8 ms·

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

by parfe 15y ago

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-point that clearly does not exist. Meanwhile, the figure he calculated clearly exists to make the point that creating such an image costs more to him than clicking Save As... did to you and he wants to be appropriately compensated in dollars. 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. Not everyone builds a career around trying to make social network v35.0 tl;dr Pay photographers for their work, like you pay any other professional. edit: And for a real cherry on top, the blog post itself appears to be taken in whole from http://www.flickr.com/photos/johnmueller/6643032477/in/photostream http://www.flickr.com/photos/johnmueller/6643032477/in/photo... I suppose John Mueller could have agreed to have his content republished but nothing indicates that to be the case and a skimming of the petapixel blog doesn't seem to include many guest contributors. The author's real blog is at http://johnbmuellerphotography.blogspot.com/ http://johnbmuellerphotography.blogspot.com/

jdietrich 15y ago
> Clearly the photographer wants to be paid as a professional Then he has to work as a professional. "Professional landscape photographer" is an oxymoron. There is essentially no commercial market for landscape photography. For all practical purposes, there are an infinite number of sufficiently high-quality images available for free. The only thing I'm formally qualified to do is sound engineering. The development of Digital Audio Workstation software and cheap microphones meant that by the time I left college, there weren't any recording studios left to hire me. I could say exactly the same thing as the OP about how much my studio equipment costs, about how long I spent learning my craft, but the simple fact is that there are too many studio engineers willing to work for free. Landscape photography is a hobby, like sport or music. Some people are so exceptionally good at that they can make a living doing it, but everyone else has to suck it up, act like an adult and do something that people will actually pay for. John B. Mueller shoots weddings, I write software. He shoots landscapes for fun, I record music for fun, which is exactly why nobody will pay us to do it - thousands like us will do it for free.
smackfu 15y ago
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.
- jexe 15y ago
  That's exactly it. It's like telling someone that my software is worth $1700 because that's what my laptop cost.
- dchest 15y ago
  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.
  - jonknee 15y ago
    He was also complaining about people asking for his photos for free. That has nothing to do with the law.
    - dchest 15y ago
      Asking to license photos for free is also a valid and common way to acquire licenses. This particular author is annoyed by such requests, because he wants to license the right to copy the result of his work for a fee. Other authors are okay with this, and some even explicitly allow such use (see Creative Commons licenses). This has everything to do with the law, because if not for copyright laws, he wouldn't be able to demand payments for copying of his published photos.
      - gergles 15y ago
        He'd be able to 'demand' whatever he wants. Charities "demand" donations all the time and get them, and there's no protectionist law they have to deal with.
cdr 15y ago
I think you meant "a thousand pedants".
- parfe 15y ago
  Wish I could say I did that on purpose. Thanks.
  - Chirono 15y ago
    Also, you probably mean "wrath of a thousand pedants" not "wraith".
    - parfe 15y ago
      That's what I get for ranting prior to having my tea. I do miss me my Stargate Atlantis.
mibbitor 15y ago
A webapp is run as a service. You're charging people for a service you provide. That makes it very hard to copy. A photo isn't a service. It's a collection of bytes that is trivial to copy. If you want to make money as a photographer, you need to structure it in a way that means it's hard to copy. But these days, anyone can take pro quality photos with minimal talent. If he's an exceptional photographer, he should be able to charge for his time when taking photos. But that's about it. With the music industry, artists can move from selling CDs to doing more live tours. Not sure that's something photographers can really do.
- esonderegger 15y ago
  Some content is inherently easy to copy. That doesn't mean it is without value. Copying a poem is easy, but copying a novel requires slightly more effort. Does that mean all poets should become novelists in order to make a living? When the Beatles were making some of their best work (in my opinion), they weren't touring. Who are we to say that the recordings are without value, just because they are easily copied, and that they should have made their money by touring? I'm frankly surprised to see this viewpoint stated so commonly on a site where I assume many people make their living writing code. Should your ability to make money be contingent on your ability to keep your source code hidden?
  - mibbitor 15y ago
    I wasn't stating an opinion. I was stating the facts. As technology has progressed, it has meant that instead of very few producers and millions of consumers of 'content', now everyone produces content. That means the value of 'content' has drastically reduced to the point that it's almost worthless for some areas. This is progress, and you can't stop it. Of course art is valuable, as it has always been. But as stated elsewhere, there are a billion pictures of a sunset online... supply far outstrips demand. And yes, as a programmer, you can either work to keep your source code secret, or you can provide software as a service, charge for support, or any number of other monetization options. But you can't really sell open source software without some reason for people to buy it.
lysol 15y ago
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?
- happywolf 15y ago
  The point is not on the worth of a sunset picture. He just wants anybody who uses this picture to compensate him.
- nekojima 15y ago
  I license photos for publication. One of the best photos in terms of revenue is of a sunset. The cost of licensing is not very high, and varies on publication type & volume. This photo alone has paid for the camera I took the photo with & the location costs several times over now. It may well surprise you, but there is a huge market for sunset pictures, as well as other even more mundane everyday items and scenes.
lux 15y ago
Adding to that, he's not saying he'll only license it for $6,000+, just not for free or for "credit" or exposure. As for only charging for your expertise, use of equipment/software, and time are also things businesses legitimately charge for, so it's fair to factor those into your value as well. It may not be the best way to assess the worth of your work, but it is a part of it.
randomdata 15y ago
> 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 the exact same problem with copying. We just have learned to deal with the problem as best we can. Is there really nothing photographers can do on their own to mitigate the problem?
- jianshen 15y ago
  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.
bmelton 15y ago
The most interesting bit to me in his total is that he didn't put in any cost for his time, which I'm guessing would ordinarily be the lion's share of a task like this. I don't know if he was just trying to establish the 'overhead' costs, or that at a minimum, discounting his time, that's what it cost him, but I'd like to see that number be higher, if anything. This, to me, is the same argument I made recently regarding musicians, in the creation of music, the finished work isn't zero-cost. Ignoring the recording studio costs, media costs, distribution costs, there are other costs like instruments, instrument lessons where applicable, etc. Even if you believe that you should be able to reproduce an artist's work free of charge (which I admit I often am conflicted on,) you have no right to take the work that it cost them money to produce for free because you aren't depriving them of anything.
pdaviesa 15y ago
These are the same people who think all digital content should be free - music, movies, games, apps, etc. No matter how technically advanced our society becomes, one axiom will always remain true - there ain't no such thing as a free lunch.

