[interested_observer]

A slightly different take on the subject......

• This Photograph Is Not Free

[eddie1960]

I saw that a couple of days back, the number of idiotic responses that have been posted by people who are clearly clueless and apparently have zero reading comprehensions skills amazes me.

He makes a good point, it's probably not the way to build your market though. for the request for free simply decline the request, or make a counter offer for the usage fee.

As for the punishing invoice for theft I like that Idea., once it's been stolen you may as well try. I've sent some invoices like that, it either results in no answer but the shot coming down rapidly or a request for info. Sometimes an arguement. I've been paid by a few. Some I had to send a take down notice to the web host

[ofer4]

By this author's argument, my McDonald's cheeseburger should cost me about $500,000. Still a fun read, though.

[eddie1960]

By this author's argument, my McDonald's cheeseburger should cost me about $500,000. Still a fun read, though.

his argument is not that is what he would sell it for it's what it would cost to start from dead scratch for the one image and that is what he will invoice if it is stolen.

He may not have stated it as clearly as he intended though

the vitriol against paying for a shot in the comments is astounding. many people argued he should just give the shot away for free if that's what people want to pay.

Asking any artist to give their work for free is no different than asking the resaturant to feed you for free - If you give it to me for free I'll give you credit on FB I have $600 friends that I will tell (who will then all want a free meal that they will give you credit for)
Full time artists (and part time) deserve to be paid for their work if you are going to use it.

(BTW the music download argument won't work with me I have paid for all the music I have - 3000 albums + about 1500 CDS .....and very few direct downloads since I'd rather rip my own - I have a lot of musician Friends and I believe in supporting them with my purchases)

[Jasvox]

If I was going to spend $6650 on one photograph, I'd surely take a better photo than the one featured.

Jason

P.S. My post cost roughly $354,600.

[arnie0674]

Whether the photograph is free or not is the photographers choice. The image belongs to him, if he wants to give it away for promotional purposes, then it is free. If he wants to charge, he can set the price at whatever amount he wants. How much it cost to make that image is completely irrelevant.

He seems to be taking it personally, I'm not quite sure why. I'm sure if Canon/Nikon/Pentax or whomever offered him free equipment in exchange for publicity, I doubt he would insist on paying full price. I think its quite reasonable for a magazine editor to ask if he is willing to provide his images for free. And he is absolutely within his rights to refuse.

If somebody steals his images, that's an entirely different story. He should get everything he is legally entitled to.

[séamuis]

while he makes a point, his numbers are ridiculous in my opinion and they paint a very skewed picture of what it actually costs to photograph strictly for profit. id especially like to know how he figured each press of the shutter is worth 60 bucks. this guy sounds like an egotistical jerk to me, and clearly think far to highly of himself. again, he makes a good point on the surface, and its food for thought, but his rational and decided personal worth is pretty out there. its no wonder he has gotten some pretty negative responses. I think he needs to step off his high horse, stunt that ego and redo his math. because any good point that could be extracted from that is overshadowed by the ridiculous degree in which he presents himself and his worth.

[arnie0674]

P.S. My post cost roughly $354,600.

this response costs $1,000 per character

[eddie1960]

Whether the photograph is free or not is the photographers choice. The image belongs to him, if he wants to give it away for promotional purposes, then it is free. If he wants to charge, he can set the price at whatever amount he wants. How much it cost to make that image is completely irrelevant.

He seems to be taking it personally, I'm not quite sure why. I'm sure if Canon/Nikon/Pentax or whomever offered him free equipment in exchange for publicity, I doubt he would insist on paying full price. I think its quite reasonable for a magazine editor to ask if he is willing to provide his images for free. And he is absolutely within his rights to refuse.

If somebody steals his images, that's an entirely different story. He should get everything he is legally entitled to.

Magazines are a for profit venture (at least in theory), so AFAIC they should pay for images and writing since they benefit from them.

I agree the way this guy stated things just asked for conflict, and when I'm asked for free images by magazines (almost entirely music related since this is mostly what I post), i take a look at what they are and what kind of market they have and make a counter offer based on their usage, but i decline the free. If they choose to use mine great if not so be it (in many cases they initially decline then come back later and meet the offer. once they stole it for web use And I sent a punishing invoice (10x what the offered rate was) they argue vociferously I contacted the service provider and sent a take down notice.

