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

This photograph is free

standblog.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–147 of 147 posts

Re: This photograph is free

#141

Post by shkabazi »

tptacek wrote: post #57

Or, "How not to make money selling software: a succinct illustration of cost-based and market-based (specifically, value-based) pricing in just two comment threads." Why can Github charge FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS PER YEAR for a local install of Github and succeed, impressively so, despite a small army of nerds pointing out how inexpensive it is to run one's own Git server and Gitorious? Why does 37signals have an office…

You've got some really good insight. If you could recommend a good book on this topic, value based pricing vs cost based pricing, it would be great.

Re: This photograph is free

#142

Post by jjp9999 »

Well said. I'm a journalist and photographer by trade. Any work I'm commissioned to do, I charge for. Anything I do for fun I release under Creative Commons for anyone to use.

We need to make a living, of course, but if you hold onto everything, it will die with you. Whereas in the public domain, your work becomes immortal.

Re: This photograph is free

#143

Post by ljf »

I still love the fact that on the website of the original blog poster ( http://www.johnbmueller.com/index2.php?v=v1 ) that until yesterday he was illegally streaming music by a band (Frau Frau) along with his photo slideshow. I wonder how much he was paying the artists/bands? I guess nothing as since I notified him and the bands the music has strangely disappeared... I wonder how much he owes them? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frou_Frou_(band)

Re: This photograph is free

#144

Post by mrgoldenbrown »

pm90 wrote: post #103
mrgoldenbrown wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can understand why this would piss photographers off, but I can't agree with the "justifiably" part. When I ride my bike home from a bar instead of taking a cab, the cab driver might be pissed. Should he pissed at bike manufacturers? I'm sure horse whip makers were pissed at Ford for selling cars, and lowering the overall value of their industry. Why should photographers get special protection from market forces?

Yes, but I think you are missing an essential point in your examples: a) A bike is not really a replacement for a cab (say you want to carry some goods) b) Cars are a different technology from horse-carriages The thing is that the photos produced by all kinds of photographers are almost the same ( of course, the better ones produce photographs of better quality, but they are still photographs). I think that the analo…

It doesn't matter if the service is exactly the same or not, it just matters whether it meets the need of the consumer. In my example, consumers needed a way to get from point A to point B. Both a cab or a bike could do that. If you prefer, I could have asked if Ferrari should get pissed that Kia is offering cars for a super cheap price. Then we are comparing cars to cars.

Re: This photograph is free

#145

Post by mrgoldenbrown »

ksolanki wrote: post #126
timwiseman wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It largely depends on the context the "you should give this away" is said in. If say a well known media organization says, "You should let me use this photo for free, because I will give you credit and that might help you get business later" that is negotiating. The creator of the photo may or may not like the terms, but it is an offer of something of value for something of value. At worst, if the photographer is alr…

If say a well known media organization says, "You should let me use this photo for free, because I will give you credit and that might help you get business later" Why won't the "well-known media organization" pay what the photo is worth? Almost by definition they can afford to. If they still negotiate in this manner, that is an insult. No?

No. The whole point here is that the worth of the photo is not determined by the photographer - it is determined by the market. If an alternative photo exists for free, as is often the case, then the well known media organization is not being insulting when it offers the going rate, even if the going rate is "free".

Re: This photograph is free

#146

Post by mrgoldenbrown »

sethg wrote: post #42
mrgoldenbrown wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel that any sense of smugness in this article is more than outshone by the sense of entitlement in the original. The second post acknowledges reality (that many good quality photos are available for free) while the first post seems to whine about the consequences of that reality (when free photos are so widely available, why should you be surprised/angry when someone asks you for your photos for free?)

Why shouldn’t the first photographer have a “sense of entitlement”? He’s entitled! He has the right to set prices for his work, and the rest of us have the right to pay, negotiate a better price, or walk away from the deal. But going up to someone and saying “you should give this away” is not negotiating for a better price; it’s practically an insult. It’s like walking into a car dealership, seeing that the sticker p…

If dealerships up and down the street are all selling cars for $3,000 then the guys who are trying to get the $10000 sticker price should not be too insulted or even surprised when someone offers them $3,000.

Re: This photograph is free

#147

Post by mrgoldenbrown »

troll24601 wrote: post #128
timwiseman wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It largely depends on the context the "you should give this away" is said in. If say a well known media organization says, "You should let me use this photo for free, because I will give you credit and that might help you get business later" that is negotiating. The creator of the photo may or may not like the terms, but it is an offer of something of value for something of value. At worst, if the photographer is alr…

Contrary to your claim, lowball bids are often considered insulting. Smart negotiators don't use them unless they're willing to accept the fallout that results from this; such as hurt feelings, and the potential loss of all negotiation power because the other individual was insulted by what they felt was bad-faith negotiation. It's a great strategy if you don't care about relationships and if you don't care about you…

I think the crux of this whole issue is whether or not "free for credit" is really a lowball bid. Let's say I've narrowed my search for sunset pictures down to 3 choices. One is CC licensed. One is public domain. One is priced at $6,000. When 2 out of my 3 options cost $0, then $0 should not be considered a lowball bid. It is a realistic bid based on market conditions.
Post reply on HN