Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

This Photograph Is Not Free

petapixel.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 257 posts

Re: This Photograph Is Not Free

#81

Post by dspillett »

slavak wrote: post #53
digitalclubb wrote: post #31

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

This reminds me of... Tapping with a hammer ......................... $ 10.00 Knowing where to tap .......................... $990.00

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.

Re: This Photograph Is Not Free

#82

Post by waterlesscloud »

waterlesscloud wrote: post #44
icebraining wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

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.

Re: This Photograph Is Not Free

#83

Post by waterlesscloud »

Suncho wrote: post #68
waterlesscloud wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Like a car, or a house?

Re: This Photograph Is Not Free

#84

Post by 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.)

Re: This Photograph Is Not Free

#85

Post by DanielBMarkham »

dazbradbury wrote: post #80
DanielBMarkham wrote: post #46

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 ti…

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…

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.)

Re: This Photograph Is Not Free

#86

Post by 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.

Re: This Photograph Is Not Free

#88

Post by Suncho »

waterlesscloud wrote: post #83
Suncho wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Like a car, or a house?

Sure. Why would I pay you to build a car or a house that already exists?

Re: This Photograph Is Not Free

#89

Post by esonderegger »

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…

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.

Re: This Photograph Is Not Free

#90

Post by sambeau »

corin_ wrote: post #4

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 ar…

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...

Post reply on HN