by parfe 15y ago

jdietrich 15y ago

> Clearly the photographer wants to be paid as a professional Then he has to work as a professional. "Professional landscape photographer" is an oxymoron. There is essentially no commercial market for landscape photography. For all practical purposes, there are an infinite number of sufficiently high-quality images available for free. The only thing I'm formally qualified to do is sound engineering. The development of Digital Audio Workstation software and cheap microphones meant that by the time I left college, there weren't any recording studios left to hire me. I could say exactly the same thing as the OP about how much my studio equipment costs, about how long I spent learning my craft, but the simple fact is that there are too many studio engineers willing to work for free. Landscape photography is a hobby, like sport or music. Some people are so exceptionally good at that they can make a living doing it, but everyone else has to suck it up, act like an adult and do something that people will actually pay for. John B. Mueller shoots weddings, I write software. He shoots landscapes for fun, I record music for fun, which is exactly why nobody will pay us to do it - thousands like us will do it for free.

smackfu 15y ago

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.

jexe 15y ago
That's exactly it. It's like telling someone that my software is worth $1700 because that's what my laptop cost.
dchest 15y ago
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.
- jonknee 15y ago
  He was also complaining about people asking for his photos for free. That has nothing to do with the law.
  - dchest 15y ago
    Asking to license photos for free is also a valid and common way to acquire licenses. This particular author is annoyed by such requests, because he wants to license the right to copy the result of his work for a fee. Other authors are okay with this, and some even explicitly allow such use (see Creative Commons licenses). This has everything to do with the law, because if not for copyright laws, he wouldn't be able to demand payments for copying of his published photos.
    - gergles 15y ago
      He'd be able to 'demand' whatever he wants. Charities "demand" donations all the time and get them, and there's no protectionist law they have to deal with.

