This Photo is NOT Free - DPChallenge Forums

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM

01/13/2012 05:59:08 PM · #26

Originally posted by Judi:

Originally posted by nickyb:

Originally posted by Judi:

Originally posted by nickyb:
÷~20,000 pictures, so the photo costed ~$.33
or if you divide the % of time he uses his comp for things other than photography, or if he has taken more than 20,000 pics on his camera...

There is also his time to take and process the image, the cost in getting to the location etc etc....what the author was saying is that if the client had to reproduce the image for their needs then that is what it would have cost them!

i know, but just to be a pain, its clearly not a $6,612 photo... thats just being obnoxious ;)

But it is the point in general...the ones who think they can use other peoples photos for free just don't seem to think about what it took to take that photo and how they should reimburse the owner....they just take it for granted that it should be available to them for free. I see it happening everyday and it peeves me off.

yes yes, but $6,612, really? just sue the company, you'll make a lot more out of that :)

Judi

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

01/13/2012 05:59:28 PM · #27

Originally posted by sir_bazz:

Originally posted by nickyb:

i know, but just to be a pain, its clearly not a $6,612 photo... thats just being obnoxious ;)

And sunset images are a dime a dozen. Maybe 20c from a Microstock site?

Then let them go and pay 20c for a photo...cause they are clearly trying to get one without paying at all.

sir_bazz

Pentax K-5

Pentax FA 50mm f/1.4 AF

01/13/2012 06:14:50 PM · #28

Originally posted by Judi:

Originally posted by sir_bazz:

Originally posted by nickyb:

i know, but just to be a pain, its clearly not a $6,612 photo... thats just being obnoxious ;)

And sunset images are a dime a dozen. Maybe 20c from a Microstock site?

Then let them go and pay 20c for a photo...cause they are clearly trying to get one without paying at all.

Rather than go on an e-rant, he should be happy that someone found his image and cordially redirect them to his stock site.

I think we all understand what he's trying to say but he didn't a very good job of saying it.

Strikeslip

Canon EOS-5D

01/13/2012 08:07:34 PM · #29

Originally posted by nickyb:

Originally posted by Judi:

Originally posted by nickyb:
÷~20,000 pictures, so the photo costed ~$.33
or if you divide the % of time he uses his comp for things other than photography, or if he has taken more than 20,000 pics on his camera...

There is also his time to take and process the image, the cost in getting to the location etc etc....what the author was saying is that if the client had to reproduce the image for their needs then that is what it would have cost them!

i know, but just to be a pain, its clearly not a $6,612 photo... thats just being obnoxious ;)

If this were your photo, how much would you sell use of it for? Say, one year, banner-size, on a website. Or maybe for a single print run on a calendar. Or whatever you please as an example.

01/13/2012 08:08:36 PM · #30

Originally posted by Strikeslip:

Originally posted by nickyb:

Originally posted by Judi:

Originally posted by nickyb:
÷~20,000 pictures, so the photo costed ~$.33
or if you divide the % of time he uses his comp for things other than photography, or if he has taken more than 20,000 pics on his camera...

There is also his time to take and process the image, the cost in getting to the location etc etc....what the author was saying is that if the client had to reproduce the image for their needs then that is what it would have cost them!

i know, but just to be a pain, its clearly not a $6,612 photo... thats just being obnoxious ;)

If this were your photo, how much would you sell use of it for? Say, one year, banner-size, on a website. Or maybe for a single print run on a calendar. Or whatever you please as an example.

$10? i dunno lol but his calculations are off is what im trying to say... stealing photos is not ok

Strikeslip

Canon EOS-5D

Pentax DA 18-135mm F3.5-5.6ED AL [IF] WR DC

01/13/2012 08:15:41 PM · #31

Originally posted by nickyb:

Originally posted by Strikeslip:

Originally posted by nickyb:

Originally posted by Judi:

Originally posted by nickyb:
÷~20,000 pictures, so the photo costed ~$.33
or if you divide the % of time he uses his comp for things other than photography, or if he has taken more than 20,000 pics on his camera...

