This Photograph Is Not Free

http://www.petapixel.com/2012/01/10/this-photograph-is-not-free/

by Brajeshwar • 15 years ago

435 254 15 years ago

On one hand, I feel your pain. On the other hand, cost and value are not the same thing, and so aren't value and market price.

If you do something and what you do costs much more than the market value of its output, make sure it's not your job. Hobbies usually fall in this category.

alexchamberlain3• 15 years ago

You could argue about the value and market price.

In the same way that a liquid betting market, the price is a reasonable estimate for probability, in a any liquid market, the price is a reasonable estimate of value.

andreadallera2• 15 years ago

Define "liquid market".

praptak2• 15 years ago

> in a any liquid market, the price is a reasonable estimate of value.

Is it not a tautology? Is there a definition of value that is substantially different from "the equilibrium price in a perfect market"?

stryker• 15 years ago

Right. The market price of a good is governed only by supply and demand. Sure, the cost it takes to produce the good influences its supply and demand, but in a capitalist society, only the market determines its price at the end of the day.

Let's forget the sunk cost for a minute. What happens if the price per item is less than the variable cost per item? Is that "unfair"? No, that's precisely how firms go out of business, when no one wants to pay (i.e. there is no demand) for the products they sell.

This is not an argument for plagiarism / piracy. Capitalist markets do need strong property ownership laws and enforcement.

yummybear• 15 years ago

I guess he only uses his camera, lens and PC once and then throws them away.

SquareWheel2• 15 years ago

And once one person uses the photo, all other copies of it need to be deleted.

mibbitor6• 15 years ago

A friend told me a bizarre story... His local library also allows you to borrow eBooks. Apparently they work by "expiring" after some time limit.

He went in to borrow an eBook, but the librarian said "Oh I'm sorry, that copy is currently on loan at the moment".

Kinda defeats the whole point of things being digital...

corin_3• 15 years ago

What utter nonsense.

> * As someone mentioned, THIS single photo didn’t cost me $6,612, but if you wanted to create it, from scratch, that is what is involved. So I consider it the replacement value if it’s stolen, or how much my lawyer will send you a bill for if it’s found being used without my permission.*

I hope he's never pirated a film or he could owe the studio millions and millions of dollars.

He should be arguing that it is expensive to take photos, and that any sales of them need to add up to cover initial and future costs. He should also be arguing that they are paying not just for the expense of taking it, but for his skill and time.

By arguing that one photo is worth that much, he is doing neither and looks like a moron.

elisee• 15 years ago

I don't think he said that $6,612 is the cost of licensing its photo. He said he considers $6,612 the "replacement value", should someone publish it in a magazine without licensing first. So it's more akin to distributing for profit a movie you don't own any rights too.

I don't see why he would use this value as a basis for damages incurred though, since even someone publishing his photo without licensing it, hasn't taken (stolen) the photo from him. "Replacement value" has no meaning in this digital context.

In my opinion, there's no relation whatsoever between the cost of taking the photo and the damages he should seek. I think the damages should be correlated with the licensing value of the photo, majored appropriately for not acquiring licensing prior to using it.

corin_3• 15 years ago

A replacement value is only relevant if it has to be replaced - if I use his photo without permission in a magazine or a website, he still has the photo, no replacement needed.

While I am not denying him of the photo, I would of course be denying him of the revenue he would have earned had I licenced it from him, and would be entitled to demand that, and some more. If he had said that he would sue for $6k in punative costs, fair enough. Or even if he had said that he values his art at that price, and therefore that is what he charges for a single license.

Take Hollywood as an example, when they go after someone for illegally downloading a film they don't ask for the cost of a cinema ticket, or a cost of a DVD, they want a lot more than that. They don't however say "this film cost us £40m to create, that is it's replacement value, you now owe us £40m for downloading it".

praptak2• 15 years ago

> He said he considers $6,612 the "replacement value", should someone publish it in a magazine without licensing first.

Which is still so obviously moronic, that I don't even know why I bother pointing this out. Replacement value of a photo has to include the price of the camera it was taken with? This would be true if he used a brand new camera for each photo.

artursapek2• 15 years ago

Thank you. Even legally buying the film on DVD, he'd be cheating them out of millions with his logic.

bambax• 15 years ago

I wonder why he doesn't add the cost of his car, in which he traveled to and from location, and the cost of building the road, and his home, and his entire life up to this point, and what it cost humanity to invent photography in the first place.

I get his point, of course, and (kind of) agree with him, but his argument is weak.

podperson• 15 years ago

You left out the cost of assembling the solar system.

sambeau• 15 years ago

While I agree in part with your argument, using words like nonsense' and 'moron' somewhat let it down.

He didn't argue that that was the cost of viewing his photograph, he argued that his is what he would be looking for if you used it for commercial gain without permission.

Some photographs do sell for millions of dollars; many news photographs sell for thousands despite the photographer having no skill and having just been in the right place at the right time.

Do you actually now how much a magazine pays to use a single photograph?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/gallery/2011/nov/12/w...

corin_3• 15 years ago

It's the logic of it that's my issue, not the cost.

Cost to purchase doesn't have to be tied to cost to produce, plenty of people buy Gucci without thinking that Gucci is spending 100% of what you pay on the materials.

Yes, a photograph can sell for seven figures, but not generally speaking because that's how much the equipment used to take it costs, but because of how it is valued as art.

drumdance• 15 years ago

I wonder how much he paid for all the photos by other great photographers that inspired him over the years?

bountie• 15 years ago

I agree with you but it just bears repeating that it is not just will alone that allows you to produce content

ashcairo• 15 years ago

While I don't agree with the justification of the cost based on required tools to create the image. I do believe that the main value from the photograph is the user's creativity and passion for using the tools to capture the photograph.

sirrocco• 15 years ago

If you really go ahead and try to recreate that photo ... you must first invent the universe. And that's going to cost a lot !

csomar• 15 years ago

This is extremely interesting. What prove that it is yours if you are taking photos of state-owned lands? Do you have the right to sell photos for money for things (lands/nature/sky) that you don't own?

lulin• 15 years ago

No, only G_D may sell photos of nature.

brlewis• 15 years ago

If yours is the only creative work that contributed to the photograph, then copyright on it is exclusively yours. If the creative work of a landscaper or architect is involved, consult a lawyer.

guynamedloren• 15 years ago

The photographer, John Mueller, is absolutely amazing and deserves to be paid for the art he produces. See his work here: http://www.johnbmueller.com

Regarding the value of the photo, I highly doubt he believes a single photo is worth $6,612. He is merely trying to explain that he should be paid for his work, and he has. Arguing that it is expensive to take photos wouldn't have gotten your attention. This got your attention. He won.

Edit: I have absolutely no affiliation with Mueller nor have I heard of him prior to this article, but was bothered by the negative and deliberately ignorant comments posted here. Very unlike Hacker News...

da_n2• 15 years ago

I don't see anyone here arguing he should not be paid for his work, that would be a preposterous position to take and I am not sure where you are reading this. The problem I have with his math logic is that it could actually hurt genuine arguments against copyright infringement from pro photographers. A better argument would be to disregard this bizarro math entirely and instead justify the photo's worth from his undeniable skill, talent and artistic merit. He could say the photo is worth $20,000 instead of using illogical reasoning.

prof_hobart2• 15 years ago

No-one here may be. But plenty of newspapers/magazines are doing exactly that - taking photos that are on the internet and using them in their commercial publications without paying a penny to the photographer, and usually using the argument that if it's available on the web, it's free game.

esonderegger2• 15 years ago

I haven't seen anyone on HN making the argument that artists shouldn't be paid, but I have seen several saying they don't think artists should control the pricing and distribution of their work. To me, that is the most fundamental part of copyright.

