What is Digg?60 Comments
- thebaron2, on 10/12/2007, -4/+21Yeah, the internet DEFINITELY "decreases the pool of information available to audiences."
Are you ***** kidding me? - Stonedonkey, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10The more people rely on a single information database, the more likely that flow of data can get pinched. What's the point of democratizing the Web with countless blogs, when they all point back to the same corporate site for a given news story? We are, in fact, sliding away from multiple, independent, authoritative sources -- in favor of huge, policed communities as gateways *to* that information.
- delta013, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7@StanleyKoolPrik
So how much does your "real job" as a part-time troll pay? - DavidYeah, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11This is something that the blue collar worker has been dealing with for a long time now. Jobs are now being sent overseas to people who will work for much less; it's the exact same complaint as this white collar worker is presenting about photography-- people doing his job for less or for free.
I bet if a guy that lost his factory job complained about it, there would be little sympathy for him; and his argument is just as valid as this photagrapher's - ricree, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6@Stonedonkey
You raise some good points, but there are a lot of positives as well. For one thing, the internet has made it a lot harder for media outlets to kill off stories once they have been published. If a topic is something that people care about, the topic will continue to remain in the public's sight whether the media outlets like it or not.
Similarly, the internet makes it a lot harder for the media to ignore stories that concern us. Think of all the times that some of the bad legislation being put out by congress has been discussed here. How many of these stories would rate more than a little blurb in the middle of a newspaper?
Also, don't forget how much easier it is to discredit BS on the internet. Think of the doctored photos earlier this year. How much exposure would they have gotten if the people who were knowledgeable enough to point it out weren't able to get easy access to the large audiences the internet provides.
Like all new things, there will be some negatives that come along with the internet. As I see it, however, the positives seem to easily outweigh the negatives. - chongli, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7It seems to me that the article author is upset that the once exhorbitant fees commanded by professional photographers have disappeared in a puff of smoke. He said it best with this quote:
"I already hear you telling me to stop crying into my beer as the world doesn't owe me a living, and that expanding imagery on the Web has democratised the medium."
However, the remainder of the article is an attack on "micro-stock photography" websites that I am beginning to see more often from photographers. He claims that these large corporations are driving down the market prices for photographs and are the only ones able to protect their works from unauthorized use. What he fails to realize is that if copyright is abolished, the entire archives of these sites will become freely available and the corporations behind them will fall. I doubt these companies could protect the photos with no copyright law to back them. - Chandon, on 10/12/2007, -8/+14The author contradicts himself in a manner which destroys his whole argument.
First, he says that only Big Business can benefit from copyright. Then, he says that removing copyright would be destroying the protection for the little guy. Which is it? I say the former.
As copyright becomes less enforceable, the world is changing - largely for the better. Professional photography is one of the fields that needs to change to keep up with the realities of the world. It's still possible to make money taking photos, and it would be even in a world utterly without copyright, they just have to be good enough to make people want to buy them. If there were no copyright at all then the seller might have to use an NDA during the negotiation, but that's not hard.
In todays world, where copyright really does primarily benefit large companies at the expense of the common good, content creators really need to take that fact to heart when evaluating copyright law. It doesn't protect the little guy, and it shouldn't be defended on that basis. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8translation: Call the waaaaaambulance, I can't make a living anymore traveling the world and observing it. I dont' want a get a real job, shut down the internet please! This guy is retarded. News outlets will still pay for high resolution, exclusive photos. Obviously they ain't going to pay you jack if they can get something similar off of flikr. If you don't like the news, why don't you try reporting it yourself? Then you can really see how much your photos are worth. Things are changing, evolove or die.
- smhill, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5You have a serious contradiction here:
"The individual can distribute his content as see with fliker, you tube, photobucket. ... We need to stop letting the few profit from others work."
That (in part) is what the original article is talking about. Flickr, YouTube, PhotoBucket, etc are all in the business of distributing content and making money. Your content, which you don't get a dime for, yet these companies are doing pretty damn well.
