
This Photograph Is Not Free - Brajeshwar
http://www.petapixel.com/2012/01/10/this-photograph-is-not-free/
======
parfe
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...](http://www.flickr.com/photos/johnmueller/6643032477/in/photostream)
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/>

~~~
smackfu
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.

~~~
joebadmo
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.

~~~
swang
He has figured out a way to get paid. He takes incredible pictures people want
to use for their company and sells it to them. He has also mentioned that
people who give stuff away for free or "credit" are just burned again later on
because other companies don't want to pay, they want to "credit"

As someone who considers himself an amateur photographer, there is no way I
could just "reproduce" that for free to someone.

First consider the amount of money his lens costs, how much his filter costs,
because those things are not "common" parts of an amateur photographer's kit.

Then consider the amount of time he put into his craft, the countless hours he
spend reading up on photography: lighting, white balance, ISO, apeture, etc.
Then going outside to do nature shoots or going inside for some modeling on a
white screen. All of that is blood, sweat and tears he expended to be good at
what he is doing.

Do you think a junior programmer is the same as a senior programmer? There are
obviously times where some program or code is so simple that either programmer
could get the job done (and even then a lesser programmer might miss some
minute detail), but if it were true for all programming jobs then obviously
the people in the industry would be screwed because no one would pay a salary
for more than just a junior programmer. Replace what you've said about
photography with programming and do you still believe it to be true?

If you really feel that you should get your photos free from an amateur
photographer that is your choice, but you're not going to get the same picture
that that guy took and he's happy to not sell you that picture for free. Just
getting the perfect lighting for a photograph is tough and I doubt an amateur
could just set that up and take it for you at that quality.

~~~
joebadmo
_He takes incredible pictures people want to use for their company and sells
it to them._

That might work for him, but I doubt it's viable for photographers in general,
at least in the future.

 _He has also mentioned that people who give stuff away for free or "credit"
are just burned again later on because other companies don't want to pay, they
want to "credit"_

Like I said, those companies aren't going to pay no matter what. They're
looking for a free product. If yours isn't free, they're not going to change
their budget, they're going to look elsewhere.

My point is that copies are basically free. When you use the copies as
marketing, you're using their zero marginal cost as a feature. What you charge
for is the part that costs you money: production. You have to find the people
who are willing to fund the production of photos, not just the distribution.

My point about amateurization is that, no, maybe you or I couldn't reproduce
that photo, but could a thousand amateurs? What about when the equipment gets
rapidly better and more inexpensive at the same time?

 _Then consider the amount of time he put into his craft, the countless hours
..._

Here you're making an anti-capitalist argument. I should pay him what he
_deserves_? Who decides how much his hard work is worth?

I'm actually not a programmer, but your point isn't lost on me. But I think it
actually bolsters my argument. Programmers generally _have_ figured out how to
make money, and it's not be selling free copies. It's the reason SaaS and
freemium models are dominating.

So, yes, you can replace photographers with any job and I think it'll still be
true: you have to charge for the parts people will be willing to pay, and zero
marginal cost distribution isn't going to be it.

In fact, to make it personal: I'm an aspiring writer. I write on my blog and I
just got a couple of pieces published in the Atlantic Tech blog. I don't get
paid for any of that writing. If I tried to charge for it, no one would pay
me. So I give it away for free while I hone my skills and build my (freely
available) ouevre, in the hope that eventually the quality of my work will be
such that I will be able to fund the _production_ of the work, not the
distribution of copies. (I.e. in the hope that I'll get hired by a web site or
magazine to write on staff full-time.) So my money is actually located exactly
where my mouth is.

~~~
swang
I had a long post written but I think for brevity sake I'll only include what
I thought is relevant.

> In fact, to make it personal: I'm an aspiring writer. I write on my blog and
> I just got a couple of pieces published in the Atlantic Tech blog. I don't
> get paid for any of that writing. If I tried to charge for it, no one would
> pay me. So I give it away for free while I hone my skills and build my
> (freely available) ouevre, in the hope that eventually the quality of my
> work will be such that I will be able to fund the production of the work,
> not the distribution of copies. (I.e. in the hope that I'll get hired by a
> web site or magazine to write on staff full-time.) So my money is actually
> located exactly where my mouth is.

Who's to say he hasn't already paid his dues? Maybe he did do sample work when
he was just starting out and he's now at the phase where he's monetizing his
skill set by selling good photos. He doesn't have a problem with companies
that don't want to pay, he just says that what he does isn't cheap or free to
do so pay him some money for his time and effort or just don't use the
picture. If some website asks you to write full-time but they can't pay you
anything other than exposure, are you going to take it? No, because you have a
valuable skill that should be paid.

But let's try to keep it in the context of the post. He has a picture,
apparently companies _want_ this picture so he has something that they cannot
get just by grabbing an amateur's version of the photograph. These companies
also have large ad and marketing budgets so money shouldn't be an issue yet
somehow it is. I think in this case he has a right to be mad. He can't work
for free, and since he took it and owns the rights to it he should be able to
tell those companies to piss off. If there is a demand for his photo to be
used then he should get paid.

