Many “groups” have reps that act as bridges between individuals who have something to sell and individuals who want to buy those things.

If the bridge entity were hip, streamlined, and took a small cut for the connection I think it might be both useful for photographers and also useful for buyers of photography.

I know a few people who do it for artists, maybe I’ll ask them how it works.

But, maybe the way to do it is through the web: a “facebook” like connection site where one entity is connected to another.

Just thinking out loud. But, I do think it’s more constructive to consider how you could help the person in question in this post make a connection with the movie company that was beneficial to all and also, easy.

Hey, maybe you should become a rep for these types of people.

http://www.aphotoeditor.com/2008/12/08/bil-zelman-shoots-pro-bono-but-not-for-free/

This is also interesting:

http://www.aphotoeditor.com/2008/12/10/time-magazine-trolling-for-free-pictures-on-flickr/

Over the past two years, Waxy Photography has donated more than $2000 in goods and services to local charities, including the British Columbia Children’s Hospital Foundation. I’m also currently running a print charity through my website where approximately 25% of the profits go to Children’s Hospital. I’m more than happy to help a worthy cause and hope it inspires people to pay it forward.

Maybe this photographer does — I really have no idea. This is where your non-judgmental comment speaks to me. That said, the Marval franchise is doing particularly well. It would have been something to see that Flickr post end with: I donated the cash to my local food bank. That’s my hope though I recognize I’m playing armchair photographer.

All the pieces are tossed up in the air and in my mind the best thing to do (for us individually) is to let them start to fall and sort out before we pass judgement. There will be casualties no doubt and some of them will hurt “good journalism” as we know it. I get it that a lone blogger can’t have a foreign bureau while The New York Times can but if the NY times is giving information away on the web how can they pay for it? They need a new model, simple as that and they’re struggling for one.

While I don’t agree with everything Larry Lessig says about copyright and CC and all, what i like about what he’s doing is that he’s exploring new ways of sharing information. He’s not against crediting authors and photographers but he’s trying to find ways of doing it that take better advantage of the new mediums people are publishing in now.

As far the the post above, I have no problem with any part of the process that led to it being in the movie, including the fact that the photographer didn’t want to have a contract or payment. That’s one more model to choose from. No doubt you won’t choose it, but some will. I fall somewhere in between: I give away a lot of work but I also sell and license work and had a license been offered for this image (if it were mine) I’d have done the license with the money attached. But, I fully support anyone in not going that route for whatever reason.

Maybe he should get an agent. I’m just sayin! :-)

I totally respect what you and many others are trying to do to educate photographers of their rights but I don’t call “rights” “responsibilities.” I call them rights. Once I know my rights it’s my right to do as I please with them.

In this case, the photographer, a busy web developer did not want to put time and energy into dealing with the photo licensing world, which, is his right. He felt it was easier to give the image away than deal with lawyers, contracts, etc. The money was not the point here, it was what he wanted to do.

While you and I might have handled it differently, I respect his right to do what he did.

I understand that working out licensing agreements is a pain, and can be more trouble than it is worth, but when a company is practically begging to give you money it seems unfair to those trying to make a living in the photography industry, like me.

Wired magazine wrote an article earlier this year saying that the photography and media industries have evolved. While the writer mentioned practitioners must find new ways to succeed, and even suggested giving some imagery away for free, I highly doubt this is what they were talking about.

For the past two years I have donated more than $2000 of photography goods and services to local charities. At a minimum, Mr. Keith should have been paid with a new laptop for his troubles or donated the money to a good cause.

$1500 buys a lot of turkeys for Thanksgiving.