If you look at it from that perspective, which is worse, RIAA or YouTube? At least RIAA ensures the artist gets something. YouTube/Flickr does not, and in some cases charges you. (via viewing ads or premiere accounts)
By the same token, look at Digg. Digg doesn't pay a single person to produce or gather content, yet content is the only thing they offer. Digg's success is entirely based on its community. The concept is not really that innovative, no real cutting edge technology, just the right combination of existing concepts and a little buzz and bingo, a cash machine for a few folks.
I am not bashing on the work of the Digg staff or YouTube or others, but that is the point the author is making which you are agreeing with but are entirely missing the point. - thinsoldier, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Kind of makes me wonder why website designers don't complain about free amateur services like myspace or.... geocities.
Here's what I'm thinking:
I need a 8x10 (print quality) photo of a dog wearing a red/white santa hat.
istockphoto.com has at least 20 images that fit the description and work in the layout I need it for.
All of these photos only cost $5!!!....I say FTFA.
The people who supply the photos to istockphoto know they can only sell for $5 maximum. They aren't being robbed on tricked. Yet they still choose to sell them. And I will choose to buy from them over a similar photo on Corbis that costs at least $50.00 minimum!
I'm sure for less than $20 I can get a hat to put on my neighbour's dog borrow a halfway decent digital camera and spend 30 minutes taking over 50 photos in different locations around the house. Most likely at least 1 out of the 50 will be usable. If not, I can always send the best 30 photos to a friend online with photography skills and ask for pointers to take a better photo.
Now lets imagine something interesting happened in a public place. Maybe the event lasted only 3 minutes. Not nearly enough time for a newspaper to be notified and dispatch a photographer and writer halfway across town to cover it. BUT if 93 people got a 'good enough' photo of whatever it was.....supply and demand....
1 newspaper wants 1 of 90 photos. Somebody is going to sell 1 to them cheap. Even if that 1 person is smart enough to demand royalties from every other time that photo gets used, a 2nd newspaper can avoid that charge by just buying another photo from another person who was there.
And, most likely at least 5 of those people have a blog and they will post the photo online freely. 1 of them may even have some writing skills and add a good article to the photo just to drive more traffic to their site. Who knows, they might get dugg to death and wind up making a couple $$ off their google ads and get a jump in page rank. That might be worth more than what the local paper was offering.
You professional journalists have the balls and connections to go into war zones and get the shots the amateurs never could. That deserves hundreds of thousands of dollars and copyrights in my opinion. Stick to that and you'll be fine. - messiah, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I agree with you, The only people who it has disempowered are the ones who "thought" they had an important role in society only to now find out that "anyone with a camera can do what I do", sure the "quality" is not there, but really when you look at the majority of photo's taken for example a news article, unless that article is as everlasting as 9/11 most people will only view them once or twice anyhow. If you dont beleive me think about when the last time you saw a photo of hurricane Katrina........ its been a while and it has only been 18 months since it happened, and mostly already forgotten
- hackwrench, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3In the meantime people who want to be honest have to curtail themselves so as not to step on a copyright landmine- situations where the person upstream didn't respect copyrights in their compilation. To the person who doesn't wish to offend, copyright isn't already dead.
It seems to me that the author misreads why people have the perception of "if it's on the web, it's either free, or I'm gonna nick it anyway". It doesn't seem to me that the question of whether the copyright owner can afford it enters into the thought process. There is no process to come to an arrangement with a copyright holder so that the copyright holder will say yes to any use that the copyright holder did not plan for well in advance. People don't ask when they believe the answer is no, and eventually it gets entrenched that this is the way things are done. And if this is the way things are done, there's no purpose in asking if the copyright holder can afford it. - lysdexia, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I'm a professional photographer and the Internet has done wonders for my business. If I was an American I believe this might be the right time to say ' your mileage may vary'.
The guy makes several valid points in his article - but perhaps he's missing the importance of marketing on the back of the, well, exposure provided for on the Internet.
He also misses a very important point - photography is like everything else in the market - you get what you pay for. And all these stolen images - theft doubtlessly - don't matter much in the final analysis because,
1. They were never ever going to be paid for anyway.
2. Who really pays attention to the zillion blogs and sites with perhaps 17 or 18 hits - maybe even 120! - a month?
3. The best photographers continue to get hired and well paid providing services and art that most snappers can only dream of due to their extreme lack of talent.
