This Photograph Is Not Free • Hacker News Board

Re: This Photograph Is Not Free

#131

Post by parfe » Wed, Jan 11, 2012, 2:45 PM UTC

cdr wrote: post #127

parfe wrote: post #121

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-poin…

I think you meant "a thousand pedants".

Wish I could say I did that on purpose.

Thanks.

Re: This Photograph Is Not Free

#132

Post by Chirono » Wed, Jan 11, 2012, 2:50 PM UTC

parfe wrote: post #131

cdr wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you meant "a thousand pedants".

Wish I could say I did that on purpose. Thanks.

Also, you probably mean "wrath of a thousand pedants" not "wraith".

Re: This Photograph Is Not Free

#133

Post by SquareWheel » Wed, Jan 11, 2012, 2:50 PM UTC

mibbitor wrote: post #124

SquareWheel wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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...

That's not uncommon, unfortunately. Book publishers are trying their hardest to retain their business model, where supply and demand is a large factor. It won't last, middle men are going to go away as self-publishing services like Amazon take over. Just like iTunes is taking over music, Steam is taking over gaming, etc.

Re: This Photograph Is Not Free

#134

Post by colanderman » Wed, Jan 11, 2012, 2:50 PM UTC

dspillett wrote: post #99

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…

> 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…

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.

Re: This Photograph Is Not Free

#135

Post by cm-t » Wed, Jan 11, 2012, 2:51 PM UTC

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

Re: This Photograph Is Not Free

#136

Post by bountie » Wed, Jan 11, 2012, 2:51 PM UTC

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

Re: This Photograph Is Not Free

#137

Post by tjogin » Wed, Jan 11, 2012, 2:52 PM UTC

NickPollard wrote: post #34

icebraining wrote: post #27

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

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.

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.

Re: This Photograph Is Not Free

#138

Post by parfe » Wed, Jan 11, 2012, 2:52 PM UTC

Chirono wrote: post #132

parfe wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wish I could say I did that on purpose. Thanks.

Also, you probably mean "wrath of a thousand pedants" not "wraith".

That's what I get for ranting prior to having my tea. I do miss me my Stargate Atlantis.

Re: This Photograph Is Not Free

#139

Post by dchest » Wed, Jan 11, 2012, 2:54 PM UTC

smackfu wrote: post #126

parfe wrote: post #121

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-poin…

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.

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.

Re: This Photograph Is Not Free

#140

Post by lysol » Wed, Jan 11, 2012, 2:54 PM UTC

parfe wrote: post #121

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-poin…

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?