Alexei Fomin wrote:
I will always have to have a day job, because i refuse to charge as much as everyone else, and usually do it pretty much for cost plus an hourly a little higher than my day job. because i think that it's fairer that way.

For some, photography and software are their day jobs.

If you can tell me how I can figure in my salaries for programming, salaries for support, licensing and subscription fees (because I do pay for the software development tools), and correctly anticipate my sales so that it works into a "cost plus hourly" figure for me, I'll be glad to do so.

Otherwise, I'm just stuck with charging a price I think is fair and will get a good market response. If I'm wrong, or if too many people buy my stuff and destroy my income, then I'm broke, and I and my people are looking for other work. If I'm successful beyond my predictions, and still making good coin after hiring more support people and buying more capacity, then I'm an Evil Rich Corporation. Guess which one I'd prefer.

BCG wrote:
after the crap and hoopla sony caused over installing programs on unsuspecting consumers, i plan to buy all my videos, software and music supplies from my friend Huong Chang in the Hunon Province of china...*flips off the over paid, underworked execs at sony, adobe and microsoft.*

Me, I plan to go to the best photography sites I can find, copy the pictures of subjects and models, send them to my friend Tatu in New Dehli, and have him print and frame the stuff for 20 cents a pop, and sell them. *flips off overpaid portrait, wedding, and celebrity photographers*

No, of course I'm not serious. I'm just displaying the other side of the coin. But judging by some answers here, it would seem to be ethically appropriate.

bencook2 wrote:
But in practice.  TWO different birds.  AND, if the music industry thinks they can sneak into each and every computer...they are wrong.  Sony is having its ass handed to it right now for embedding tracking software in music CDs. 

The music industry already lost the battle.  Now they are in danger of loosing the war.  Single licence, unlimited use.

Actually Sony is not in trouble for tracking software...

The software that sony installed causes a major exploit to basically allow anyone to access a computer reguardless of antivirus/security software, and place other software on the machine.... Which basically makes the machine and all information on it open access to the hackers, or virus writers, or big Uber corp... to basically do what they want with your computer... All with out the owners knowledge...

Justin wrote:

For some, photography and software are their day jobs.

If you can tell me how I can figure in my salaries for programming, salaries for support, licensing and subscription fees (because I do pay for the software development tools), and correctly anticipate my sales so that it works into a "cost plus hourly" figure for me, I'll be glad to do so.

Otherwise, I'm just stuck with charging a price I think is fair and will get a good market response. If I'm wrong, or if too many people buy my stuff and destroy my income, then I'm broke, and I and my people are looking for other work. If I'm successful beyond my predictions, and still making good coin after hiring more support people and buying more capacity, then I'm an Evil Rich Corporation. Guess which one I'd prefer.

Come on, you know i meant a day job outside of photo. because that's my steady income, and everything else i do is just a bonus, entertainment, fun that i get paid for.

Alexei Fomin wrote:
Come on, you know i meant a day job outside of photo. because that's my steady income, and everything else i do is just a bonus, entertainment, fun that i get paid for.

Of course, and I was drawing the distinction. My apologies if I wasn't clear about that.

I should probably quit the thread. It's a little too close to home. It's like asking if people should be able to wander onto the orchard and pick fruit for free. It's a fun discussion until you talk to the orchard farmer - then you might expect him to get riled about it.

Justin wrote:
It's like asking if people should be able to wander onto the orchard and pick fruit for free.

Further proof this is an apples and oranges discussion...

Justin wrote:

Of course, and I was drawing the distinction. My apologies if I wasn't clear about that.

I should probably quit the thread. It's a little too close to home. It's like asking if people should be able to wander onto the orchard and pick fruit for free. It's a fun discussion until you talk to the orchard farmer - then you might expect him to get riled about it.

no you shouldn't, because you represent the side of the story we forget about in the discussion. and people like me represent the "you don't have money for it, well i can make you a copy, just give me a week" side of the story (disclaimer i can't remember the last time i did that besides a "here's a copy i have since your copy is scratched to all hell)

Logan Seh wrote:
Actually Sony is not in trouble for tracking software...