Meet the new boss - lame as the old boss. - XopherMV, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2No, the guy's complaint is that all the people doing the work are him and the public. But, the only people making the money are the big corporations, who steal the copyrights and use them for themselves for their own benefit. He doesn't make any money. And neither does the public.
The corporations take and use these pictures under the guise of making reporting more "democratic". However, the form of government where a million people do all the work and a small number of people take all the profits is not democracy. It is closer to communism, authoritarianism, or fascism. - doctornkul, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The author is basically saying that 1) only big Corporations make money when there's a strong Copyright law and 2) the little guy doesn't make money when there's a weak Copyright law (but big Corps still make money). Which is contradictory because he's going against the Anti-Copyright movement even though according to him he's in trouble either way.
And I agree with the general consensus here. He basically admits he's in trouble either way: that's about the time you know you need to change. - gregwbrooks, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Absolutely right! For my wedding, we hired a photojournalist from the local newspaper and had him shoot the event as if it were a photo essay or news story - absolute minimum of formal shots. Our agreement included full ownership of the negatives and copyright; we allowed him to retain promotional rights to use the images in his marketing and business development efforts. And you know what? The photos were spectacular!
- rzendealvez, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2the problem is that big corps in the end also favour the little guy or they wouldn't exist. where i live in the last decade or so the big business blown thousands of small stores out of the water but that is because they are able to sell at cheaper prices which in the end is a good thing for the little guy.
- JonnyTrombone, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Just because you haven't heard of any given artist doesn't mean they aren't making money. I'm told anyone can make a killing selling modern art in Houston, TX. Rich oil-tycoons just buy up any sort of pretentious "art" crap, I guess.
- JonnyTrombone, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Art, though, is automatically copyright of its creator. So all this guy needs to do is sue a newspaper that steals his photographs. Maybe the RIAA will help- they seem to love copyright protection.
- xister, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Good move putting "prik" in your name- suits you well...
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5totally incoherent
- 5hop4orce, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"The individual can distribute his content as see with fliker, you tube, photobucket."
Okay, but you fail to show how any of that has anything to do with copyright. - xister, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1With greater connectivity and greater access to the world at large comes greater personal responsibility. If you have a truly unique image/movie/ piece of content, why on earth would you "give" it to a news agency, or a corporation? SELL it to them if it's something newsworthy, even if it's a cell phone image. Stock imaging has always been and always be just that- silly photos that are cheap and don't mean much. The internet didn't change anything in regards to that. But find an image like this in those stock images :
http://www.time.com/time/yip/2002/conflict/3.html
These are the ones that photographers get paid well for in the media. How many cell phone or stock images do you think made it into a glossy mag this year? Piddling few compared to the professionally shot images... - xister, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1....as far as youTube, Digg (et al), it would be nice if a model would come along in which everyone could opt in for a piece of the pie.
- OBKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1They don't just buy modern art. That's a trend for corporate buyers right now, but for their homes they also like to buy antique Americana and they still love their big-name fine art.
Anyway, I don't think the point was that you can't make money as an artist, the point was that a select few control the mainstream distribution channels. It's not really about profit, but about who decides what's newsworthy, and who decides what's "good'?
The situation is the same for the food industry. Most farms have been long ago taken over by corporations. Everything is franchised from the farm to the transport to the point of sale. It is killing small businesses in America. - smhill, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3But the "revolution" is not for the good.
It is making the separation wider. The big companies are all still there and still making money. What is changing is that the people/companies at the top are making a wider profit margin because they can stop paying content producers. Fewer people are making more money.
People are still being told what to think/read/etc... mob rules/herd mentality/pop culture whatever you want to call it will always be around to a degree. Digg is a perfect example. Several common topics are always on the front page, it is just human nature. That has nothing to do with what is going on.
What this is about is that companies now have found a new way to "exploit" content producers willingly by slapping on the label "community". - delta013, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Big corporations have been stomping out "the little guy" for longer then the Internet has been around. Walmart vs. Ma & Pa Groceries, Home Depot vs. Joe's Hardware. It seems the little guys only exist to fill a need while big businesses develop a model to blow them out of the water. Copyright does nothing to help this. There have been many cases of large corporations stealing works from smaller authors. The author is then not empowered by copyright, because he has no money for a lawyer.
