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

181–190 of 257 posts

Re: This Photograph Is Not Free

#181

Post by c0ur7n3y »

waterlesscloud wrote: post #96
tete wrote: post #92

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

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

That's an amazing photo and I appreciate what it took to get that captured. But, here's the problem: Everyone who read this article now has a copy of that photograph in their possession, simply because of the way computers work. Does he expect every person with that photo in their browser cache to pay him for it? Of course not. But even if he wanted to - he wouldn't be able to.

And that's the issue. Many of us want the benefits of the Internet without the drawbacks, and that is literally not possible. We want the ease of communication, the low cost, and the instant delivery. But, we don't want everyone to have a copy. And we can't have one without the other.

Re: This Photograph Is Not Free

#182

Post by 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).

Re: This Photograph Is Not Free

#183

Post by dextorious »

gph wrote: post #155
dextorious wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"""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.""" Really? Then the photographer could say: if that's so, go use ANOTHER picture, because I don't fu *n supply mine. You can't have it both ways, i.e the picture is worthless AND I still insist on using it.

True, but at the same time you shouldn't be hosting your pictures on the internet where anyone can copy it if you want to charge money for it. And you shouldn't let your customers either. If I was to place some proprietary code on a public git, or just display it on my public webpage, should I get angry if people take it and don't pay me for it? Same with music, if you place it on the internet expect it to be out the…

"""True, but at the same time you shouldn't be hosting your pictures on the internet where anyone can copy it if you want to charge money for it. """

This is "blame the victim". Posting something on the internet does not make it public domain.

"""If I was to place some proprietary code on a public git, or just display it on my public webpage, should I get angry if people take it and don't pay me for it?"""

Yeah, you should.

It's the same if you posted some GPL code on a public git, and someone took it and build a closed system with it.

In both cases, the creator/owner or something did not have his wishes and copyright respected.

The same way we insist on people/companies respecting GPL copyright licenses, we should respect other people's licenses for THEIR stuff.

Re: This Photograph Is Not Free

#184

Post by dextorious »

Tichy wrote: post #141
dextorious wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"""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.""" Really? Then the photographer could say: if that's so, go use ANOTHER picture, because I don't fu *n supply mine. You can't have it both ways, i.e the picture is worthless AND I still insist on using it.

Guess what will happen: people will just use other photographs. What is the gain for the photographer?

Tremendous! He got his wish re: the use of his photographs respected!

Who told you that "more publicity" (or whatever else snake oil i-want-your-content-for-free types sell), is considered a "gain" by all?

Re: This Photograph Is Not Free

#186

Post by jianshen »

randomdata wrote: post #168
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…

> 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. I will point out that there is a reason HN advocates making money by developing web apps over creating binaries that are posted online for all to copy, with a shareware note attached. We have t…

Very true. I think I'm disappointed because we (HN) lack a good marketable answer to your last question there.

I would not forward this thread to a photographer if asked "what do hackers recommend I do to mitigate my work being ripped off?" not for lack of ideas but simply because it's just not what they want to hear when things like SOPA/PIPA are floating around. "Innovate or die" is harder to swallow when there are folks saying "We'll protect you".

Photographers and other content creators alike find things like SOPA/PIPA enticing because it feels like someone is looking out for their interests.

Re: This Photograph Is Not Free

#187

Post by swang »

joebadmo wrote: post #169
smackfu wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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…

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.

Re: This Photograph Is Not Free

#188

Post by hello_moto »

joebadmo wrote: post #169
smackfu wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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…

Same stuff with programming.

Re: This Photograph Is Not Free

#189

Post by burke »

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.

Exactly. If I take a photo with my lens cap on, that photo is not worth $2000, or whatever the price of my camera + computer works out to. It'll be damn near completely black.

Conversely, if a famous photographer took a beautiful photo with a disposable camera, you can bet it would be worth more than $15.

The entire premise is near-offensively wrong.

Re: This Photograph Is Not Free

#190

Post by joebadmo »

swang wrote: post #187
joebadmo wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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…

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.

Post reply on HN