The software that sony installed causes a major exploit to basically allow anyone to access a computer reguardless of antivirus/security software, and place other software on the machine.... Which basically makes the machine and all information on it open access to the hackers, or virus writers, or big Uber corp... to basically do what they want with your computer... All with out the owners knowledge...

How am I wrong if you just agreed with me?  Sony is in trouble for intalling tracking software on folks computers. In Texas and other places that have anti spam laws attorneys general are gearing up to sue Sony BMG.  PLUS all the things you just said as well are 100% how I heard it.

People get in such a hurry to tell folks they a wrong...even when they actually are in agreement.

Alexei Fomin wrote:
I will always have to have a day job, because i refuse to charge as much as everyone else, and usually do it pretty much for cost plus an hourly a little higher than my day job. because i think that it's fairer that way.

In other words, you don't need to pay for your overhead, in that you do it "for love of the craft and art" and don't have to actually make any money at it, much less make a living at it.

Alexei Fomin wrote:
[...] it seems a lot of photographers have forgotten. and same with programmers, they have forgotten that they got into programming because they enjoyed it and just wanted to do something they liked. To so many people in creative fields it is now all about money, instead of the art and craft that they originally fell in love with.

Do you honestly believe the advanced software currently available for photography (Photoshop, InDesign, Quark Xpress, CaptureOne, Gretag-Macbeth's eyeOne, Portfolio, Cumulus, etc.) would exist if the people weren't being paid for their efforts? If the companies hiring the people weren't betting on people buying it? Sure--some quality software would exist--the GIMP and RawShooter Essentials prove that. But it'd be a much smaller selection, created in whatever 'free' time people have available.

Dabbling in software is great. Designing complex systems is another matter, in that it requires a much higher level of skill, more coordination (or a very long development cycle), and a lot of other things the software hobbyist doesn't need to pay attention to

In almost exactly the same way the casual photographer--excuse me, the photographer for whom photography "is just a bonus, entertainment, fun that [they] get paid for" doesn't have to worry about taxes, insurance, overhead, or the requirement that they meet deadlines and provide a quality result every time, while making enough money to pay for their photo equipment, computer hardware and software (oops, it's all "free"--sorry) if shooting digitally, maintaining their equipment, and leaving enough left over to survive on. Businesses can't assume their parents will fund their hobby.

There's a difference between a hobby and a business. You can WANT other people's work to be freely available to you, but it's ultimately not your decision. You simply decide what to do: do you use an alternative; save up for it; or steal it.

In the same way,  it's your decision whether to sell your photography (and for how much), give it away, or pay people to take it away.

Travis Feisthamel Photo wrote:
My opinion is..... Antipiracy is an oxymoron. As soon as they try to make something with some sort of copy protection, someone will have a way around it.

Do you lock the door to your house or car? It's the same thing; it won't stop someone really interested in stealing, but it discourages casual theft.

The 'cost' is that you have to carry more keys, and the car costs a bit more because they have to include locks (and improve them to keep up with the thieves) which is just another way of saying that thieves cost you, even if you never have anything stolen. It's much the same with software or music; books or photographs. You can't prevent it, but there are ways to reduce it somewhat...but the cost is transferred to the final purchaser somehow.

Kevin Connery wrote:

Alexei Fomin wrote:
I will always have to have a day job, because i refuse to charge as much as everyone else, and usually do it pretty much for cost plus an hourly a little higher than my day job. because i think that it's fairer that way.

In other words, you don't need to pay for your overhead, in that you do it "for love of the craft and art" and don't have to actually make any money at it, much less make a living at it.


Do you honestly believe the advanced software currently available for photography (Photoshop, InDesign, Quark Xpress, CaptureOne, Gretag-Macbeth's eyeOne, Portfolio, Cumulus, etc.) would exist if the people weren't being paid for their efforts? If the companies hiring the people weren't betting on people buying it? Sure--some quality software would exist--the GIMP and RawShooter Essentials prove that. But it'd be a much smaller selection, created in whatever 'free' time people have available.