cdr 15y ago

I think you meant "a thousand pedants".

parfe 15y ago
Wish I could say I did that on purpose. Thanks.
- Chirono 15y ago
  Also, you probably mean "wrath of a thousand pedants" not "wraith".
  - parfe 15y ago
    That's what I get for ranting prior to having my tea. I do miss me my Stargate Atlantis.

mibbitor 15y ago

A webapp is run as a service. You're charging people for a service you provide. That makes it very hard to copy. A photo isn't a service. It's a collection of bytes that is trivial to copy. If you want to make money as a photographer, you need to structure it in a way that means it's hard to copy. But these days, anyone can take pro quality photos with minimal talent. If he's an exceptional photographer, he should be able to charge for his time when taking photos. But that's about it. With the music industry, artists can move from selling CDs to doing more live tours. Not sure that's something photographers can really do.

esonderegger 15y ago
Some content is inherently easy to copy. That doesn't mean it is without value. Copying a poem is easy, but copying a novel requires slightly more effort. Does that mean all poets should become novelists in order to make a living? When the Beatles were making some of their best work (in my opinion), they weren't touring. Who are we to say that the recordings are without value, just because they are easily copied, and that they should have made their money by touring? I'm frankly surprised to see this viewpoint stated so commonly on a site where I assume many people make their living writing code. Should your ability to make money be contingent on your ability to keep your source code hidden?
- mibbitor 15y ago
  I wasn't stating an opinion. I was stating the facts. As technology has progressed, it has meant that instead of very few producers and millions of consumers of 'content', now everyone produces content. That means the value of 'content' has drastically reduced to the point that it's almost worthless for some areas. This is progress, and you can't stop it. Of course art is valuable, as it has always been. But as stated elsewhere, there are a billion pictures of a sunset online... supply far outstrips demand. And yes, as a programmer, you can either work to keep your source code secret, or you can provide software as a service, charge for support, or any number of other monetization options. But you can't really sell open source software without some reason for people to buy it.

lysol 15y ago

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?

happywolf 15y ago
The point is not on the worth of a sunset picture. He just wants anybody who uses this picture to compensate him.
nekojima 15y ago
I license photos for publication. One of the best photos in terms of revenue is of a sunset. The cost of licensing is not very high, and varies on publication type & volume. This photo alone has paid for the camera I took the photo with & the location costs several times over now. It may well surprise you, but there is a huge market for sunset pictures, as well as other even more mundane everyday items and scenes.

lux 15y ago

Adding to that, he's not saying he'll only license it for $6,000+, just not for free or for "credit" or exposure. As for only charging for your expertise, use of equipment/software, and time are also things businesses legitimately charge for, so it's fair to factor those into your value as well. It may not be the best way to assess the worth of your work, but it is a part of it.

randomdata 15y ago

> 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 the exact same problem with copying. We just have learned to deal with the problem as best we can. Is there really nothing photographers can do on their own to mitigate the problem?

jianshen 15y ago
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.

bmelton 15y ago

The most interesting bit to me in his total is that he didn't put in any cost for his time, which I'm guessing would ordinarily be the lion's share of a task like this. I don't know if he was just trying to establish the 'overhead' costs, or that at a minimum, discounting his time, that's what it cost him, but I'd like to see that number be higher, if anything. This, to me, is the same argument I made recently regarding musicians, in the creation of music, the finished work isn't zero-cost. Ignoring the recording studio costs, media costs, distribution costs, there are other costs like instruments, instrument lessons where applicable, etc. Even if you believe that you should be able to reproduce an artist's work free of charge (which I admit I often am conflicted on,) you have no right to take the work that it cost them money to produce for free because you aren't depriving them of anything.

pdaviesa 15y ago

These are the same people who think all digital content should be free - music, movies, games, apps, etc. No matter how technically advanced our society becomes, one axiom will always remain true - there ain't no such thing as a free lunch.