Theft of images (like theft of music and other digital artwork ) is endemic and i'm not entirely sure how we became a society where it's ok to just steal from artists, who in general struggle to make enough to live and continue to produce their artwork .

It actually has gotten bad enough that I have pretty much stopped working on any music related shooting aside from doing work for friends and trading the work for their work if they aren't in a position to pay (If they have a Contract though and are successful I would expect payment (and In fact have never had a problem with it not being offered)

For the type of photo this guy posted at best it's a stock image thing and none of the stock agencies really even look at that type of image since they are inundated with sunsets.

[JohnBee]

Since I'm writing this on my workstation, at my desk, in my home.
My estimate for this comment is around: $270 000.00

Which made me realize.
I'm going to need a new ladder to climb on my brand new horse.

[reeftool]

He has a valid point but his comments also probably ended any chance he had of selling a photo. If he was that concerned, he should have watermarked it in rather large print and uploaded it in a small file size.

[Hey Elwood]

I'm a DJ who works in the wedding industry. It's a side job for me but it's a job. Since this thread relates closely with the music industry as well as photography I have to put in my 2 cents. The one thing that bothers me about things today is everyone is copyright / sue crazy. If everyone played by the copyright laws that are out there, then there wouldn't be any djs or photographers.

Here's my logic (and I need to start with Djing to make my point clear):

As a DJ, you play songs created by popular artists to make money. Even if you buy a song (either by internet or CD) you are only buying the songs to hear them for your own personal use (not for profit). Based on copyright laws you have to pay usage rights to play music for profit. This means you have to pay a minumum of $10,000 per record company per song. With that being the case it would cost me over a million dollars to dj 1 wedding. Now, I don't know about you but I don't anyone (outside of the ultra rich) who would pay that kind of money.

Now with regards to photography...to take a picture you need a camera correct. I mean that's logical. So that means that we would have to buy not only the camera but we would have to buy the rights to the camera brand name (ie. Pentax, Nikon, Canon, etc) to take pictures using their technology...if you're planning on making a profit that is. So you need to add another $10,000 (rough estimate) onto each photo you produce and sell.

[eddie1960]

I'm a DJ who works in the wedding industry. It's a side job for me but it's a job. Since this thread relates closely with the music industry as well as photography I have to put in my 2 cents. The one thing that bothers me about things today is everyone is copyright / sue crazy. If everyone played by the copyright laws that are out there, then there wouldn't be any djs or photographers.

Here's my logic (and I need to start with Djing to make my point clear):

As a DJ, you play songs created by popular artists to make money. Even if you buy a song (either by internet or CD) you are only buying the songs to hear them for your own personal use (not for profit). Based on copyright laws you have to pay usage rights to play music for profit. This means you have to pay a minumum of $10,000 per record company per song. With that being the case it would cost me over a million dollars to dj 1 wedding. Now, I don't know about you but I don't anyone (outside of the ultra rich) who would pay that kind of money.

Now with regards to photography...to take a picture you need a camera correct. I mean that's logical. So that means that we would have to buy not only the camera but we would have to buy the rights to the camera brand name (ie. Pentax, Nikon, Canon, etc) to take pictures using their technology...if you're planning on making a profit that is. So you need to add another $10,000 (rough estimate) onto each photo you produce and sell.

Not sure in the US how it works but in Canada use of copyrighted music is administered by SoCan. as an example for DJ's

8 Receptions, Conventions,Assemblies and Fashion Shows

Application form
Fee per event, based on room capacity:
a) Without Dancing: from $20.56 to $87.40
b) With Dancing: from $41.13 to $174.79

so the trick is that needs to be worked into the fees charged to the Client.
It's different for Dj's performing in Bars, where the bar has to have the license.
to give you an Idea the link below outlines most of the various fees.
SOCAN Tariffs

In the US I believe it's Ascap that does the same thing

It's a cost of doing the business. Same as fees I would pay to photograph a Wedding in various sites that are popular (which the Tog should incorporate into their fees)
As I said I don't think he stated it very well (and likely has cost himself business form others) but his point is still valid.

[JohnInIndy]

Amazing how many here missed his point. I wonder how many that did miss his point shoot for a living.

[JohnBee]

Amazing how many here missed his point. I wonder how many that did miss his point shoot for a living.

I thought the article and point was just so-so.
But some of the comments were really entertaining though.

ie.

“If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe.” Carl Sagan