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

111–120 of 257 posts

Re: This Photograph Is Not Free

#111

Post by dextorious »

aneth wrote: post #86

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 mai…

"""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.

Re: This Photograph Is Not Free

#112

Post by 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

Re: This Photograph Is Not Free

#113

Post by kbutler »

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

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

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

Re: This Photograph Is Not Free

#115

Post by Suncho »

jodrellblank wrote: post #94
bediger wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

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.

There's a difference between pro and pro quality. Even then, pro quality is hard to define. I would like a world where higher quality TV shows are more common.

Re: This Photograph Is Not Free

#116

Post by wladimir »

Suncho wrote: post #77
slavak wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 p…

I live in a world where, due to the continuous advancement of technological efficiency and the resulting elimintation of jobs, it's becoming increasingly ridiculous to expect people to work for a living. Society no longer needs contributions from everyone. When you get to the point where what you do on a day-to-day basis is no longer directly tied to your livelihood, what will you do? As the number of ways in which a…

I tend to agree, though this kind of reasoning followed through leads to very nasty conclusions. A fully automated world could eliminate most people, eventually, seeing them as parasites and freeloaders, but who would want to live in that?

People can still contribute in lots of ways which are severely under-appreciated by the capitalist system but appreciated by other people. There will hopefully be a point at which cutthroat "efficiency" and "productivity" is not the only goal anymore. After all, redundant and decentralized systems are more fail-safe, stable, and common in nature.

And the people are there, they may just as well do something... preferably something that makes them feel useful and belonging. Like open source software for programmers, art for creative people, caring for the old and wounded for empathic people, and so on...

Then again I might be a hopeless idealist. In that case, good luck holding on to a piece of the ever-smaller pie. The next round of musical chairs might be my, or your obsolence.

Re: This Photograph Is Not Free

#117

Post by 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.

Re: This Photograph Is Not Free

#118

Post by pilom »

nphase wrote: post #102
bad_user wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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.

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.

Re: This Photograph Is Not Free

#119

Post by podperson »

bambax wrote: post #50
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…

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.

You left out the cost of assembling the solar system.

Re: This Photograph Is Not Free

#120

Post by bediger »

jodrellblank wrote: post #94
bediger wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

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.

I didn't just pick out the worst bits: there's far worse, that I couldn't even remember. How many "brand new shows" from last Tee Vee season do you watch? I know how many I do: none.

Similar, popular music.

I probably wouldn't even miss Pixar movies at this point: we're getting to the point that "amateurs" can do them.

Post reply on HN