Gary Larson gets to say that his works don't appear online and the creators of Penny Arcade get to put all their work online and make money indirectly. The point is that they as creators get to choose.

We can go back and forth all day about if you copy a photograph without the photographer's permission you have stolen from them, but what you have done is violate his/her copyright.

In recent days, we've all been applauding Louis C.K. for the approach he took distributing his stand-up video. Some have been saying that all video content should follow that model. This ignores the fact that DRM-free online distribution was his choice, and every content creator should be free to choose what method works best for them.

I personally think the author should have included the cost in hours and education to get him to the skill level he has today. His cost of living vs. how many photographs of that quality he makes is also valid in how he prices his work. The point he was trying to make, though, is that this is not just a hobby for him and the idea that his work is not free is worth ranting about.

colinm• 15 years ago

What if the photo was crap, would he not deserved to be paid?

sp332• 15 years ago

Yes, but only because no one wants his crummy photos. Piracy solved! :)

bediger4• 15 years ago

"Deserves" to be paid? That seems a little counter-free-market. IF he produces a photo that someone wants or thinks they can use, THEN he can charge what the market will bear.

"Deserves to be paid". Humbug. That's the beginnings of an aristocracy that "deserve" to rule.

da_n2• 15 years ago

I would always take the side of a photographer who has his/her photos misused/abused, but this is just illogical reasoning. If a grocery store has a loaf of bread stolen, it is not worth the value of the entire business.

yogrish• 15 years ago

weird argument. Being a photographer myself, I understand they need to be properly rewarded for their creativity, effort and more importantly time.. but this is not the way to put your point. On similar lines, any thing you are buying day to day will cost you a fortune..be it a Coffee or a candy.

rwmj• 15 years ago

No, you understand that you want to be rewarded.

I've collected all my navel fluff for the past 10 years in jars. Give me a million dollars! (not really)

jerrya2• 15 years ago

Discussion of fixed costs, variable costs, sunk costs, marginal costs, and opportunity costs and lots of other accounting and economics pricing models avoided.

But you should make sure your CFO can explain and your marketing department has a deep understanding.

And consider taking some accounting and micro-econ courses when you have the chance.

ESPECIALLY if you are the technical founder....

tagawa• 15 years ago

He makes a good point but his calculations are based on material goods only. The years of education and experience are surely far more valuable.

jerrya2• 15 years ago

Right. So there's a difference between cost, price, and value.

jezclaremurugan• 15 years ago

The problem is with the simple word free.

Well it depends on the way the photo is used. If i just save it as my wallpaper (I'd copy it from my browser cache, etc), it is free for me. Complaining about this makes no sense, or overlaying it with a transparent image..

But, if i, having done nothing in its creation, try to make some money from it (like putting it on a magazine), then the actual creator needs to get some value from what I gain. It will be the ethical thing to do. In this case John Mueller, will should morally have the right to accept or deny my request to reshare/use it.

mrsebastian• 15 years ago

I'm also a photographer, and I don't really buy into this particular philosophical argument.

The problem with photography is that you're never dealing with ORIGINAL ART. When John or I give a JPEG to a magazine or website, we're not _losing_ anything. This is the same argument that the RIAA and MPAA have tried to spin for over a decade.

I sell prints of my photos, and as long as no one else sets up shop and starts selling cheaper copies, I don't see a problem with sites and magazines using my photos.

The basic gist is: You have spent $6k. You can either have your photo in some magazine, or not. You can have that free publicity, or not. The only way you are 'losing' money is if the magazine would've paid you in the first place -- but again, for a non-original piece of art that they're (almost certainly) not getting an exclusive license on... the going rate isn't very much anyway.

cas• 15 years ago

I find it strange that more people have not brought up the 'lost-sale' fallacy. By saying 'no' he actually loses out in the end because if the magazine is only looking for free photos, say to the keep costs down, it will just go elsewhere and the readership of that magazine will probably never know about that amazing photograph nor the photographer himself.

gurkendoktor9• 15 years ago

That argument is only bullet-proof when all magazines are in exactly that position. But some magazines may well just want to use that picture and try to press the cost of using it.

cabirum• 15 years ago

Does he expect to receive $6,612 each time anyone buys the photo, or $6,612 is the total amount needed to release the photo into public domain?

srl• 15 years ago

He's being slightly facetious, I'd think, but: $6,612 is the amount he claims it would take the 'thief' to recreate the photo on their own. (Of course, he's only talking about material costs; he could easily claim $300,000 and get away with it, but anyway.) Thus, if the thief uses the photo inappropriately, since it "should" have cost 6k, that's what the lawyer will charge. In theory.

icebraining4• 15 years ago

I think he expects to receive $6612 every time someone commits copyright infringement by using the photo without a license.

one-man-bucket• 15 years ago

This comment cost me $2000 to write.

kungfooguru• 15 years ago

Mine cost $4k. This is getting expensive for anyone who might copy this page.

icebraining4• 15 years ago

So what if three magazines commit copyright infringement on the same photo? Does it cost $19836 now? Ridiculous.

Guess what, here's[1] 325000 photographs of sunsets anyone can use on their magazine for free. You've just been priced out of the market.

[1] https://secure.flickr.com/search/?l=comm&q=sunset

NickPollard• 15 years ago

Not all photos of sunsets are equal, just as the huge number of portraits of women doesn't price the Mona Lisa out of the market.

If people decide that this photo has a particular merit, then that is worth something. Of course, that's an entirely subjective issue and will vary from person to person.

icebraining4• 15 years ago

Sure, but I was talking in the context of filler photos for magazines and such, where very low cost is usually important.

If someone considers it a true œuvre d'art then the post is meaningless, because the available resolution isn't enough for a decent print at full page, and so nobody can "steal" it; they'll need to contact him regardless.

tjogin2• 15 years ago

He wouldn't be ranting if his photo was the sunset equivalent of the Mona Lisa. To use your metaphor, his photo is not the Mona Lisa. To use your metaphor, his photo is but one among the huge number of portraits of women.

mtr• 15 years ago

Is he paying Frou Frou royalties for streaming their song on his professional [1] for-profit website?

[1] http://www.johnbmueller.com/index2.php?v=v1

digitalclubb• 15 years ago

The photographer has gone about this the wrong way - the cost is actually his experience and time.

It's like the 'Picasso Principle' where a woman approached Picasso for a sketch, he did something in 5 minutes and quoted her $10,000.

She said 'it only took you 5 minutes' and his response was 'no, it took me a lifetime'.

Full read here: http://bit.ly/A8ABL4

slavak3• 15 years ago

This reminds me of...

Tapping with a hammer ......................... $ 10.00 Knowing where to tap .......................... $990.00

josefresco• 15 years ago

The story is much longer... it involved a creaky wooden floor and two contractors. One quotes say $1000 and 7 days to fix, tears the whole thing up and fixes it. The other quotes $1000 pulls out his hammer and fixes the creaky floor with one nail in a few seconds.

