Stuff for free… a moral questionning…

In another thread (here) I have created link to download an action for sharpening and enhance tone mapping of pictures.

Some thoughts of the night about sharing action (meaning giving them) in a public forum…

As time goes and looking to further improvements to be brung by Bart and Michael I just wonder if we're doing right.

We as pro photographers do fight seriously every day against photos free of rights because we want to protect our living…

By the same time we share and give a tool that may compete some commercial action or plugins. Therefore we do make competion to those who make their living with developping (even small) software.

I have never used a photo without paying rights, I have never made a copy of a music CD and give it to anyone, I have always ended buying software that I had got 'for free' and tried with satisfaction, I have never been on a peer to peer platform. Because on the contrary I would have been a thief, I would have stolen someone…
I don't want to give anyone any lesson of moralism, but at least, I wish I don't do to others what I wouldn't like one to do to me. And YES I had a lot of pictures used without my consent, stolen from my website or distributed "unconsciously by some clients.

Hence my questionning, hence my wondering to keep the sharpening action as an advanced amateur/non pro level…

I know the web may help to share and help to make contributive work, I loved (even if I never used it) the principe of Linux…

I would be very glad to give it to OPF (after improvements), OPF could sell it a small price as maybe 15 or 20$ and this could help to pay (hopefully) for some web storage for hosting galleries…


So what do YOU think?

Would you buy such utilitty? and/or other to be created by OPF members?

Am I just dreaming? the moral thing still there…

Not directly in answer to your question, but relevant in my mind, is something I did today.

Seven years ago I left a store (Target) and inadvertently walked out with a two-liter bottle of soda (worth about one USD) that I did not pay for. I just did not see it when I put my things on the counter to pay. Today, I went back to that store and explained what I'd done, that I was embarrassed and did not return and pay for it. I paid the $1.07 today.

To answer directly: Yes, I would pay if there were a tool I needed and it was for sale. Far too many do not feel that way. The answer as to what should be done lies in each person, I think. What do YOU think is right? You can't stop others from transgressing. Only your actions are under your control and then only sometimes. All we can do is live according to our own ethics and realize not everyone else will.

Now, to the larger part of your question: Providing competition for commercial developers. The answer to that depends on your views on a free market system and regulation. Does the free market cause us to develop better mousetraps? What are ethical implications of such competition? There are arguments with merit on both sides.

So, after four paragraphs of rambling, my answer in nutshell form is this: I dunno. Really good question!

Nicolas Claris said:

...By the same time we share and give a tool that may compete some commercial action or plugins. Therefore we do make competion to those who make their living with developping (even small) software...

Click to expand...

Hi Nicolas,

I am sorry but I disagree with this line of thought. You are assuming that a commercial company is going to lose sales since this action of yours is available as free software. If we would have been such extreme idealist to pay attention to these kind of situations, then we would be able to do nothing at all. For example, I would stop taking pictures on holidays since I might disadvantage a poor local photographer who could have earned some money picturing me in front of a landmark. Now how does that sound?

For the rest, I obviously agree . I would pay for it if it would add value to me. But remember, along the same line of thought, since I do not earn money selling my photos I should not have to pay for such tools either <LOL>.

Cheers,

Hi Nicolas,

The problem is if it's a forum, the idea is, in my mind, that things are shared. So, you spend a few hours developing an action, others spend a few hours answering questions, giving advice. Which is worth the most?

There are many free photoshop actions, often used as loss leaders, or stripped down trial versions of more complete versions. One thing, you do not want to get bogged down in is in offering support for something you have done for free. I think you would only make a few sales, before it either was bested by some other action, or was freely available on a ptp network.

Now, wrt business morals, that's an oxymoron, if ever there was one.

Personally, I think if you develop it further, with Bart's and Michael's input, provided it works well for you three, then that would be fine. If you then think it is good enough to sell, then post it the 'for sale forum' or wherever, then, if you wish, give all/some of the payment towards opf. I do not think it wants to be confused in the purchaser's mind between a donation to opf or buying a product. I think it could work, if segregated as in the fm forum, but I've no idea of the amount of sales made there.

I think, if you really think about it, you probably break a few laws, moral or otherwise, each day, I do, everybody does, it's just that our lines are drawn differently.

Best wishes,

Ray

I'll second what Ray said, but go further. Sometimes there is no "right" answer and every option is less than ideal from an ethical standpoint (sort of like voting, isn't it?).

I partially agree with Ray, if you make the action a product then you may have to support it (if it needs support that is).

On the other hand, it depends on what the income is used for. Carribean holidays may not go down to well with OPF members unless there's free tutorial DVD to follow!

Websites and bandwidth cost money, some blatanly advertise, other use homegrown products to fund.

OPF is pretty unique, I say if the product is sold for a notional amount and the income is used to help promote and build OPF along the same vein then go for it!

These type of products have a short lifecycle so, I wouldn't worry too much about the effect on the competition, most are resilient enough to respond.

Nicolas --

I'll ignore your question -- it far too cerebral for my current state of mind. Besides, I'm no good at answers... I'm much better at asking questions anyway!

