As someone else was saying...

All the photo blogs are afire with the recent establishment of Life.com, which allows private blogs (like me) to upload and use pictures without payment or permission.  I've got to try this (more to come...), but I also have to agree with what I perceive as the consensus that it's a bad idea.

Two of the more articulate spokesmen on it are Vincent Laforet and David Burnett, who both make the simple point that, if you don't value your product (both literally and figuratively), then no one else will.  Laforet (like John Harrington) is pretty straightforward -- if you say your picture doesn't cost anything, then it becomes valueless -- with the secondary existential question of, "What is a private blog?"  Burnett takes an historical turn, remembering when photos had obvious value, because you personally actually bought them in the form of Time or Life magazine.

 Secondarily, there comes word of layoffs and "delays paying freelancers" at Outside magazine, which touches on a pet peeve of mine.  Apparently Outside is notorious (according to FishbowlNY) for taking as long as six months or a year to pay its freelancers.  Thanks, large corporation, for making us individuals float you extended loans.  I'll let VISA know, when they start calling about that late payment, that you'll get right back to them.  (This is something I find particularly frustrating when doing commercial jobs.  The payment doesn't come and the producer -- this usually happened to me doing camera work -- explains sorrowfully that the client hasn't paid him yet.  Do I care?  Does my mortgage holder care?  Did I make a deal with your client?)

As digital cameras have made photography for the common man easier (using the fish roe theory particularly -- a thousand eggs will hopefully result in one good fish), it becomes harder and harder to explain my business and why it costs what it does to people...