- thinsoldier, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I predict photo distributors being replaced with a well designed website paid for by a massive collective of photographers who's work comprises the contents of that site.
As more recording artists get used to using the internet and more aspiring audio engineers/producers discover that there are cheap but good software/hardware alternatives to recording studios and more of both discover each other...the same prediction will apply to the music industry. - tk121, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3I completely diagree. It's easy to say the internet has dis empowered the individual, but when you look at the what it's created and the voice it's given to the people, its hard to agree with this. Big business will always make millions off of advertising and new technology, but the internet had empowered the idividual (despite the bif business gains) more than any other technology in history.
- deeceefar2, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I think his point was good, referring to relevant content not content in general. I think his argument is that because photography is becoming a less viable method of making money, it will be ruled by large corporations dealing in bulk photos, and the content that those companies sell will be homogenized.
At any rate I think his argument fails. The issue is not that there will be less valuable content. But much the same as with the internet as a whole, it becomes a game of mining that content out of the millions of crap pictures that are out there, and keeping the person who wants that conent from getting information overload while looking for it.
I could definitely envision photography transforming to more of a service industry and less of a commodity industry, but there will always be events that are too important not to be documented by a professional. People just need to get used to the fact that our economy is changing very quickly and if you want to survive you need to learn to adapt rather then fight the current. - HonoredMule, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"People just need to get used to the fact that our economy is changing very quickly and if you want to survive you need to learn to adapt rather then fight the current."
When has that ever NOT been true? For previous generations it was adjusting to NOT having the same employer for life, and a comfy corporate pension. 'Death of a Salesman' comes to mind...poor Willy Lohman and his failing photography business model. - lysdexia, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Uh-huh.
$50 gets you a quality image fit for the purpose in an instant. $20 (or less) gets you the same thing - but only after you race around looking for one that is of suitable quality. Many stock-libraries sell complete ***** - but what really happens is that most of it simply doesn't sell because it is - after all - complete *****.
Every minute spent on the chase for the cheap (but hopefully still golden) goose saves money. If your time is cheap, of course. - fantasticjon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@lysdexia
Yes, Because all really good photographers are greedy and unreasonable. - xister, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Funny, he made pic of the day at Life Magazine... No sarcasm meant, but I wonder how much they paid him for that?
- HonoredMule, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1There's already NO protection for the little guy. Removing copyright protection just equalizes the playing field. Or that's what he's saying. IMHO what's really needed is a legislative method to abolish the current system of harvesting copyrights rather than producing content.
- Chandon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Oh man. I wish I could get away with that ***** as a contract programmer. "Yea... that code I wrote for you, I retained the copyright on it. Your new server? That'll be a $10,000 license fee. Thanks." Them: "But we contracted you to write it!". Me: "This is standard terms... for a photographer."
- benb, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Copyright, at its heart is a good thing. It is the trend of trying to create what amounts to perpetual copyright by constantly adding time to the terms that is becoming a problem.
If people/companies are stealing images, especially newspapers, then they owe you money. From what I've heard, it is pretty easy to collect your fee, especially if you submitted the image(s) to the copyright office. Most companies will rather pay the proper amount than risk a fine of $150k for a violation. At least that is what the fine is in the US, I think.
Of course, there will always be those who are willing to give images/content away. It is something that the industry is going to have to adapt to. That being said, I know more paid photographers now than I did 5 years ago. - fantasticjon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1When I think of professional photographers, my knee-jerk reaction is to cringe. I think their industry needs a little reform.
Mainly what I am talking about is the times when we as consumers have to directly pay them. Of course I am talking about studio and wedding protographers. I don't mind compensating them for their time. I mean my sister paid $800 to have her photographer at a wedding. Not to shabby for half a day's work. What really pisses me off is almost all of them want to keep the copyright for the pics you paid them to take. That is total BS. What the hell do they need the copyright of your studio or wedding pics for. So down the road, they can charge you $100 for an 8x10 you forgot to get for Grandma. I will not pay any photographer who will not release their "copyright."