Both fixed the problem, but the expert isn't worth any less than the guy who put in tons of man-hours.

dspillett3• 15 years ago

I'd heard this as someone who fixed a design at the blueprints stage, charging £1,000 for what amounted to a few pencil marks. When asked for a break down the following was given: £0.10 for materials (the pencil), £999.90 for knowing where to make the marks and why.

hessenwolf• 15 years ago

It's like the guy who charged a thousand bucks to fix the machine by turning a screw; 1 buck for turning the screw, and 999 for knowing which screw to turn.

kbutler• 15 years ago

I like all the variants. I heard the unnamed engineer version.

http://www.snopes.com/business/genius/where.asp

kghose• 15 years ago

He forgot to add the cost of the sun. It took billions of year to make. And the clean environment. I hear that's priceless.

artursapek2• 15 years ago

This post reminds me of many a childhood argument I had.

skeptical• 15 years ago

I find this kind of rant rather silly. Whatever, he should be paid for his work, it's his artistic value etc.

Just like he (or any photograph with a reputation) is able to set a very high price because of his quality seal, he doesn't have the right to bitch about how much he thinks the picture worths. If you go out in the market then play by the rules. And the rules are: any product is worth whatever amount the consumer is willing to pay for it. That's what an open market is about. If you don't like it, don't get into it. Simple as that.

Ok, using it without permission is a simple legal matter. Bitching about how much he thinks he should be paid... honestly that is no one else's problem.

alanmeaney• 15 years ago

People want beautiful things. The art is finding a way for them to pay

njharman• 15 years ago

But they don't have to because world is filled with "beauty". Supply far outstrips demand. People pay for scarcity. IP law and this guy are trying to enforce artificial scarcity in order to prop up a no longer relevant business model.

orbitingpluto• 15 years ago

I enjoyed the article. It's a good reminder that the act of consuming creative work is far easier than its creation.

Too many people forget this and, IMHO, thereby fail to appreciate the creative work. Waxing poetic, but the view from the top of the mountain doesn't mean as near as much if you didn't climb up it.

DanielBMarkham2• 15 years ago

The replacement value is actually much more than that. You could take that same equipment and shoot your entire lifetime and never get a shot like that.

The internet is not about content. It's about distribution. It costs a LOT of money to use a human -- the artist -- to "distribute" that image from nature onto his digital camera. From there it costs zero to distribute it to the rest of the world.

The answer is to tie the initial "distribution" of the data with the end consumer. So share the small image for free with whomever wants to see it, then charge a small fortune for a steganographically watermarked 10MB one. If you "sign" your images with a tamper-proof record of whom the recipient is, who you are, and perhaps a personalized message, not only can you track the image, you increase its value for the buyer. It's a good thing for both patron and artist.

ADD: As a real-world example of how this works, take my funny picture collection. (http://caption-of-the-day.com) I have a hobby of collecting funny pictures. Finally decided to put them all on a blog.

Now many of these pictures are actually web comics, or demotivators, or whatever. I want to credit each artist, but I'm just some schmuck collecting funny pictures. I don't have time to research each and every one.

But with watermarking I don't have to. Most of the times whoever made the image also put a watermark on it pointing back to their website. So instead of "lifting" the pictures, I'm actually providing free advertising for the artist. Artists compete to have their work distributed for free. Consumers become big fans of certain brands and help the artists advertise. Think of how worse this system would be if the artists controlled everything. DRM is a menace. The business models might be different, but The technology community has solved the exact problem this photographer is concerned about.

dazbradbury2• 15 years ago

Firstly, I'm loving http://caption-of-the-day.com/ - but it appears to be broken. "Click to View" only activates the top post (in Firefox 9 at least). Will be adding you to my list of sites to visit regularly though...

Secondly, whilst watermarking works for funny pictures, or people who solely sell artwork, it isn't something I would class as a solution. For people who mainly want to share their work, but simply don't want it ripped off, it's ruining the original artwork. Watermarks are ugly.

Also, the OP says he's not concerned with distribution...

DanielBMarkham2• 15 years ago

Thanks!

I read his concerns about distribution a different way.

If you give your photo away for “credit” then the best possible scenario for you is someone will see your photo, contact you, and ask if they could borrow one of your photos… for credit. Try this… next time you’re at dinner, tell your waiter you’ll tell all your friends how good the service was if he gives you dinner for free.

It occurs to me that as much as I hate DRM, I'm actually making a "DRM-light" argument.

I think it's possible to have a file format in which the artist "signs" his work, perhaps along with whomever he sold it to -- a secure provenance chain. The payment provider would perform this service as part of the digital transfer.

That way you could distribute anything you want, however you want. The value would be in the distribution chain.

I'm a hobby photographer and professional programmer and author. Believe me, I know the pain this guy is experiencing. But the simple fact is bits are worthless. The photos of Ansel Adams aren't worth nearly as much anymore. But the provenance of a piece of work, being able to show that it came directly from the artist, perhaps with a personalized message on the back? That's priceless.

The economy just isn't based on physical goods as much as it used to be.

(BTW, "click to view" is supposed to slide out a section where I provide my own snarky comments. That way if I decide to use one of the images in a presentation some day I've already got a few jokes lined up. Works on FF 8.0 in Ubuntu for me, but I'll look into it.)

dspillett3• 15 years ago

> The replacement value is actually much more than that.

While I agree with his main point regarding letting someone use your output "for credit", judging the cost of a photo like this is more than somewhat bogus and makes his argument sound silly (so the people that need to listen to his correct point will just turn off long before they get to it).

The replacement value for a photo has nothing to has very little to do with what it cost to take the photo, or what it would cost the user to have the photo taken especially for them.

Most photos are worthless except to the person who took them. If someone uses your photo without permission you have not lost the photo so it does not need replacing.

What he may have lost is the price he could have commanded for exclusive use of the image, because he can no longer sell/license exclusive use (as it has already been used). So what he would need reimbursing for is the value he could have gained through such licensing (plus any relevant legal and admin fees), not the cost of taking the photo (which might be far a greater amount, or might equally be a far lower one). It is an opportunity cost issue, not a time-and-materials cost issue.

The "cost to make from scratch" argument isn't really valid either: you have to consider supply and demand of the "images for license" market as generating the image from scratch is far from the only alternative option. There may be many photographers out there with similar images at a much cheaper rate - said images may be less perfect for the intended use, but the price/availability difference may make this an acceptable compromise.

Of course he has now set a fixed price for the image If you use it without negotiating a different price then this is what you can expect to have to pay when found. It might be a silly price, but that is the price: take it, leave it, or try negotiate something else - simply taking something for nothing because you disagree on price (the position taken by many people when they try to justify downloading a movie or game from an unofficial source) would not be acceptable.

Your point regarding only publishing the small version of the image publicly is a valid one, and the only way to protect the exclusivity of the larger format image: but this isn't perfect because once the larger format image is out there it is no longer protected because it may be used in a way that allows it to be copied and reused without permission (any contract with an exclusivity clause would need to be carefully worded to make it clear who is responsible for protecting said exclusive use: who (the creator or the licensee) should be responsible for chasing unlicensed users who have taken the image from the licensee's materials? (the source copied from being identified by the watermark you describe)).

colanderman• 15 years ago

Most photos are worthless except to the person who took them. If someone uses your photo without permission you have not lost the photo so it does not need replacing.

What he may have lost is the price he could have commanded for exclusive use of the image

By that logic, if he allowed all his images to be used for free, he has not lost anything but the "exclusive use fee".

