It boggles my mind that some people are bothered by the fact that one of the most profitable companies in the world has decided to compensate ten people with a licensing fee (which could be $1 for all we know), in exchange for using one of their photos in a major advertising campaign intended to generate a significant amount of revenue, as if compensating someone for using their services or work for commercial gain is such an odd or and/or distasteful thing.
And regarding the benefits of the exposure the ten winners will gain, chances are slim to none that any of them will parlay it into anything significant. Even if any of them did, in my opinion that should be in addition to being compensated for their efforts, not in lieu of it.
From what I am hearing from within Apple, the plan was to pay a licensing fee and not call it a prize. That is an argument I buy!
They’ve been paying licensing fees for “Shot on iPhone” photos all along, so this passes the sniff test.
Regarding the bolded section, they have paid a small handful, but have not been paying fees to even most. The explanation floated by Mr. Malik is possible, but this sounds like Apple's damage control to me.
Otherwise, why not be transparent about the terms that were fully approved by Apple legal and corporate supervision from the get-go?
In the end, Apple did the right thing. While the route it took is important to remember, it isn't ultimately the most important part of the story.
At least Apple isn’t so tone deaf as to not correct the earlier tone deafness. Good on them for taking the social cues and making an effort.
Apple Insider: you folks need to work harder at indicating when a block of text is a quote. As of my commenting, your Apple quote is entirely unmarked as a quote. Not even quotation marks. This happens in your articles often. PROOFREAD your posts.
At least Apple isn’t so tone deaf as to not correct the earlier tone deafness. Good on them for taking the social cues and making an effort.
Apple Insider: you folks need to work harder at indicating when a block of text is a quote. As of my commenting, your Apple quote is entirely unmarked as a quote. Not even quotation marks. This happens in your articles often. PROOFREAD your posts.
The block is fully labeled as a quote on the homepage. The quote is offset in the forums as per the Vanilla coding with the grey bar on the left of the text, similar to but not identical to when you quote each other, in response to the blockquote tag.. I’ll talk to the web guys to see if it can be made more obvious.
Typical ignorance displayed in this thread. I'm glad Apple saw the error of its ways. Why do you feel it okay for a multi-billion-dollar company like Apple to compensate everyone else involved in the campaign - from the judges, print-labs, post-processors, billboard owners, etc but not the person that took the actual photograph? Is their time and effort for taking that one perfect shot not worth anything?
The iPhone is probably the most popular "camera" in use today for social-media. That gives people like you the impression that this competition is all about posting some random selfies, or quick-pics, and while I'm sure there will be many doing that, anyone serious in wanting to get into that top ten will put effort, and even money - in terms of gas, travel, lodging maybe?? - to turn what's in their mind a reality. Most people nowadays think taking a photo is just a matter of pressing the shutter button. Fine, but taking an actual "photograph" that speaks to you and makes it an emotional statement takes effort and an artistic touch.
The "average iPhone user wasn't whining" just means they don't care - literally. They think it will just be like winning the lottery - a fluke. Even then, they should be paid something. You want to do things for free, go right ahead. Doesn't mean it's right.
Did Apple say the people judging the photos were being paid? Anyway now that people are being paid it changes the competition IMO. If Apple wanted to commission an ad campaign with professional photographers they could easily do so. I thought this campaign was all about amateurs and the idea that you didn’t have to put in a lot of effort (or know a lot about photograph) to get a great photo from the smartphone in your pocket. But maybe I was wrong and Apple is expecting people will put in a lot of time and effort to get a great shot and in that case then yeah pay them. But people will still complain that the license fee isn’t enough.
If you're profiting off the work of someone, that person deserves to be paid. Just because someone is an amateur doesn't change that their work has value. If it has value (and it does, if it's good enough that you're using it on billboards), then it should be paid for. It's still amateur photography. It still shows that you can get a great photo from an iPhone. The subtext you presumed, that it doesn't take a lot of effort, or require knowing a lot about photography was never a part of the contest, or a part of previous "shot on iPhone" campaigns. They like for you to presume that, but pro photogs participated, and that was fine, too.
The reason professionals are up in arms is, when you devalue the work of an amateur, you devalue the work of the professional. How many times are professionals asked to do something for exposure? All the time. How fast will their rates drop when you can just get an amateur to do it for free? Blindingly fast. Which means, less people able to make work professionally, which has bad results for the amount of people able to produce the things we enjoy in the world. You think I'm kidding, but there is an impact: if you don't pay people, people go into other fields. On a longer timeline, this is how you lose beauty, art, and eventually culture. There are no patrons: either people get paid, or it goes away.
Like I said maybe I misunderstood the point of this contest/competition. But I’m curious if this had been any company not named Apple and they didn’t offer compensation would there have been this major outcry on social media? My guess is no.
Like you said: you’re guessing. And since Apple is per definition in the right, then everybody else is in the wrong.
Comments
Now I feel people will enter only because of money, including professionals.
Sorry Grandma Betty! You're perfect photo will now be in competition with professionals who travel the world!
You might need a refresher on what "biased" and "terrible" mean. They don't mean what you think they do.
UPDATE: Om Malik:
They’ve been paying licensing fees for “Shot on iPhone” photos all along, so this passes the sniff test.
In the end, Apple did the right thing. While the route it took is important to remember, it isn't ultimately the most important part of the story.
Apple Insider: you folks need to work harder at indicating when a block of text is a quote. As of my commenting, your Apple quote is entirely unmarked as a quote. Not even quotation marks. This happens in your articles often. PROOFREAD your posts.
Forums:
Homepage:
And since Apple is per definition in the right, then everybody else is in the wrong.