind of argument has been used a lot against free open source software, and I doubt many readers of HN are very sympathetic to it. FOSS is a foot in the door -- how many of us get consulting contracts or even FT jobs implementing or managing that FOSS? FOSS doesn't run itself, unlike a photo that anyone can ship over to snapfish or uprint.

jonnathanson 15y ago

The truth, as with many things, probably falls somewhere between the author's stance and yours. The rise of "free" simply represents a new dynamic in the market for artistic works. To be fair, it is a dynamic that places downward pressure on prices, and that's not necessarily great for most artists. But it's a dynamic that the market has created and is absorbing, and so artists must come to terms with it. As an artist, you now have to think very carefully about how to price your work. If you believe your work is of exceptional quality, then by all means, price above the market. Likewise, if you believe your work appeals very specifically to a segment that's willing to pay X price, then go with X price and target that niche. If, on the other hand, your work is fairly generic, of average quality, or generally nothing special to any special groups of people, then making a living as an artist is going to be tough for you. Your choices are to price it to market (which may be $0), or differentiate substantially (enough to bear a nonzero price). Practically speaking, moral arguments on either side are somewhat irrelevant. Instead, what matters is the artist's positioning relative to everyone else. Today, more than ever, you'll have to make yourself special -- or specialized -- if you want to earn a decent living.

underwater 15y ago

That's a good point. This is the equivalent of a customer asking a small time developer to give away their proprietary product for free because there are competing open source products. The developer can either rage against open source or change their business model. The photographer can do the same by either a) take photos amateurs can't or won't take or b) take photos to order.

olalonde 15y ago

This was discussed at length here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3451145 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3451145