There is also his time to take and process the image, the cost in getting to the location etc etc....what the author was saying is that if the client had to reproduce the image for their needs then that is what it would have cost them!

i know, but just to be a pain, its clearly not a $6,612 photo... thats just being obnoxious ;)

If this were your photo, how much would you sell use of it for? Say, one year, banner-size, on a website. Or maybe for a single print run on a calendar. Or whatever you please as an example.

$10? i dunno lol but his calculations are off is what im trying to say... stealing photos is not ok

I would get $350 to $1,400 if it were mine, because that's where I'd price it. Same photo, different attitude and some mileage at the bargaining table just got me $340 to $1,390 more than you.

tnun

Ricoh GR III

01/13/2012 09:22:35 PM · #32

kvetch, kvetch. it was a fun read, and not that bad a sunset shot.

Sony DT 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 Aspherical ED High Magnification Zoom Lens for Sony Alpha

01/13/2012 09:40:52 PM · #33

Hey about the cost of the car to transport you there?

01/13/2012 11:03:47 PM · #34

Originally posted by Strikeslip:

Originally posted by nickyb:

Originally posted by Strikeslip:

Originally posted by nickyb:

Originally posted by Judi:

Originally posted by nickyb:
÷~20,000 pictures, so the photo costed ~$.33
or if you divide the % of time he uses his comp for things other than photography, or if he has taken more than 20,000 pics on his camera...

There is also his time to take and process the image, the cost in getting to the location etc etc....what the author was saying is that if the client had to reproduce the image for their needs then that is what it would have cost them!

i know, but just to be a pain, its clearly not a $6,612 photo... thats just being obnoxious ;)

If this were your photo, how much would you sell use of it for? Say, one year, banner-size, on a website. Or maybe for a single print run on a calendar. Or whatever you please as an example.

$10? i dunno lol but his calculations are off is what im trying to say... stealing photos is not ok

I would get $350 to $1,400 if it were mine, because that's where I'd price it. Same photo, different attitude and some mileage at the bargaining table just got me $340 to $1,390 more than you.

im 14, i dont have the shots to worry about that yet :)

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

01/13/2012 11:04:12 PM · #35

Originally posted by whiterook:

Hey about the cost of the car to transport you there?

the more expensive the car he has, the more expensive the pic ;)

Dirt_Diver

Nikon D3s

01/13/2012 11:42:20 PM · #36

Originally posted by nickyb:

im 14, i dont have the shots to worry about that yet :)

That would explain the lack of knowledge about what goes into making a shot like this and trying to sell it for a profit. More then likely he is stilling the shot for a lot less then the amount he listed but if someone stole it that is the amount he would ask for..By the way, if he did go to court over it he is more likely to get the outrageous amount just because he listed out his expenses like that.

Also, I'm not trying to sound like I am picking on you but I just understood your comments to Judi as if you really had no knowledge about what it costs and takes to shoot, edit and distribute these photos.

For what it's worth to you. Most of the full time photographers on here like myself would not be able to afford the equipment we own if we all our photos where stolen and not sold. Just something else to think about.

ubique

Olympus PEN-F

Olympus 17mm f/1.8 M.Zuiko

01/13/2012 11:55:24 PM · #37

Originally posted by Dirt_Diver:

Originally posted by nickyb:
im 14, i dont have the shots to worry about that yet :)

That would explain the lack of knowledge about what goes into making a shot like this and trying to sell it for a profit. More then likely he is stilling the shot for a lot less then the amount he listed but if someone stole it that is the amount he would ask for..By the way, if he did go to court over it he is more likely to get the outrageous amount just because he listed out his expenses like that.

Also, I'm not trying to sound like I am picking on you but I just understood your comments to Judi as if you really had no knowledge about what it costs and takes to shoot, edit and distribute these photos.

For what it's worth to you. Most of the full time photographers on here like myself would not be able to afford the equipment we own if we all our photos where stolen and not sold. Just something else to think about.

Just a touch patronizing, Diver? Nicky may be 14 but at least he has the wisdom and experience to have recognised the OP-linked article for the feeble sophistry that it is. The cost of producing the picture has nothing at all to do with the market value of the picture.

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM

01/14/2012 12:12:20 AM · #38

Originally posted by ubique:

Originally posted by Dirt_Diver:

Originally posted by nickyb:
im 14, i dont have the shots to worry about that yet :)

That would explain the lack of knowledge about what goes into making a shot like this and trying to sell it for a profit. More then likely he is stilling the shot for a lot less then the amount he listed but if someone stole it that is the amount he would ask for..By the way, if he did go to court over it he is more likely to get the outrageous amount just because he listed out his expenses like that.

