This Photograph Is Not Free • Hacker News Board

Re: This Photograph Is Not Free

#61

Post by Suncho » Wed, Jan 11, 2012, 1:02 PM UTC

jodrellblank wrote: post #54

Suncho wrote: post #49

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…

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

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.

Re: This Photograph Is Not Free

#62

Post by prof_hobart » Wed, Jan 11, 2012, 1:02 PM UTC

jdietrich wrote: post #48

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…

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.

Re: This Photograph Is Not Free

#63

Post by praptak » Wed, Jan 11, 2012, 1:02 PM UTC

alexchamberlain wrote: post #7

andreadallera wrote: post #2

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.

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.

> 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"?

Re: This Photograph Is Not Free

#64

Post by prof_hobart » Wed, Jan 11, 2012, 1:04 PM UTC

da_n wrote: post #17

guynamedloren wrote: post #8

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 at…

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 und…

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.

Re: This Photograph Is Not Free

#65

Post by rplnt » Wed, Jan 11, 2012, 1:04 PM UTC

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.

Re: This Photograph Is Not Free

#66

Post by slavak » Wed, Jan 11, 2012, 1:06 PM UTC

Suncho wrote: post #58

slavak wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

Because while I'm not sure what kind of world you live in, in mine I need money to put a roof over my head and food on the table - things that according to your world-view definitely do have monetary value.

If creating anything digital makes it basically a free-for-all on who can grab it for free faster, then I'm not going to bother as it's not paying my bills. And, in case you haven't noticed, most of our world is pretty much reliant on the digital now.

I'm all for free-software and public-domain work, but there's a difference between supporting it and forcing everyone else to follow along. Like it or not, not everyone can or wants to make money out of giving their work away for free.

Re: This Photograph Is Not Free

#67

Post by hellweaver666 » Wed, Jan 11, 2012, 1:08 PM UTC

jdietrich wrote: post #48

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…

> 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.

Re: This Photograph Is Not Free

#68

Post by Suncho » Wed, Jan 11, 2012, 1:11 PM UTC

waterlesscloud wrote: post #51

Suncho wrote: post #49

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…

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…

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?

Re: This Photograph Is Not Free

#69

Post by njharman » Wed, Jan 11, 2012, 1:12 PM UTC

alanmeaney wrote: post #41

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

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.

Re: This Photograph Is Not Free

#70

Post by stryker » Wed, Jan 11, 2012, 1:13 PM UTC

andreadallera wrote: post #2

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.

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.