For instance, you may have a friend who will fix your car for free. Good for you! Now when you don’t go to a mechanic who has invested in the space and tools to fix all kinds of cars, you save money. But in the long run (and if lots of people do the same) that mechanic goes out of business, and all similar mechanics go out of business. Now your friend is so busy fixing friends’ cars for free that he doesn’t have time to fix yours. And because he doesn’t do this for a living, he doesn’t improve his skills by learning, say, how to tune Bosch fuel injection systems. Now owners of cars that use Bosch systems don’t have anyone to go to.

The mechanic is the professional photographer, who has invested in lenses and tripod, who has built a darkroom or taken seminars in using Photoshop. Because of their devotion to improving their skills, they can provide the world with a lot of really great images: like the mechanic whose value is in knowing how and having the tools to fix all kinds of cars, the photographer provides value in images that will be used to entertain, or teach or just to bring joy. The point is that they will do things that even a whole bunch of amateur photographers (your friend who fixes cars for free) won’t have the skill or interest in doing.

In the short term, everything looks good: free pictures, free car repair!!! But in the long run, quite possibly no Ansel Adams (there are probably better examples, too), and no way to keep my BMW running.

I believe this argument can apply to a lot of areas - including music, my area of interest.

To bring it back to the starting point: it’s not about an anonymous “trend” it’s about saying “You have used something of mine, in a way that creates value for you” (@danperry, I’m thinking of http://blogs.wsj.com/independentstreet/2008/05/28/golf-is-so-last-year-new-ways-to-schmooze-clients/ ) “and you’re using that value to increase your own wealth, and there are others who have made providing that thing their livelihood. If you don’t compensate me, you’re stealing from someone.”

At risk of offending, it’s a cop-out to say “it’s a trend, I can’t do anything about it.” It IS a trend, but it’s NOT something individuals are powerless over.

My area of expertise (term used loosely) is in the area of internet marketing. I’m always interested in the directions the engines take, and the new ways some companies can take advantage of it.

For example, If I ran a small restaurant (or golf course, or bar, etc.), I’d be sure to have images/video uploaded to Flickr, and ensure they’re geo-tagged. The value is additional exposure for the local business, with the only cost involved being the know-how and time to tag. The dollar cost = $0, but the dollar value could = $$$.

I understand your point that this is hurting the photography industry, but I don’t think this trend will reverse any time soon. It’s the same for most media companies (newspaper, TV, etc.) The hard part is finding the balance between exposure and profit. I personally think Hulu.com is a good example of this balance from a video stand-point. Now to find that balance for photographers.

Thanks for commenting.

This is what is killing the photographic industry, people giving images/news away for free. Don’t ever fall for the “its great exposure, or well pay you the next time” this never happens, and the exposure is just setting the photog up as a freebie supplier.

Jim