The price you pay for the likes you get: Dopamine for everyone

In checking some of my digital services subscriptions, I found that I’ve been a PRO member of Flickr (which means I have a paid subscription) since 2008. That’s a long time in the digital world and the reason for me to continue the subscription is that I have a backup copy of my photos stored ‘safely’ in the cloud, in full format, and also, importantly, the EXIF info on the photos isn't stripped. With the PRO membership also comes unlimited storage space, of which I currently only use 94GB (or around 14.5K photos and 160 videos).

Flickr was one of the first large Digital photo communities and has had its fair share of success amongst photographers globally, both amateurs and professionals and anything in between (which I count myself to). Flickr was originally launched in 2004, later acquired by Yahoo! which in turn was later acquired by Verizon (Oath) and lately by SmugMug.

Given its focus on photographers and the protection of their works, Flickr has an extensive set of licenses one can choose from when photos are posted. It’s important to know the distinction as this is the crux of the story when it comes to protecting (or not) your source material:

• None - All rights reserved
• Public Domain Work - Works, or aspects of copyrighted works, which copyright law does not protect. Typically, works become part of the public domain because their term of protection under copyright law expired, the owner failed to follow certain required formalities, or the works are not eligible for copyright protection.
• Public Domain Dedication (CC0) - You, the copyright holder, waive your interest in your work and place the work as completely as possible in the public domain so others may freely exploit and use the work without restriction under copyright or database law.
• Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike Creative Commons - You let others copy, distribute, display, and perform your work - and derivative works based upon it - but for noncommercial purposes only.
• Attribution-NonCommercial Creative Commons
• Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs Creative Commons - You let others copy, distribute, display, and perform only verbatim copies of your work, not derivative works based upon it.
• Attribution Creative Commons - You let others copy, distribute, display, and perform your copyrighted work - and derivative works based upon it - but only if they give you credit.
• Attribution-ShareAlike Creative Commons - You allow others to distribute derivative works only under a license identical to the license that governs your work.
• Attribution-NoDerivs Creative Commons

Next to Flickr I use EyeEm and 500PX, and am researching whether I should start using Glass (new paid service dedicated to photographers) and PicFair. Obviously I also have my own domain, https://sternbroek.com

On the social side I use Instagram (2 accounts), Facebook and Twitter for sharing my work. Social media are by definition free services and it also means that whatever you post can fall into the hands of those who want to use your work for whatever purpose they see fit, and this includes the companies behind the services. Basically your material isn’t safeguarded from any practice, whether that’s plagiarism, use for free in marketing material, product or any other use anyone can think of.?

Remember this post doing the rounds (several times!) on social media? “I do not give Instagram or any entities associated with Instagram permission to use my pictures, information, messages or posts, both past and future. With this statement, I give notice to Instagram it is strictly forbidden to disclose, copy, distribute, or take action against me based on this profile and/or its contents.”

That was a total hoax, as everyone signing up for Facebook or Instagram already gave these permissions when creating their accounts. It’s part of the TOS. In an article on theverge from 2020, it seems Facebook itself is going to allow certain ‘partners’ to be more prescriptive about permissions on their source material. https://www.theverge.com/2020/9/21/21445722/facebook-rights-manager-photos-images-update-copyright-takedown I have to dig deeper to understand what happened with this one…

Sites like Unsplash, which offer over 2 billion images for free (now owned by Getty Images, I guess if you can’t beat them join them, or better yet, buy them…), label themselves as follows on their website:

“Unsplash is a platform powered by an amazing community that has gifted hundreds of thousands of their own photos to fuel creativity around the world. So sign up for free, or don’t. Either way, you’ve got access to over a million photos under the Unsplash license—which makes them free to do-whatever-you-want with”

There’s so much wrong with these 3 sentences, I really don’t know where to start. Let’s just focus on the Unsplash license:

Unsplash photos are made to be used freely. Our license reflects that.

• All photos can be downloaded and used for free
• Commercial and non-commercial purposes
• No permission needed (though attribution is appreciated!)

What is not permitted

• Photos cannot be sold without significant modification.
• Compiling photos from Unsplash to replicate a similar or competing service.

Compare that to the licenses available on the Flickr platform! You can argue that anyone posting content on Unsplash chooses to do so themselves and thereby waives their rights to get paid for any of the work they create, which of course is true, but the effect of sites such as this is that the whole creative community suffers. Why would a company pay for content when work is available free of charge "to do-whatever-you-want with??Even big brands are resorting to Unsplash for content, just because there’s no charge. The big argument AGAINST using the free material on Unsplash is consent - photos aren’t verified for consent of those photographed and that means that anyone using these photos is liable. Companies should be cautioned against it and therefore are better off working with professional content and stock, such as Getty itself or Shutterstock for example.

So why do photographers use a service such as Unsplash? In reading tons of articles it seems that the biggest reason is exposure, and thereby the “hope” that having this exposure?leads to recognition and finally being able to pay the bills.?While “attribution is appreciated” anyone using your material from Unsplash does NOT have to credit the photographer and obviously this is therefore not done most of the time. This is the price you pay for the likes you get. Sadly, dopamine and likes do not put bread on the table.

With over 1.4 trillion photos taken in 2020 alone, there’s always something to find and why not free of charge? My biggest argument against the current haste in marketing, the constant chase of the dollar, the use of stock and the use of free of charge material, is that it kills authenticity.

• Want to be a brand with a personal message?
• Want to deliver unique experiences?
• Want to offer individualized engagements?

Hire professionals and get the job done. That, or marry more. Nowadays, professional photographers often resort to wedding photography in order to make a living. The ‘most special day’ in peoples life’s apparently warrants a bill to be paid. Given that the purpose of your campaigns is to get the right exposure, drive revenue and keeps your audience 'engaged' - consider your campaigns and the content you use the means to achieve your targets.

Build your brand and embrace authenticity.

All photos (C) Arjen van der Broek