You are missing two key points:

1) He is losing the expected income from the potential sale. If he says "yes you can use it for free", he will always gain $0. If he says "no you can't use it for free", he will gain $X * P[magazine will pay $X], which is almost certainly higher than $0.

2) If he allowed his pictures to be used for free, he'd drive down the average market value for such pictures. This would hurt him and other photographers in the long run.

jdietrich2• 15 years ago

The machinery needed to produce a ballpoint pen costs the best part of $10m. A ballpoint pen costs 20 cents.

Cameras are expensive. Photographs are almost worthless. Supply utterly outstrips demand, especially for shots like landscapes that have great appeal for amateur photographers but little commercial utility.

Ten years ago, you could name every paparazzo working in London. They were a small circle of time-served photogs who knew everyone, and whom everyone knew. There was an infrastructure of couriers and darkrooms to get images from film to press in time. They spent years cultivating relationships with celebrities, doormen and nightclub owners. Today, there are countless PJ students and teenagers hurtling around Soho on scooters. With a cheap DSLR and a smartphone, an image can be on the front page of dailymail.com in 20 minutes.

The new breed see their work as a more exciting alternative to working weekends in a shop. Most of them are happy to get a quarter of what images used to sell for. They shoot using the modern equivalent of "f/8 and be there" and need practically no technical skill. Rather than cultivating relationships and building sources, many of them rely on Twitter. Unlike the previous generation, many of them are happy to tip each other off and share information. It's now scarcely possible to make a proper living and most of the old-timers are shooting commercial work or weddings.

prof_hobart2• 15 years ago

That's all fine, but then there's no excuse for a publication to use a specific photo without the photographer's permission and without payment. If the photographer wants to charge $6.6K for that photo, and it's not worth $6.6K to you because you can get a Creative Commons one for free that's almost as good, then use the CC one.

hellweaver666• 15 years ago

> It's now scarcely possible to make a proper living and most > of the old-timers are shooting commercial work or weddings.

Strange you should say that, as we actually hired an ex photo-journalist to do our wedding photos as we didn't want any posed nonsense, just genuine photos of people as they naturally were. The photos that we received were amazing and we were really happy with the results.

I spoke to him on the day of the wedding and he gave me almost the exact same story you've just posted.

It seems to me that every industry that relies on technology gets seriously disrupted when the technology becomes cheap enough - printing, publishing, photography and I'm sure there are many more.

dalke• 15 years ago

We did the same thing, and were also really happy. Plus, he didn't keep the copyright to the results and he gave us a DVD filled with photos.

bad_user2• 15 years ago

That's because people doing weddings are NOT selling photographs. They are selling their time and expertise, which will always be in short supply.

dextorious6• 15 years ago

"""Cameras are expensive. Photographs are almost worthless. Supply utterly outstrips demand, especially for shots like landscapes that have great appeal for amateur photographers but little commercial utility."""

Really? Then the photographer could say: if that's so, go use ANOTHER picture, because I don't fu*n supply mine.

You can't have it both ways, i.e the picture is worthless AND I still insist on using it.

Tichy2• 15 years ago

Guess what will happen: people will just use other photographs. What is the gain for the photographer?

gph4• 15 years ago

True, but at the same time you shouldn't be hosting your pictures on the internet where anyone can copy it if you want to charge money for it. And you shouldn't let your customers either.

If I was to place some proprietary code on a public git, or just display it on my public webpage, should I get angry if people take it and don't pay me for it? Same with music, if you place it on the internet expect it to be out there. That's the nature of the medium. And trying to fight that is stupid, even if you are deserving of compensation.

Luc• 15 years ago

(Not entirely relevant derail: it would be easy to get started in plastic ballpoint pen manufacturing for 0.5% of your stated figure (just google it), though no doubt you could actually spend $10m).

jseliger• 15 years ago

Cameras are expensive.

Actually, even this is less true than it used to be—hence your comment, "With a cheap DSLR and a smartphone [. . .]" You can find stuff the pros were using a few years ago for a fraction of what they paid; a used Canon 5D full frame camera goes for under $1,000 these days (and it'll probably be less when the 5d Mark III hits), and older Rebels like the XTi can be had for ~300. I'm sure things are similar on the Nikon / Sony / etc. side, although I'm less familiar.

Cheap cameras are yielding all kinds of interesting social (cops being unhappy at having their once-deniable brutality filmed, "sexting") and economic (like your paparazzo) effects.

Suncho13• 15 years ago

The very existence of an intellectual property market is absurd. In my opinion, the scenarios in which person should expect to make a profit doing something creative are:

A. The person is hired to create something.

B. The person creates something that's not easy to copy.

If you were hired to design a set for a play, you would get paid for your work. If you created a physical three-dimensional sculpture, someone else could try to imitate it, but the imitation wouldn't be a perfect copy. That means your original sculpture would still have value and could be sold. On the other hand, if you, on your own time, created something that cost nothing to copy, such as--oh, I don't know--a picture of a sunset, you should not expect to profit from selling it. It wouldn't matter how much time/effort/money/energy you put into creating it.

So, what's going on with SOPA then? The government realized that they don't have the resources to police the Internet for copyright violations. Of course they don't. It's impossible. So now they're attempting to foist that impossible responsibility on website owners. I have no idea how the bill is worded, but I can't imagine a scenario where the wording could be "fixed" while keeping the intention. The intention is broken. Copyright law is broken.

waterlesscloud6• 15 years ago

All this sort of intellectual property market does is move the decision to "hire" someone, that is to use their work in exchange for money, to after the work has been executed rather than before.

The person has produced the work and they offer the opportunity to enter into an agreement for payment after the fact.

You say you're fine with entering into an agreement before the work is produced, but you don't believe it should be possible to enter into such an agreement after the fact. This doesn't seem very consistent to me.

Suncho13• 15 years ago

Of course it's not consistent. The only way it makes sense is if it's not consistent. Why should I have to pay for the creation of something that already exists?

slavak3• 15 years ago

Did you really just discount the entire digital realm as worthless because of the inherent fungibility of bits? Thank God not everyone thinks like you, otherwise our technological progress would basically grind to a halt, as people would be back to trading 6 pigs for 10 loaves of bread.

Suncho13• 15 years ago

No. I did not. Just because something can't be bought or sold does not mean it lacks worth. Please explain why you think "technological progress would basically grind to a halt" in a world where people are allowed to collaborate freely.

jodrellblank3• 15 years ago

So you want a world wiyh no more pro quality books, films, music or TV series?

Suncho13• 15 years ago

No. I want a world where people write books because they have something to say and they want as many people as possible to read what they have to say.

bediger4• 15 years ago

"Pro quality" TV series? You mean like "CSI: Miami"? Or "Gilligan's Island"? Or do you mean movies like "The Smurfs" or the US version of "The Vanishing" or "Leave it To Beaver"?

Yes, I'd gladly do without all that TV and all the movies, and most or all of the books. Oh, and the popular music. Especially the music by Selena Gomez and Demi Lovato and Ashlee Simpson.

waqf2• 15 years ago

I want that world! Or more precisely, I want to take that chance, due to a mixture of:

* I think it likely that we'll still get quality works produced;

* I think we have plenty of quality books, films, music and TV series already (more than one can consume in a lifetime), so the opportunity cost of not getting more isn't so high, and

* it's much more important to me not to impede the free dissemination of information.

kokey• 15 years ago

Thanks, I'll be using it for my banner ad for a video streaming service that I advertise an a torrent site abroad.

rplnt• 15 years ago

That's almost the same as when music industry seeks millions of dollars in damages when suing someone who copied an mp3 without permission. At first I thought this article is a parody of something similar in "photo industry" but was rather disappointed.

bad_user2• 15 years ago

The author talks about sunken costs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk_costs

These are costs that can't be added in a discussion on the cost of producing the products on an on-going basis. Otherwise you need to take those 6000 bucks mentioned and divide it by the thousands of photos you're going to make with that equipment.