Also, I'm not trying to sound like I am picking on you but I just understood your comments to Judi as if you really had no knowledge about what it costs and takes to shoot, edit and distribute these photos.

For what it's worth to you. Most of the full time photographers on here like myself would not be able to afford the equipment we own if we all our photos where stolen and not sold. Just something else to think about.

Just a touch patronizing, Diver? Nicky may be 14 but at least he has the wisdom and experience to have recognised the OP-linked article for the feeble sophistry that it is. The cost of producing the picture has nothing at all to do with the market value of the picture.

thank you paul :)
i have nothing against how much people sell their photos for, and i know how much work can go into a shot, believe me.
but i think adding it up that way is just plain stupid, just my .02¢
sorry if i offended anyone;)

Lydia

Canon EOS-6D

01/14/2012 12:56:01 AM · #39

Every business has costs. Wal-mart figures theft into their prices.

Do we really want the "real world" to have to pay more because other people steal stuff that they should pay for?

I think not.

So... why don't we nip that theft in the bud (so to speak) and hit folks who steal what they know is not theirs for more than they would have paid for it honestly? It's the only way to stop them from stealing.

They certainly know that they do not have rights to a photo they did not capture or pay for.

Let's not be silly enough to protect them... even if they're 14. Age has nothing to do with the law of ownership.

What one chooses to charge for one's image is their own business. They're in competition just as the rest of us are.

We can either buy their work, or... not.

But stealing it... well... that gets you the judge's decision on how much you should pay. Seems like putting a gun to your head and pulling the trigger to me... hoping that it isn't loaded.

FocusPoint

XIAOMI Redmi Note 8 Pro

01/14/2012 01:05:31 AM · #40

12+2500+1600+210+200+130+60+1200+200+500= $6,612
Doing it for love = priceless

ubique

Olympus PEN-F

Olympus 17mm f/1.8 M.Zuiko

01/14/2012 01:42:59 AM · #41

Originally posted by LydiaToo:

Let's not be silly enough to protect them... even if they're 14.

What's 14 got to do with it? Nicky was almost alone here in recognizing the OP-linked position as nonsense. He didn't advocate stealing anything, he simply demonstrated that he was not so credulous as to swallow such a silly, irrelevant and ultimately self-defeating argument about establishing the value of the photograph.

The linked article committed so many atrocities against logic and common sense that it should hardly be necessary to list them, even here. Suffice it to say that the market price is determined by the buyer. The seller determines only the asking price for his work, and if this is the best defence of it that he's got, then it's little wonder that someone might decide that it's not worth paying for at all. But I said that; not Nicky.

01/14/2012 02:05:41 AM · #42

Originally posted by ubique:

Originally posted by LydiaToo:

Let's not be silly enough to protect them... even if they're 14.

What's 14 got to do with it? Nicky was almost alone here in recognizing the OP-linked position as nonsense. He didn't advocate stealing anything, he simply demonstrated that he was not so credulous as to swallow such a silly, irrelevant and ultimately self-defeating argument about establishing the value of the photograph.

The linked article committed so many atrocities against logic and common sense that it should hardly be necessary to list them, even here. Suffice it to say that the market price is determined by the buyer. The seller determines only the asking price for his work, and if this is the best defence of it that he's got, then it's little wonder that someone might decide that it's not worth paying for at all. But I said that; not Nicky.

thats more or less what im trying to get across ;)

eta weird quotes etc

Message edited by author 2012-01-14 02:06:13.

sir_bazz

Pentax K-5

Pentax FA 50mm f/1.4 AF

01/14/2012 02:26:05 AM · #43

Originally posted by ubique:

I agree and think it's nice change to see a demonstration of critical thinking from a 14yo.

Much more interesting than all the "me too" responses that the article received on flickr.

Strikeslip

Canon EOS-5D

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

01/14/2012 08:10:08 AM · #44

Originally posted by nickyb:

Originally posted by Strikeslip:

Originally posted by nickyb:

Originally posted by Strikeslip:

Originally posted by nickyb:

Originally posted by Judi:

Originally posted by nickyb:
÷~20,000 pictures, so the photo costed ~$.33
or if you divide the % of time he uses his comp for things other than photography, or if he has taken more than 20,000 pics on his camera...