But I will point out the obvious: the code in question is a PS Action Script -- Adobe put the functionality into PS to write scripts, and import and export them. And share them. I don't think Adobe had in mind that people can make a living selling action scripts. Further they put in the functionality to create plug-ins, which can be copy protected, and therefore are a better platform for a business model.

But let me take the question to the next level -- suppose you post a note on a public forum of profound intellectual substance, such as my post here ;-). Would you agree that this -- my profound intellectual contribution -- should be regarded in the same light as your intellectual contribution of a piece of action script?

You could (and perhaps should) argue that your action script does indeed have value from which someone could make money --- and that my post is really nothing more verbal blather from 'some guy on the internet'. And you would be exactly right, and I'll concede that one in a heartbeat. Nonetheless, we both have posted contributions. Should they be treated equally from an intellectual property standpoint? (I have no idea)

Nicholas, your posting of the PS action resulted in a thread that made the action better. It's now (I hope) better for you as well. The strength of community is like a rising tide -- it equally lifts all the boats big and small. Your action, and my posts, and your posts, and everyone else's posts all lift the tide. Would you still post your action if you knew someone was selling it -- or preparing to sell it? I would guess not, but I hope you will admit that the action is better now. Your contribution resulted in a return back to you. Likewise, I hope that this post of mine will result in me learning something new that I can use. I actually think it has already -- just putting the words down helps gather and clarify my thoughts -- before I have even pressed the submit button.

Perhaps you have given away some of your secret recipe for making great photos, but has the process of doing so given you an opportunity to make your own work even better?

As I said, I'm better at asking questions than I am at answering them!


Ron

Not sure

If I write a form letter that you can use for selling your photography and I share it with you so you don't have to write one of your own and I put it up here for all to use as a courtesy then that is my choice. By the same token, I wrote it, I can copyright it, and I can choose to allow you to use my letter. Or I can set a price for it and sell it. If you want it you can use it for a fee.

Depends on the business model you decide to use as the owner of it, as I see it!

I have no clue regarding the moral question. However, while you are all busy debating and evaluating each others morals (ethics, methinks would be more correct in this case) I have downloaded both before Nic changes his mind. So there.

Merci, Nic, ....et bonsoir.
-Greg

Rachel Foster said:

So, after four paragraphs of rambling, my answer in nutshell form is this: I dunno.

Click to expand...

LoL Rachel, so we're 2 now!
This is the main reason I did create this thread, at least if it can bring others to think about "free market" instead of just getting profit of it, then it's already enough for me…

Cem Usakligil said:

For example, I would stop taking pictures on holidays since I might disadvantage a poor local photographer who could have earned some money picturing me in front of a landmark. Now how does that sound?

Click to expand...

Hi Cem
If you do shoot images during your holidays, and if you give them for free to publishers (magazines, stock agencies etc.) then you put the so called 'poor' photographer in trouble.
If you keep the photos for you, make prints of them to put in your living room or share a slideshow with your friends when returning, I see no problem there…
How does that sound to you?

Ray West said:

I think, if you really think about it, you probably break a few laws, moral or otherwise, each day, I do, everybody does, it's just that our lines are drawn differently.

Click to expand...

Hi Ray
that is really true!

Otherwise, for me the question is for the principle, I don't even know if the action is good enough to be sold, this is not the problem in fact.
As others has mentionned it is more a problem of ethic.

If I had already the answer to my own question, I would have either:
- posted the action and not created this thread…
- not posted the action… and this tread wouldn't exist, even in my mind.

oxywhat ? ;-)

Kathy Rappaport said:

Depends on the business model you decide to use as the owner of it, as I see it!

Click to expand...

Yes Kathy, but business model are partly based on ethics… or should be, whatever ethic is considered.

No ethic is a kind of ethic…

Again, oxywhat? ;-)

(Ps Where's that letter, can"t find it! ;-)

Ron,

I'll have to re-read and dig your post before answering… if needed!

Greg,
do I need to comment? Thanks for the thanks.

Your post is clear answer to my question. The first one… not questionning one self is also a kind of ethic…

Nicolas Claris said:

Originally Posted by Cem Usakligil
For example, I would stop taking pictures on holidays since I might disadvantage a poor local photographer who could have earned some money picturing me in front of a landmark. Now how does that sound?

Click to expand...

Hi Cem
If you do shoot images during your holidays, and if you give them for free to publishers (magazines, stock agencies etc.) then you put the so called 'poor' photographer in trouble.
If you keep the photos for you, make prints of them to put in your living room or share a slideshow with your friends when returning, I see no problem there…
How does that sound to you?

Click to expand...

Dear Nicolas,

Let me emphasise in advance that I respect you very highly. So this answer is absolutely not meant as disrespect, it just voices how I think on this issue. But you've asked for it, haven't you?

You are assuming that in case I am so good (or have the required connections) to have a picture of mine published in a (possibly local Dutch) magazine, then a theoretical photographer somewhere in for instance Greece will suffer by that action. And what difference would it make, if at all, if I sold my pictures rather than giving to a magazine for free?