Which will bring the cost of a photo to something much more real (excluding on-going time and gasoline investments): less than $1

Also, in capitalism the price doesn't necessarily reflect the cost of producing something. It is rather an equation of value, supply and demand. So a much better technique is to convince me why I should like that photo. Educating readers on recognizing quality is better than analyzing the costs involved.

lifeisstillgood• 15 years ago

I would suggest that the capittal cost vs marginal cost is the wrong argument. Yes, its correct but the marginal cost of a single photo is soooo low you will never make any money back (expect perhaps with massively popular photos and very good DRM systems)

ANd this approach does need a DRM and all the attendant (SOPA?) legal framework

The article does mention the solution

"You would not expect your writers to work for free"

No - but writers work for commission. If you went out without any commission and took the photo, then you dont get paid for the photo. If a beach front hotel wanted a nice shot for its website and paid you 200USD to go do it, then you got paidf - and any extra resell value you make is a bonus

So, if you are in an industry where your work can be reproduced at near zero margins, you get paid in commission of the initial creation - not the ongoing rights sales. Some ancillary benefits may acrue (credit)

As someone who gets paid to write code, and also writes code for free (OSS), this difference is clear - and to be fair it is clear also to Madonna (couple of years ago she gave up rights for music sales to more of the cash from tours.)

aneth• 15 years ago

Many folks would be happy to allow their photos to be used just for "exposure" or even for fun. Likewise many writers would happily allow their writing to be published for free. This is the case for both aspiring professionals and amateurs who never intend to make significant money with their hobby.

Unions often successfully pressure major players not to deal with these "scabs." There are some good arguements for maintaining a market for professional services by setting a minimum price through collective bargaining.

In a pure market economy, professionals must either demonstrate they are that much better than free or cheap amateur work. Clearly in this case the photographer is much more skilled than a typical amateur and produces stellar work. Unfortunately, in most cases, a publication can easily settle for an inferior free work without any impact on sales.

The marginal cost of a photograph these days is almost zero. Professionals are under a lot of pressure to demonstrate value. I think the good ones can, although many hobbyists produce professional quality work.

In my opinion, a respectable publication should set a minimum price for a work and pay, even of they do not have to. This improves their relationship with their suppliers and encourages better work down the line. Sadly, the economics of publishing may make such generosity infeasible.

sethg2• 15 years ago

I don’t know about the business of photography, but in the SF/fantasy world, there are a significant number of publications that pay at least the SFWA/HWA minimum of 5¢ per word: http://www.ralan.com/m.pro.htm

dextorious6• 15 years ago

"""Many folks would be happy to allow their photos to be used just for "exposure" or even for fun. Likewise many writers would happily allow their writing to be published for free. This is the case for both aspiring professionals and amateurs who never intend to make significant money with their hobby."""

More power to them. Many others DO NOT.

brudgers• 15 years ago

As this post illustrates, HN depends upon writers who allow their writing to be published for free.

yfyf• 15 years ago

I'm sorry, but his photography is terrible. Cliche, boring and not even that well produced in the technical sense.

mynameishere• 15 years ago

Yeah, I thought it was understood that Kinkade-style material is in poor taste.

tete2• 15 years ago

If he doesn't want his photo to be seen then why does he put it online?

waterlesscloud6• 15 years ago

How would you propose he advertise his photos? With really good descriptions?

c0ur7n3y• 15 years ago

That's an amazing photo and I appreciate what it took to get that captured. But, here's the problem: Everyone who read this article now has a copy of that photograph in their possession, simply because of the way computers work. Does he expect every person with that photo in their browser cache to pay him for it? Of course not. But even if he wanted to - he wouldn't be able to.

And that's the issue. Many of us want the benefits of the Internet without the drawbacks, and that is literally not possible. We want the ease of communication, the low cost, and the instant delivery. But, we don't want everyone to have a copy. And we can't have one without the other.

tete2• 15 years ago

Sorry, I still don't get it. I mean if I want people to see it (advertising), but then write I already have exposure then I'd feel really weird.

Showing (be it advertisement or whatever), but not allowing it to be seen by others is (for the lack of another word) strange. At least it sounds pretty weird to me. I don't get what's wrong by getting this version he published and for example put it on a blog saying. Hey look, what I found on the bog/website of this guy. Isn't it awesome?

I mean in a way it is like taking a photo of his work and show it to others. It's not like I'd be taking it away from him.

I'd respect it, if the author doesn't want more exposure. It's his choice, but then I'd even feel bad to link his blog posts, website or even mention his name.

Maybe I miss something, but I don't understand why a photo of nature, published freely on the internet has to be kept like a secret.

I mean what if we put this to other stuff, like when I make my money selling text, knowledge or thoughts in general. Does this mean everyone is supposed to not share the thought, quote or recite it. It also costs me time and sometimes money (education).

Again, I am not taking anything away. After all it's just data. Should I ever draw a painting or describe a scene in a book. I may even base my work on his, without noticing. Still some people don't want anything based on their work.

If I'd have to ask about everything I copy and share with others I wouldn't dare to do anything.

What I also don't get is the asking thing. What's so bad about people asking whether they are allowed to use the photo?

The argument about the dinner is also flawed. In fact there are lots of businesses giving stuff away for free, to get more exposure. Also the dinner means that the restaurant will actually loose something.

And then there are these companies that even give you a free dinner in order to show you something/get exposure. Advertising also isn't free.

sethg2• 15 years ago

I think I understand the point that the photographer is trying to make, but phrasing it as “It cost me $6,612 to take this photo” is leading to a bunch of tangential arguments over that specific number.

The photographer’s beef is with people who want to take his work, use it in their own publications without paying him anything, and then tell him that he should be happy with such a deal because he’s getting free publicity out of it. But this photographer did not get his camera, lenses, computer, etc. for free, and the people who want to use his work are doing it for an enterprise where they expect to be paid, so why should the photographer be the only one holding the bag?

The “$6,612” number is beside the point. A publisher who says “I will pay you one dollar for the right to use that picture” is in a whole different league from one who says “let me use it and I’ll give you credit”, because the “one dollar” fellow is at least respecting the photographer as a fellow businessman.

its_so_on2• 15 years ago

wrong. This photograph WAS not free. For you. As for me, I've just seen it, read some of your text underneath, and moved on.

Until you can actually stop USERS from benefiting from someone ELSE doing the same thing with your work, your work very much IS free.

its_so_on2• 15 years ago

Well, excuse me for explaining how the Internet works. I agree with the sentiment, but you also have to look at reality, which is that the cost of reproduction does not even involve going down to a copy shop. It's a tough market, and that's the reality. Why not add a watermark?

fduran• 15 years ago

" I consider it ($6,612) the replacement value if it’s stolen, or how much my lawyer will send you a bill for if it’s found being used without my permission."

I wonder how much his lawyer will send a bill for if someone uses 2 or more of his pictures without permission.

webmonkeyuk• 15 years ago

This webpage isn't free.