- 15charmaxwtf, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Oh BOO HOO. It is hard to feel sorry for people that rely on violence (or the threat of) to make money. If someone owns a printer or whatever it is their printer, they don't fully own it if they can't use it to print a particular copyrighted photo or something. If there is a copyright law it has to be enforced.
- nobogeys217, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I have never really thought of copyright infringement w/ photos. I know you copyright them but I havent really ever heard of anyone suing/getting sued over photo copyright infringement.
- SobyOne, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Author clearly doesn't understand copyright law.
If you work for a company, without a shared copyright clause in you contract, the company owns your work... regardless of the medium. This holds true for the written word as well.
So how does a reporter make a living? - Wolfboy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I have a friend who is a professional photographer who regularly goes to war zones in Afghanistan, Iraq, Africa, Lebanon, etc. He literally risks his life to get those pictures. He's been in battles and firefights and ambushes.
It costs a lot of money -- airfare, translators, hotel, ground transportation, security, body armor, satellite phone, etc.
He's one of the best in the business and regularly wins top prizes. His pictures appear on the covers of newspapers and magazines around the world and on many news services web sites.
I also see his pictures on many places that obviously never paid for them. Every time, it lowers the monetary value of his photos. That situation can't last. He's lucky now that he works for an agency that is big enough to absorb the losses. When he was freelance, he went broke. - mousky, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1That is a fallacy propagated by the so-called small guy or "mom & pop" shop. Big companies don't put small companies out of business. Small companies put them self out of business by not adapting. Perhaps some people got sick and tired of paying a premium at their local 'ma & pa" store because ma & pa had no competition. Other people got sick and tired of the limited quantity, again because their was no competition. Nothing everything was 'rosy' with ma & pa stores.
Your comment about Home Depot vs. Joe's Hardware couldn't be any more wrong. While there may be a initial decline in sales at smaller hardware stores when a Home Depot (or similar competitor) opens, sales usually rebound and often will grow. You see, Home Depot spurs home renovation. Are you going to drive over and 'fight' with the crowds at Home Depot for some screws, simple hand tools, etc or will you walk down to your hardware store to get those things. We have three big-box home improvement stores in my city. Yet, the hardware stores have been flourishing. A few have expanded. They adapted to Home Depot and are doing very well. - messiah, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4The guy should get over it and actually do something about making a living. The days of paying thousands for a photo are over. Move with the times or be crushed. No longer will the little guy be told what to watch, what to read and what to think, its the revolution baby and its just started.
- chongli, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@smhill
It's all a matter of perspective. I look at Youtube and Flickr as being providers of free hosting service. They give free bandwidth (and a lot of it) to anyone who wants their work to be seen by the world. Yes, they make money from the ads. No, this does not cost the user a dime, the ads are easily blocked.
What exactly is the problem here? - gdamjan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"""It's ironic that internet campaigners spend so much time complaining about the injustices of copyright, and extolling the virtues of a copyright free economy - because copyright is already dead. This is true both as perception and reality."""
The copyright law is not dead at all... It's that only corporations are benefiting from it - no wonder they also sponsor it. - Chandon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0You definitely don't need copyright to make money as a creator of fine art (i.e. sculpture, paintings). Someone pays you to make something, and you make it. Any work that you do without being paid up front you want displayed as widely as possible, so people see how good you are and come to you for their (paid) special orders. That's how it's worked for thousands of years.
- gerritvb, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I think a solution is to work under contract with a big company. That's how almost everyone works in any job.
- digibruce, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4Traditional publishing, photography (photojournalism, fashion, art, etc.), movie-making, fine art, etc., have all operated on a good-old-boy network for millenia. A few superstars made big money, and a tiny percentage of those came from nowhere. Most belonged to families with funding and/or clout in the industry. A small group of professional workhorses comprised the core of the network and made a living, acting as gatekeepers. The vast majority of aspiring participants have always been underpaid and exploited at best, completely rejected at worst. The total number of people who make something like a living at "publishing" now is probably higher than before the internet (think about the editors of boingboing, somethingawful, etc.) - and the total number of people with access to readers is vastly higher. The author is right - no one owes him a living. Just like the big companies that own the portals, he can adapt or fail.
-
Show 51 - 60 of 60 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is