BTW, I know that the EC thinks along the similar lines as you do when it comes to protecting regioanal products. For example, feta cheese can nowadays carry that label only if it is actually produced in Greece. So the question is then, are the pictures of Parthenon as a landmark also to be copyrighted to the sole exercise of Greek photographers? In another example, is one not allowed to take pictures of Yosemite if he/she is not a descendant of Mr. Adams?

Well, I hope you get my point. In other words, the poor photographer should then have taken better pictures to start with and sell them to publications on his/her own merit. Opportunity lies everwhere, if you miss it due to your own shortcomings, you should not go around blaming others for that.

I will make one exception to my standpoint. In some cases, I know that I directly can hurt the income of a local SME. Such as when some friend asks me to photograph their wedding. When that happened, I have always refused and pointed them to the established photographers in town. Also, please remember that I was the one who has started this thread about protecting local retail shops more than a year ago ;-).

Regards,

Hi Cem,

some friend asks me to photograph their wedding.

Click to expand...

I think you should find out what your local wedding guy charges, and you charge your 'friend' twice as much, and give most of it to your local guy.

'some friend', we all have 'em.

Best wishes,

Ray


PS, but if your friend is skint, and couldn't afford the local guy, wouldn't it be nice to give them a wedding album ;-)

Bonjour Nicolas

I agree on the ©-stuff, as I handle it the same way. Basicaly, apart from the own experience, of having images stolen, too, I think it's important to give these °small° developers a chance to enhance their ideas, which is done only when supporting them.

Quite a lot of people don't share that insight: on the left hand, they use cracked versions, of little tools, instaed of paying the small fee; on the right hand, they cry loud against the big gorillas: a deviousness .....

That said, I think nobody makes his living with PS-actions; so your idea wouldn't take anybodys bread away.

Pro-Version vs freebe:
Why not both? A simple, rudimentary one for free, but the more complex one for a few dollars? As the ProVersion will save lots of time within a commercial context, it's fair enough to use the small fee for sharing OPF's costs. I dunno how high these are, but the admins/mods shouldn't pay it, beside their work...

Therefore, if I can contribute in that way for enhancing OPFs possibilities, I'm glad to do so.

Cem

no worry about the tone, we're still firends!

I'll answer your post later as it is quite long and needs time to read carefully…

Michael:
thanks for your position, I lean to be on the same side, I'm affraid we may be named as "old Europeans" in the mouth of Mr. Bush…

Didn't Time Magazine wrote (cover page, tout de même !) that "France has lost it's culture?" (or some words alike)

Moral Dilemma - skill vs connections

Let's say you have two photographers.

One has all the technical skills and does extraordinary work but is shy, does not command language well and does not have any ability to make connections and market themselves.

The other photographer, can take a picture, but is outgoing, has business accumen and knows about marketing and sales - has a lot of connections.

Does it make it wrong for the second photographer to sell work that is not the same ability/quality or technical merit of the first photographer?

Kathy Rappaport said:

Does it make it wrong for the second photographer to sell work that is not the same ability/quality or technical merit of the first photographer?

Click to expand...

Well the second found a client to pay for, then the competition on the commercial level is fair…

But if you mean that we're not all equally free and equal, I do agree. Or as we say in France, we're not equal the same (dunno if it is a correct translation…)

I think Kathy makes an interesting point, regarding marketing, and that was where my thought process was leading before reading her post.

In this case, let's say there is an action out there somewhere, for sale, that for the sake of argument is comparable to yours, Nic. I don't feel badly for the author of this hypothetical action author because......he or she did not reach out to me (as Kathy already alluded to). Had such been the case, whatever it might have taken to market, I'd have already purchased the hypothetical action and very likely not even looked at yours, not even out of curiosity.

I do not speak from lack of empathy, quite the opposite. The absolute glaring weak point of my business (not photog-related) is marketing. We are awful, mostly because we are made up of a bunch of introverts who 'don't want to bother anyone'....which alludes back to Kathy's comment on the hypothetical shy person. Do I expect anyone to feel sorry for us because we don't know how to market? Nope. What would I think if somebody gave away a competing service for free? Well, I'd giggle myself silly is all.

Now wait, that sounded as if you did something silly. Not at all. This is a friendly place with a nice group of people, and you shared your creation (and for that matter, your creativity). That's not silly, that is thoughtful.

It is kind of you to be concerned, however, and speaks highly in case of both your ethics and morals.

Just a noon ramble......
-Greg

Another twist....

Let's say the shy photographer decides that to try to get business they lower their price or give away a sample. You are the competition and your price is higher - your costs are higher because of marketing and advertising.

Digital has done that across the markets - new people are coming in and giving away photography where it used to cost. Many long time photographers are financially hurting because of the new market.

So what is fair or what is right?

Sad but true....

Kathy Rappaport said:

...So what is fair or what is right?

Click to expand...

As Ray has summarized this very powerfully before, a fair and righteous business in a free capitalistic economy is indeed an oxymoron. But it doesn't mean that one shouldn't try to be fair and righteous as much as possible. It is possible to attain it under certain circumstances but it will fail terribly in many others . Just my $ 0.02...

Cheers,