- Served from a $5,000 web server

- Data queried from a $10,000 database server

- Traffic routed via a $10,000 load balancer

- Traffic switched via a $2,000 switch

- Read on my $300 monitor

- Browser running on my $2000 workstation

etc, etc

tjogin2• 15 years ago

He included the cost of the camera, but only the cost of the gas, not the cost of the car. Why include the whole cost of the camera equipment, but only the operating cost, and barely that, of the car? To be consistent, he should include the total cost of the car.

Yeah. I get that the photo isn't free, but to include all costs related to it is a bit hyperbolic. That's not a six thousand dollar photo.

parfe3• 15 years ago

Well the comments here terribly disappoint me. Clearly the photographer wants to be paid as a professional, just like anyone else here.

The author should not have included any monetary figure in the article as doing so brings down the wrath of a thousand pedants with pocket calculators proving he overcharges and overvalues his work. So many people here seem to think they somehow "got him" on some straw-man price-point that clearly does not exist.

Meanwhile, the figure he calculated clearly exists to make the point that creating such an image costs more to him than clicking Save As... did to you and he wants to be appropriately compensated in dollars.

The fact the comments here seem to lack the professional empathy to jump from "How do you make money? Charge for your webapp!" To "How do you make money? Charge for your photos!" really shows how myopic the community can be. Not everyone builds a career around trying to make social network v35.0

tl;dr Pay photographers for their work, like you pay any other professional.

edit: And for a real cherry on top, the blog post itself appears to be taken in whole from http://www.flickr.com/photos/johnmueller/6643032477/in/photo... I suppose John Mueller could have agreed to have his content republished but nothing indicates that to be the case and a skimming of the petapixel blog doesn't seem to include many guest contributors.

The author's real blog is at http://johnbmuellerphotography.blogspot.com/

smackfu2• 15 years ago

I think the comments are fine, because the entire premise of the blog post is wrong. He should be paid because his skill as a photographer is worth money, not because he paid for a lot of expensive equipment.

dchest5• 15 years ago

He should be paid because he demands payment. This is a valid thing to do according to current laws, which allow authors to control the distribution of their "intellectual work" on author's terms (with some exceptions).

Both author's skills and the cost of equipment are irrelevant. If the author decides that the cost of equipment is the pricing factor, it's his or her right.

The comments here mostly point out that this pricing decision is not logical.

ctdonath• 15 years ago

Indeed; not a stretch to say he could have just happened across that opportunity while borrowing a cheap point-and-shoot, applying his skill at identifying & framing a shot and using whatever equipment at hand to its full potential.

Ultimately it's supply-and-demand: get paid $X because people are willing to pay that to acquire the image, regardless of his alleged talent and costs. As it is, he's handing out small copies of that image for free, while begging people to not violate abstract notions of intellectual property. Maybe someone will like the image enough to order a hard-to-make high-quality large-size limited-quantity signed-and-numbered copy and pay a dear price for it.

hammock• 15 years ago

Yes, a thousand times yes. "The principle applied in the U.S.S.R. is that of socialism: From each according to his ability, to each according to his work," said Joseph Stalin. Which is backwards.

What many people with only a superficial understanding of economics don't seem to grasp is that the "perfect competition" ecosystem that is described in Econ 101 - in which goods are priced at cost - is an EMERGENT property of free trade.

Key word is emergent. The cost of a good is not enough justification for judgment of what someone out to pay for that good. When that good, labor, and all inputs of that good, and inputs of those inputs are priced fairly and freely, then such pricing tends to emerge. But saying "I paid $XX for a plane ticket and this equipment to produce this good so I deserve to be paid $XX for it" is Begging The Question. The inventive camera maker, or the bankrupt airline that sold you the plane ticket below cost, could be make the same argument of you. And the cheated, suicidal Foxconn employee who made the camera components could make the same argument. And so on.

The point is you can't force the pricing you want. Allow people to trade freely, and order emerges.

joebadmo3• 15 years ago

This is parallel to a recent HN thread on copyright: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3303796

I think photographers (like musicians) face two problems: the amateurization of photography, and the lack of marginal cost of distribution.

Photographers need to figure out how to get paid. You can try to charge me the cost of production if you want, but I'm not going to pay it, esp. when there's a large and growing base of amateurs who will give me their work for free. This is why there is a culture of asking for a free license in exchange for exposure: because market dynamics have driven the price down that far. Someone who approaches you for free work isn't going to pay you what you want no matter what. You need to find the people who will pay you.

The freemium model is the only one that really makes sense to me. You give away your past work for free, as a marketing cost, and charge a service fee for those premium customers who have the budget. You charge for the actual production, not for the distribution.

burke• 15 years ago

Exactly. If I take a photo with my lens cap on, that photo is not worth $2000, or whatever the price of my camera + computer works out to. It'll be damn near completely black.

Conversely, if a famous photographer took a beautiful photo with a disposable camera, you can bet it would be worth more than $15.

The entire premise is near-offensively wrong.

ChuckMcM• 15 years ago

I have to agree with this. His reasoning falls apart on his second sale right? How long does he own that camera? How many pictures does he take? What is the marginal cost for the 'next' picture he takes? How many times does he sell the same picture?

There are two kinds of photography, 'on demand' and 'stock' which is to say you hire someone to come out and take pictures at your wedding that is 'on demand', you need a picture of a waterfall in Hawaii to put into a travel brochure you find one in a catalog, that is 'stock'.

The guy who takes wedding pictures has lots of great equipment. The guy that shot mine brought three cameras, one for shots around the event, one taking shots of the location , and a portrait setup for one on one pictures. Now he probably had 15 - 20K worth of gear there, but he does 10 - 15 weddings a year. So even amortizing with a lifetime of 3 years for each piece of gear his equipment 'cost' is worst case 30 shoots, so $666 per shoot.

I really do think the think the effect here is that it is so easy to put photographs on the web, and for many folks they just took the picture for themselves, they don't have any problem at all giving people rights to reproducing their picture anywhere. So people who acquire pictures ask for it free first, and then if you respond that no, you are only interested in selling it, you can come to a negotiation over price.

Unfortunately, from what I've read on photography blogs there are also some pretty large price / value discrepancies between photographers and buyers. This seems to lead to a number of blog postings like the one referenced with (often) one side of the story.

jexe• 15 years ago

That's exactly it. It's like telling someone that my software is worth $1700 because that's what my laptop cost.

baddox2• 15 years ago

If I bought all that same equipment, and took a terrible photograph, then according to his argument my photograph would also be worth 6 grand.

cdr• 15 years ago

I think you meant "a thousand pedants".

parfe3• 15 years ago

Wish I could say I did that on purpose.

Thanks.

mibbitor6• 15 years ago

A webapp is run as a service. You're charging people for a service you provide. That makes it very hard to copy.

A photo isn't a service. It's a collection of bytes that is trivial to copy.

If you want to make money as a photographer, you need to structure it in a way that means it's hard to copy. But these days, anyone can take pro quality photos with minimal talent. If he's an exceptional photographer, he should be able to charge for his time when taking photos. But that's about it.

With the music industry, artists can move from selling CDs to doing more live tours. Not sure that's something photographers can really do.

esonderegger2• 15 years ago

Some content is inherently easy to copy. That doesn't mean it is without value. Copying a poem is easy, but copying a novel requires slightly more effort. Does that mean all poets should become novelists in order to make a living?