There is also his time to take and process the image, the cost in getting to the location etc etc....what the author was saying is that if the client had to reproduce the image for their needs then that is what it would have cost them!

i know, but just to be a pain, its clearly not a $6,612 photo... thats just being obnoxious ;)

If this were your photo, how much would you sell use of it for? Say, one year, banner-size, on a website. Or maybe for a single print run on a calendar. Or whatever you please as an example.

$10? i dunno lol but his calculations are off is what im trying to say... stealing photos is not ok

I would get $350 to $1,400 if it were mine, because that's where I'd price it. Same photo, different attitude and some mileage at the bargaining table just got me $340 to $1,390 more than you.

im 14, i dont have the shots to worry about that yet :)

Sure you do. It's not about the photo (as I'm pointing out), or the expenses to make it (as you and ubique point out). It's about the value to the purchaser, and the willingness of the photographer to arrive at that value with the purchaser. :-)

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

01/14/2012 10:19:19 AM · #45

Originally posted by ubique:

The cost of producing the picture has nothing at all to do with the market value of the picture.

But the article has nothing to do with determining the "market value" of the picture, but rather a somewhat rational basis for determining punitive damages for someone convicted of the civil crime of copyright infringement ... if the photographer had been fortunate enough to have previously registered the photo with the US Copyright Office he *could* sue for up to $250K in statutory damages plus court/attorney costs -- six thousand would then seem a bargain.

Sony DT 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 Aspherical ED High Magnification Zoom Lens for Sony Alpha

01/14/2012 12:57:19 PM · #46

Originally posted by Dirt_Diver:

Originally posted by nickyb:
im 14, i dont have the shots to worry about that yet :)

That would explain the lack of knowledge about what goes into making a shot like this and trying to sell it for a profit. More then likely he is stilling the shot for a lot less then the amount he listed but if someone stole it that is the amount he would ask for..By the way, if he did go to court over it he is more likely to get the outrageous amount just because he listed out his expenses like that.

Also, I'm not trying to sound like I am picking on you but I just understood your comments to Judi as if you really had no knowledge about what it costs and takes to shoot, edit and distribute these photos.

This is why the economy is going down we can't keep prices going upward every time at will.

For what it's worth to you. Most of the full time photographers on here like myself would not be able to afford the equipment we own if we all our photos where stolen and not sold. Just something else to think about.

Spork99

Canon EOS M6 Mk II

Canon EF-M 22mm STM Lens

01/14/2012 12:58:12 PM · #47

Originally posted by ubique:

In the case of infringement, the seller/plaintiff pretty much gets to determine what the photo is worth. There's no "market study" to determine the value.

Sony DT 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 Aspherical ED High Magnification Zoom Lens for Sony Alpha

01/14/2012 01:02:28 PM · #48

Originally posted by whiterook:

Originally posted by Dirt_Diver:

Originally posted by nickyb:
im 14, i dont have the shots to worry about that yet :)

That would explain the lack of knowledge about what goes into making a shot like this and trying to sell it for a profit. More then likely he is stilling the shot for a lot less then the amount he listed but if someone stole it that is the amount he would ask for..By the way, if he did go to court over it he is more likely to get the outrageous amount just because he listed out his expenses like that.

Also, I'm not trying to sound like I am picking on you but I just understood your comments to Judi as if you really had no knowledge about what it costs and takes to shoot, edit and distribute these photos.

anybody with a camera can shoot a sunrise or sunset over the water then take it to CVS get a 8 x 10 for $2.99 and come out an average shot and still look good so $2.99 is lot better than over $6,000!
This is why the economy is going down we can't keep prices going upward every time at will.

For what it's worth to you. Most of the full time photographers on here like myself would not be able to afford the equipment we own if we all our photos where stolen and not sold. Just something else to think about.

Sony DT 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 Aspherical ED High Magnification Zoom Lens for Sony Alpha

01/14/2012 01:06:54 PM · #49

The old days photographers have the same problems of high cost of equipments, broken equipments and stolen equipments!