Dabbling in software is great. Designing complex systems is another matter, in that it requires a much higher level of skill, more coordination (or a very long development cycle), and a lot of other things the software hobbyist doesn't need to pay attention to

In almost exactly the same way the casual photographer--excuse me, the photographer for whom photography "is just a bonus, entertainment, fun that [they] get paid for" doesn't have to worry about taxes, insurance, overhead, or the requirement that they meet deadlines and provide a quality result every time, while making enough money to pay for their photo equipment, computer hardware and software (oops, it's all "free"--sorry) if shooting digitally, maintaining their equipment, and leaving enough left over to survive on. Businesses can't assume their parents will fund their hobby.

There's a difference between a hobby and a business. You can WANT other people's work to be freely available to you, but it's ultimately not your decision. You simply decide what to do: do you use an alternative; save up for it; or steal it.

In the same way,  it's your decision whether to sell your photography (and for how much), give it away, or pay people to take it away.

I don't assume my parents will fund my interest. the idiots want me to be a mathematician or an enginieer. Only things they ever got me were gifts (like subscriptions to magazines, or one time a strobe). but every other item I have scrimped and saved for. I have not bought anything new for my photography since july because I haven't had the money. I've slept in parking structures and under bridges in the time i was unemployed also because I don't like to take hand outs even from family. I haven't even been able to print an image out unless a friend wanted a copy or i really wanted it and got a 4x6 instead of an 8x10 because it was cheaper. I will be working in kitchens for the rest of my life to pay for my art (yes the stuff i DON'T put up here is my art but doesn't involve people so i don't put it up) because I refuse to charge people prices that do not reflect the costs. You think I stay up until 3, 4, 5 am every night because it's fun? no i taught myself insomnia, made it a habit and now can't live any other way. I sleep for up to 4 hours, then go to work. if not work then my art. occasionally the bar or a friendly gathering. If you really want to produce art, then you don't need a huge apartment, a large studio, a huge website, toys that you'll hardly every use, a fancy computer, or the latest and greatest camera. You can get by with a small one-bedroom apartment with a living room converted into a studio, the kitchen as the only meeting area, a bit of work that would display your current level of abilities posted on a site like this one that you can refer people to and pay for a month once in a while when you have money, bare essnetials in accesories, a used computer that you clean out, and an old camera that still works even though it's not your dream camera. It might not be a dream, but it gives you one. It gives you a chance to charge a fair price if you have your income come from somewhere else, and let your art be that and not something you sell. I hope one day I can sell print after print enough that even charging a fair price (not market fair, customer fair) i start making enough money to get all the toys i want. But I will not tell people that the camera I bought 6 months ago and the one i want to buy are overhead. they are my decision to upgrade tools, and i pay for them out of my pocket, not my customer's. I've lost at least $10,000 to photography in the last 3 years. I've made maybe $20,000. and you know where the rest of the money went? getting by. My art is something that will be appreciated most likely after I am dead, not before. And I hope one day my kids can sell my pieces for thousands of dollars a piece. not likely though. so please don't accuse me of having this as a hobby. it's my art. my parents don't pay for it. I do. I hate my parents for having pressured me when i wanted to switch to the photography program and telling me to  stay in engineering school. I would NOT consider myself a cusal photographer, since i spend too much time on it to be casual. Every time I do get a paying gig, I give the customers what they want. Never had anyone be unsatisfied. Always met my deadlines. And you know what, my body's paying for it - I have not had a consecutive 2 days where I properly slept in a few years.  I may ocasionally get a night of 8 hours sleep. but that's because the night before i got 1 hour and the next night i know i will get 2 if i'm lucky.  as for the decision on software - "infringing on copyrights" when it comes to a giant corporation like Adobe, Microsoft, or Macromedia, I think they are the thieves themselves. using a program written by a single person or a small organization is different, because they are scraping by trying to do their business. And with many programs there is no alternative. There is not other program that will be able to handle the same assignments in the same way. It's either save up for a year and buy a copy (at which point they will issue a new version that will take another 4 months to save up for the upgrade) or get a copy through a guy who knows a guy who knows a guy. Whenever I download shareware, I send what I can afford and that's how that programmer get his or her money. I would never even consider investing or giving money to someone who was charging inexplicably huge amounts of money for their software. You can't tell me that the ceo of Adobe would have trouble paying rent if i "stole" a copy of an adobe program. It doesn't hurt them as long as enough people who do have the money buy the programs and thereby pay for the ceo to have a mansion in the hamptons.