When the Beatles were making some of their best work (in my opinion), they weren't touring. Who are we to say that the recordings are without value, just because they are easily copied, and that they should have made their money by touring?

I'm frankly surprised to see this viewpoint stated so commonly on a site where I assume many people make their living writing code. Should your ability to make money be contingent on your ability to keep your source code hidden?

Confusion3• 15 years ago

You know, it is pretty easy to kill someone. That doesn't mean it's morally acceptable, let alone legal. It doesn't matter how easy it is to copy the photograph. It's still not morally acceptable or legal.

As to your second argument, that 'anyone can take pro quality photos with minimal talent': image quality isn't all that counts. In fact, it's substantially less important than composing a good photograph in the first place. Someone with a little experience can take much better photographs with a $200 camera than someone unexperienced can with a $1200 camera.

Taking good photographs is as hard as it always was. It's about artistic composition, about knowing your tools, about having enough to experience to take the shot. Ask an amateur photographer friend whether he thinks he can easily reproduce this photo. Those in my vicinity all tell me they can't. Firstly, their equipment is insufficient. A $900 DSLR won't cut it and they don't have those filters. Secondly, they would never have thought of doing it this way, with these tools. Anyone can copy. This guy has done original work. How many people have enough experience with this $200 filter to know it would be perfect for this shot?

gurkendoktor9• 15 years ago

> With the music industry, artists can move from selling CDs to doing more live tours. Not sure that's something photographers can really do.

And even that is not a good solution. It is a workaround for those bands that happen to be good live bands. It is like moving from singleplayer (easy to copy) to hosted multiplayer games. It is good for the industry, but it still killed off whole genres just for the sake of not being copyable.

lysol• 15 years ago

People will come up with cash for things they thing are worth paying for. A picture of a sunset has little commercial value, but custom photography (weddings, etc) do. The customer doesn't care about his overhead, especially if he doesn't know how to calculate it. Why should they? If you want them to pony up, selling something worth buying. Musicians have figured it out, why shouldn't he?

happywolf• 15 years ago

The point is not on the worth of a sunset picture. He just wants anybody who uses this picture to compensate him.

nekojima• 15 years ago

I license photos for publication. One of the best photos in terms of revenue is of a sunset. The cost of licensing is not very high, and varies on publication type & volume.

This photo alone has paid for the camera I took the photo with & the location costs several times over now. It may well surprise you, but there is a huge market for sunset pictures, as well as other even more mundane everyday items and scenes.

lux• 15 years ago

Adding to that, he's not saying he'll only license it for $6,000+, just not for free or for "credit" or exposure.

As for only charging for your expertise, use of equipment/software, and time are also things businesses legitimately charge for, so it's fair to factor those into your value as well. It may not be the best way to assess the worth of your work, but it is a part of it.

randomdata• 15 years ago

> The fact the comments here seem to lack the professional empathy to jump from "How do you make money? Charge for your webapp!" To "How do you make money? Charge for your photos!" really shows how myopic the community can be.

I will point out that there is a reason HN advocates making money by developing web apps over creating binaries that are posted online for all to copy, with a shareware note attached. We have the exact same problem with copying. We just have learned to deal with the problem as best we can. Is there really nothing photographers can do on their own to mitigate the problem?

jianshen• 15 years ago

Very true. I think I'm disappointed because we (HN) lack a good marketable answer to your last question there.

I would not forward this thread to a photographer if asked "what do hackers recommend I do to mitigate my work being ripped off?" not for lack of ideas but simply because it's just not what they want to hear when things like SOPA/PIPA are floating around. "Innovate or die" is harder to swallow when there are folks saying "We'll protect you".

Photographers and other content creators alike find things like SOPA/PIPA enticing because it feels like someone is looking out for their interests.

bmelton2• 15 years ago

The most interesting bit to me in his total is that he didn't put in any cost for his time, which I'm guessing would ordinarily be the lion's share of a task like this.

I don't know if he was just trying to establish the 'overhead' costs, or that at a minimum, discounting his time, that's what it cost him, but I'd like to see that number be higher, if anything.

This, to me, is the same argument I made recently regarding musicians, in the creation of music, the finished work isn't zero-cost. Ignoring the recording studio costs, media costs, distribution costs, there are other costs like instruments, instrument lessons where applicable, etc.

Even if you believe that you should be able to reproduce an artist's work free of charge (which I admit I often am conflicted on,) you have no right to take the work that it cost them money to produce for free because you aren't depriving them of anything.

jdietrich2• 15 years ago

> Clearly the photographer wants to be paid as a professional

Then he has to work as a professional. "Professional landscape photographer" is an oxymoron. There is essentially no commercial market for landscape photography. For all practical purposes, there are an infinite number of sufficiently high-quality images available for free.

The only thing I'm formally qualified to do is sound engineering. The development of Digital Audio Workstation software and cheap microphones meant that by the time I left college, there weren't any recording studios left to hire me. I could say exactly the same thing as the OP about how much my studio equipment costs, about how long I spent learning my craft, but the simple fact is that there are too many studio engineers willing to work for free.

Landscape photography is a hobby, like sport or music. Some people are so exceptionally good at that they can make a living doing it, but everyone else has to suck it up, act like an adult and do something that people will actually pay for. John B. Mueller shoots weddings, I write software. He shoots landscapes for fun, I record music for fun, which is exactly why nobody will pay us to do it - thousands like us will do it for free.

pdaviesa• 15 years ago

These are the same people who think all digital content should be free - music, movies, games, apps, etc. No matter how technically advanced our society becomes, one axiom will always remain true - there ain't no such thing as a free lunch.

antrover• 15 years ago

Some people take photographs because they just like taking photographs, like myself. If someone happened to use one of my photos, then so be it. I'm not in it to make money. I'm in it because I like the process of taking a photo, as well as editing it. After that, I'm done with it. Steal it! Remix it! Open source it!

All my photos on flickr have a Creative Commons license of "Attribution, Noncommercial, Share Alike". My photos have ended up on some great web sites: Rolling Stone, Yes Magazine, NY Magazine, city newspaper sites, random blogs, etc... I didn't receive one dime from them, but I did receive a link back to my flickr page in the photo credit. Even when they offered compensation, I turned them down.

Some people think that if they have fancy gear, they'll take better photos. This is not always the case. Photography is more art than having great gear. Does having a sweet ass laptop make you a better programmer? I don't have super fancy gear: A Canon T1i, and some pretty decent 2.8 lenses (Tamron 2.8 17-50, Sigma 2.8 70-200, Lens Baby, Canon 50mm 1.8). Any camera can take an award winning photo (I work for the largest stock photography company and have seen this to be true more times than not).

cm-t• 15 years ago

When I read this article, it remind me how english have a problem with the semantic of the word "free".

When he says: "this photograph is not free" he means : "this photograph has a cost" when I understand: "this photograph has a licence witch does not allow people to share, copy, modify as wish"

Librement

Tichy2• 15 years ago

Actually I wouldn't be surprised if some food journalists or whatever get to dine for free in restaurants. Goods for exposure is a valid business proposition. It is valid to reject it, too, but I don't understand the fuss.

If 37signals would feature me on their homepage for a week I would probably also give them some "free" work in exchange. No offense taken.