~~~
joebadmo
_Who's to say he hasn't already paid his dues?_

I'm saying it's not about paying dues. I'm saying dues-paying is exactly the
wrong attitude. I'm not writing for free out of some sense of obligation to
the field. I'm doing it because that's the only way I can think of to build
enough credibility to be able to charge for my productive capacity in the
future.

 _...and he's now at the phase where he's monetizing his skill set by selling
good photos._

My argument is that selling copies is not a great way to monetize that skill-
set that he's built. It might work for a few people, but I think market
dynamics are such that that's not going to be viable for many people for very
long.

 _If some website asks you to write full-time but they can't pay you anything
other than exposure, are you going to take it?_

That's not the analogous situation. A closer one is: if a website asks to use
a copy of one of my posts, paying only in exposure, would I take it? The
answer is yes, I already do that. I _could_ ask them to pay me for work I've
already done, but it's a hard thing to ask, when people can get the same thing
for free elsewhere.

 _He has a picture, apparently companies _want_ this picture_

Yes. They want it for free, despite their large ad and marketing budgets.
Money is always an issue. What makes you say "it shouldn't be an issue"?

 _He can't work for free, and since he took it and owns the rights to it he
should be able to tell those companies to piss off. If there is a demand for
his photo to be used then he should get paid._

You're right that he should be able to tell people to piss off if he wants to.
He can _try_ to charge a billion dollars per photo if he wants. I'm not saying
he shouldn't, I don't think anyone is. I'm saying it's not going to work. I'm
saying it's not a viable strategy for photographers at large for the
foreseeable future. You're crazy if you think the companies that are asking
for the photo for free are going to read this blog post and realize the error
of their ways.

------
jdietrich
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.

~~~
hellweaver666
> 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.

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

~~~
nphase
Kind of. Let's not forget that most wedding photographers explicitly own the
rights to the photos they take of your wedding, and have print and digital
packages they explicitly push both to you and to your friends and family as
part of their offering. Some wedding photographers don't even offer the
digital pictures as part of their base packages.

~~~
pilom
Our wedding photographer gave us a DVD with everything and an explicit release
to do anything we wanted with them. She was very forward thinking and she
seemed to be doing very well for herself.

------
corin_
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
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_
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".

~~~
stan_rogers
"He still has the photo" is a nonsense argument -- he doesn't "still have the
photo" from a licensing perspective in that he can no longer license exclusive
or first usage rights (which also exist in regional and media contexts). The
photograph has been irreparably damaged _vis-a-vis_ its commercial value after
unauthorised use/publication. That is something people seem to be unwilling to
understand or consider for some strange reason -- the image file itself may
still exist in a usable state, but its value is not in its bits, it's in its
licensability. Unlicensed use demotes the picture's value to the level of
royalty-free microstock in the eyes of potential buyers.

------
guynamedloren
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_n
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.

~~~
esonderegger
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.

------
digitalclubb
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>

~~~
slavak
This reminds me of...

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

~~~
josefresco
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.

~~~
gmac
In fact, the expert is worth a lot more, because he saves you 7 days of
disruption.

------
DanielBMarkham
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.

~~~
dazbradbury
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...

~~~
DanielBMarkham
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.)

~~~
dazbradbury
_"click to view" is supposed to slide out a section where I provide my own
snarky comments_

On your home page, go to the second post, and click...

You're javascript only slides things with the id sampleOuter. As you have
multiple entries with the id sampleOuter on your homepage, most browsers will
pick the first.

If you're intent is to slide open ALL of them, I'd use a class, rather than an
ID.

If you're intent is to just slide open the one that's clicked on, you need
each "sampleOuter" to have a unique identifier you can select it on. You can
then pass that to your "toggleSampleView" method.

HTH.

------
mtr
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>

------
sethg
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_.

------
sirrocco
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
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?

~~~
brlewis
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.

------
mrsebastian
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
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.

~~~
gurkendoktor
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.

------
bad_user
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.

------
Suncho
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.

Copyright should be non-exclusive. Anyone should be allowed to copy anything
for free.

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

~~~
bediger
"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.

~~~
jodrellblank
I mean literally any movie that wasn't made by amateurs supported by another
job, or philanthropic donations, or advertising funded.

Its low to pick only the worst bits as a counterargument; it also implies no
pro quality TV you _like_. And that you are willing to screw over people who
genuinely _do_ like Selena Gomez and Gilligan's Island and the like, just
because you don't.

~~~
bediger
_you are willing to screw over people who genuinely do like ... Gilligan's
Island ... because you don't._

Your response irritated me beyond its level of highhandedness. And I finally
figured out why: I actually do like Gilligan's Island. I even bought "The
Professor's" tell-all book, "Here On Gilligan's Isle". It doesn't matter if I
like "Gilligan's Ilsand" or not, it's of low quality. The acting was low, the
writing was low, and the production was laughable. That hasn't kept me from
liking it, or regarding it as High Bulldada.

Sherwood Schwartz and CBS should be ashamed of putting out such schlock,
whether I like it or not, and you should be ashamed of deciding you know what
my aesthetics are.

But I'm also curious: why does a movie made by people supported by another
job, or philanthropic donations, or one funded by advertising not meet the
standard of "pro quality"?

~~~
jodrellblank
Oh get over trying to shame me for "deciding I know what your ethics are" (I
did no such thing and wouldn't know where to start). I've never even seen
Gilligan's Island, I didn't know it was ropey quality, only that the parent
had dismissed it _and the entire industry_ because he thought it lowbrow.

Funded by advertising is a bit different it can still be run like a
traditional business, but where is the amateur TV as good as BBC Frozen
Planet, or Sherlock, Wallander or QI? And they're just people talking in
scenic locations - or in a big room, nothing requiring months of filming and
hundreds of people.

Where are the part time charity funded films like Lord of the Rings or The
Shawshank Redemption? The Shining? 2001? Kill Bill?

Amateur work can be good, but mostly it's worse than professional work that's
the informal definition of the difference between amateur and professional.
The formal one being "profession: paid work".

------
Tichy
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.

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

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

~~~
mibbitor
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...

~~~
mkr-hn
I would happily accept that limitation if O'Reilly made all its books
available with the local library's eBook lending system. The local library
system takes its limited funding and prioritizes variety over recency.

It's great if you're doing a research paper on something non-technical, but
not so great if you want a current book on anything relating to computers.
Even quantity-limited eBooks would solve that.

------
tagawa
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.

~~~
jerrya
Right. So there's a difference between _cost_ , _price_ , and _value_.

------
one-man-bucket
This comment cost me $2000 to write.

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

------
ashcairo
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.

------
Iv
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.

------
jerrya
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....

------
kghose
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.

------
orbitingpluto
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.

------
chubbard
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.

------
jezclaremurugan
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.

------
ghshephard
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.

------
antrover
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).

------
lifeisstillgood
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.)

------
baddox
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.

------
powertower
> 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.

------
tomjen3
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).

------
alfbolide
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.

------
tjogin
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.

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

------
asto
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.

------
cabirum
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
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.

------
webmonkeyuk
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

------
tlogan
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

------
regandersong
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...](http://www.arcticstartup.com/2011/12/08/world-media-infringes-
copyright-to-show-more-of-angry-birds)

------
rivo
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.

------
yogrish
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
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)

------
noonespecial
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.

------
rplnt
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.

------
fduran
" 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.

------
da_n
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.

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

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

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

~~~
tete
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.

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

------
ErikRogneby
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.

------
kamaal
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.

------
therandomguy
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?

------
dallasmarlow
this comment cost $3629 american dollars.

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

------
minikomi
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!

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

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

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

------
icebraining
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](https://secure.flickr.com/search/?l=comm&q=sunset)

~~~
NickPollard
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.

~~~
icebraining
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.

~~~
waterlesscloud
Great, then the magazines should use one of the 300,000, not his. His cost
money to use, and that's the way it is.

Several of those 300k are mine, by the way, and they are indeed free to use,
assuming I am credited as required by the license. Of course, there are
countless stories of magazines ignoring even this very simple requirement.

~~~
waterlesscloud
I should add- Making my pics CC on flickr has resulted in a number of people
using them and crediting me properly, from blogs to small magazines.

One is even in use by a state park on one of their signs, which is somehow
particularly gratifying.

I really need to go take a pic of that sign.

~~~
ChrisNorstrom
What's your flickr account?

------
cm-t
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

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

~~~
njharman
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.

------
hristov
Poor guy seriously over paid for his equipment.

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

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

------
angelortega
Meh. It's not that good anyway.

------
skeptical
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.

------
andreadallera
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.

~~~
alexchamberlain
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.

~~~
andreadallera
Define "liquid market".

~~~
arethuza
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_liquidity>

------
aneth
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.

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

------
funkah
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.

------
gcb
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?

------
its_so_on
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_on
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?

------
jonno
Wow, grumpy!