I guess the "problem" is that he was approached by people he did not deem worthy. Reminds me of women who complain about being approached all the time, but I suspect they wouldn't complain about being approached by Brad Pitt or George Clooney. Just saying it is not the approaching that is actually the problem, it is the who is doing the approaching.

funkah• 15 years ago

Well, all I can do is wish you luck with all that. I'm an amateur photographer who could never take a photo that beautiful, but I get people hitting me up to use my photos for free sometimes. I just say no (my photos are CC licensed, but not for commercial use). I don't have any illusions about siccing my nonexistent lawyer on someone who steals my photos.

But, I agree that photographers should be paid for their work. People and firms just want to get things for as little cost as they can, that's why they do this and that's why they try to get freelancers to do spec work. It costs the firm nothing but a half-hearted promise that they'll be nice to the designer later.

powertower• 15 years ago

> As someone mentioned, THIS single photo didn’t cost me $6,612, but if you wanted to create it, from scratch, that is what is involved. So I consider it the replacement value if it’s stolen, or how much my lawyer will send you a bill for if it’s found being used without my permission.

I get it.

He is saying that he wants to charge the other person the amount it would cost FOR that other person to create this work from scratch (to buy all the equipment, etc).

But that's just one way to look at it, and it can roll down hill fast when you start including the cost of the amount of time and education that other person would need.

At the end of the day, when someone steals this photo, they don't also steal all the equipment and software that he used to create it. That remains as-is.

He would do better to claim copyright and ask for what he would charge x 3 (penalty) plus lawyer fees.

jonno• 15 years ago

Wow, grumpy!

alfbolide• 15 years ago

Works of art can have a monetary value - there is something called art market. The value is determined by how much buyers are willing to pay as well as how much the sellers are willing to sell. The monetary value of a copy of this low resolution jpeg file can only be determined by the market value. You can't use replacement value to charge theft, because when someone "steal" it from the internet, they always copy it, you don't lose your origin one and thus no replacement is needed.

ivosabev• 15 years ago

This reminds me of a rant by Harlan Ellison I saw at http://quotevadis.com/post/5897791429/does-your-boss-get-a-p...

chubbard• 15 years ago

The money figure doesn't matter. We could quibble over the dollar amount or the fact that even if I had all that great equipment I couldn't reproduce the photo myself. All of those pedantic arguments don't matter. The Intellectual Property value of the photo does.

I think we've reached(-ing) the point where freedom for all to publish isn't as magical as it was 5 or 10 years ago. Democracy of publishing is giving away to Capitalism of publishing. The new killer app isn't enabling people to publish or get exposure. It's a platform for getting people paid for their time and skills.

regandersong• 15 years ago

A Finnish tabloid's photo of the Angry Birds dress was illegally published in several places and sparked a similar discussion in Finland: http://www.arcticstartup.com/2011/12/08/world-media-infringe...

tomjen3• 15 years ago

Actually considering that his computer, camera + lens, etc is basically a sunk cost and that in a free market the price can be expected to go to the marginal cost of producing the next photograph, he should expect to be paid $12 (since the gas isn't a sunk cost).

gcb• 15 years ago

I have all this equipment for you use. And by your price breakdown i can pay your $0 hour.

when can you start working for me?

ErikRogneby• 15 years ago

He wasn't saying that this is what he would charge you for the photo, he was saying this is what he we sue you for if you use it without permission.

Iv• 15 years ago

This comment is not free. Using the same weird accounting method, it cost me around 1000$ to make. So what ?

If you don't want a file to be used, don't put it on internet. Understand what IT is, understand what it means to freely exchange information. You are right, you got free exposure, for free. That's why we get your image, for free. The information super-highways flow in both directions.

asto• 15 years ago

Honestly, that was a rubbish calculation! Price of the camera? Gas? Really?

The thing with any service that is heavily dependant on the person that does it, is that it cannot be priced by anyone other than the person doing it. How can you put a price on talent or skill or experience or luck or any of the non-material things that went into taking that picture? That picture is worth a million bucks if he says it is.

dallasmarlow• 15 years ago

this comment cost $3629 american dollars.

$2500 (map pro) + $999 (apple display) + $50 (1 month of fios) + $50 (espresso machine) + $30 (coffee)

noonespecial• 15 years ago

All that equipment and and gas are not the valuable part of this photo. You pay the guy for knowing where this spot is and how to get a decent photo of it.

By insisting that the photo is "expensive" because it required all of that easily duplicate-able tech actually cheapens it.

ghshephard• 15 years ago

Fundamentally - he should be paid because he has something valuable that other people want, and has value to them. The cost of his equipment, or skill as a photographer are immaterial - at the end of the day, at least in the western world, the amount that you can reasonably expect to charge for something is the intersection of what you are prepared to sell it for, and what someone is willing to pay for it. The fact that the person taking the picture paid $1,000, $10,000 or $100,000 for the resources (Training, Equipment, Time, etc...) to take the picture is completely irrelevant.

I took pictures at the Company Party last night. My EOS 7D cost me $1600. My Canon 17-55 IS USM lens cost me $1000. My MacBook Air Cost me $1600. Aperture Cost me $80. Acorn Cost me $50. My Card Flash Cost me $95. My DaneElec SDHC USB 2.0 card reader cost me $14.99, etc..

I spent 90 minutes taking pictures, 2 hours triaging and selecting, and 1 hour tweaking/adjusting those pictures - ending up with 20 out of about 400 original shots that the company placed in their event album.

I was paid $0 - because that was the intersection of what I wanted for them, and what the company was prepared to pay for them.

In all things financial - that should be the driving force as to what a transaction should take place at. If I can sell 100 megabytes software that costs $0.001 to transmit over the internet for $25,000 then that is fine as long as the buyer is will to pay $25,000 for the software and I'm willing to sell it for that much.

tlogan• 15 years ago

I'm little confused here. Yes - you must not steal some others photos and post it. But this kind of photography is more like art and the bar for making it worth actual money is quite high - it has to have soul, meaning, etc.

tl;dr:

* Don't steal other people crap even it you consider it worthless

* Don't assume your stuff is worth something just because you spend some money making it

sowbug• 15 years ago

cost != value != price. I could buy a flawless diamond and use it to shred a Picasso. What should I be paid?

waqf2• 15 years ago

£40,000, because you'd surely get the Turner Prize.

baddox2• 15 years ago

There's an easy way to ensure no one "steals" your photograph: don't release it as a series of bits on a huge relatively unrestricted global network of computers. You can't have it both ways: having your photograph "out there" where everyone can see it, and still claiming absolute control over every single occurrence of that sequence of bits on every single device it ever gets copied to.

minikomi• 15 years ago

This has been all over my Facebook and twitter feeds..

Maybe "This photograph is not free.. But this marketing is" would be more apt now!

therandomguy• 15 years ago

What is bothering me is that he is not adding up the cost right. How about the cost of his upbringing that made him the person he is today?

kamaal2• 15 years ago

Lets say I pay him $6,612 then I would want not just the photograph but also the equipment he listed in the add up to the price.

Is that ok?

If yes then it makes perfect sense to me.

hristov• 15 years ago

Poor guy seriously over paid for his equipment.

bfrs• 15 years ago

This rant is very similar to Harlan Ellison's "Pay the Writer" rant (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mj5IV23g-fE).

angelortega• 15 years ago

Meh. It's not that good anyway.

rivo• 15 years ago

I don't understand this. Upload your image to a (micro)stock agency to sell it, then see how much it is really worth, i.e. how much people will pay for it in the free market. (Value and production cost are two very different things.) But making it available like this while claiming it's worth $6,612 seems naive to me at best.

This Photograph Is Not Free

Related Stories