Alexei Fomin wrote:
You can't tell me that the ceo of Adobe would have trouble paying rent if i "stole" a copy of an adobe program. It doesn't hurt them as long as enough people who do have the money buy the programs and thereby pay for the ceo to have a mansion in the hamptons.

So your justification for stealing is that other people have more money than you?  You're expecting me to pay for your copy of Photoshop?  Thanks.  I didn't work hard to pay for it or anything...

We all have sob stories.  Some people use them as motivation.  Some people use them as excuses.

Brian Diaz wrote:
So your justification for stealing is that other people have more money than you?  You're expecting me to pay for your copy of Photoshop?  Thanks.  I didn't work hard to pay for it or anything...

We all have sob stories.  Some people use them as motivation.  Some people use them as excuses.

I second that.
After all - how will you ever be considered a professional when you're not in your equipment.
Ohh - poor me too. I never charge a model - never made any money out of it. Still I have gear worth 15.000 plus... but I do it for the love of the game. And in between.. I WORK. This way I can afford the stuff I need...


Besides.... If you get your software for free, why don't you give away your photographs (or art) for free. This way you might call it even.

BCG wrote:
if you had a "crack" code, you would not have had ANY of those headaches...*moons adobe corporation*

It's not a matter of trust... more of decency.

Hartsoe wrote:

It's not a matter of trust... more of decency.

i am decent and if you ask the ladies, i am fun, lovable and huggable.

BCG wrote:
help me dispell or prove a myth...is there a branch of the justice department or agency that can come into a company suspected of using pirated software or software that is not intended for use and seize that equipment???...now before you think i am nut, i have heard a commercial with an 800 number to call if you think you know of such activities.

Absolutely and to my knowledge and past experience, it is the FBI.  Before photography I was a consultant.  I was working in a manufacturing company that I was on an assignment too.  I was part of a team of developers that had written a new HR application for this manufacturer, while we were in house installing the application and and getting users set up, the FBI came in WITH WARRANTS and seized all software and computer hardware.  They had several unliscensed versions of software running.  In the end the were fined very heavily and had to liscense any of the applications that they were to continue using.

BCG wrote:
adobe and microsoft are my new enemies.

Why because you got caught with a bastard copy of Photoshop and Windows XP?

BCG wrote:
they do not have authority in private business affairs do they???...*thanks God I live in a State in which i can carry a concealed weapon*

Admitting something?

MarkMarek wrote:
I only use legal software. I spent a lot of money on it (over $5000), but using pirated ones just isn't right. I also do not own any burned music CDs or ripped DVDs. My collection of music and movies is huge and they're all legally purchased originals.

Mark

Exactly......and yes it's expensive, but at least you're not on here asking amd worrying about getting busted.....

bencook2 wrote:
You can't compare software to music and movies or any art media. 

Music was made to be shared.  It is a different beast than software.  Until the music industry gets over itself and embraces technology and the fact that the only way to license music is one price unlimited sharing, it will continue to suffer lost revenue.

I don't care how many song writers they say they are paying with the money they make.  I know otherwise.  If a CD costs under $2 to produce, where does that other money go?  The other $12-14 dollars?  I promise you it does not go to the lonely song writers.

Sony BMG knows no one will ever feel sorry for them.  So the "face" they put on piracy is that of the poor songwriter.

A copyright is a copyright is a copyright, whether you agree with it or not, it exists, justifying it to appease your own thievery  does not make it right.

bencook2 wrote:

No arguement.

But in practice.  TWO different birds.  AND, if the music industry thinks they can sneak into each and every computer...they are wrong.  Sony is having its ass handed to it right now for embedding tracking software in music CDs. 

The music industry already lost the battle.  Now they are in danger of loosing the war.  Single licence, unlimited use.

Single licence, unlimited use.
That does not mean copying and sharing with friends and family and dumping the CDs out onto Peer to Peer and file sharing sites.

bencook2 wrote:

You are right.  But in the mean time, billions of downloads later, the majority of the world agrees with you in word...but does not in deed.

And that makes it right?

Alexei Fomin wrote:
I believe all software should be open-source and have a cap on its price tags by law. for example, something that we all use - photoshop. it should not cost that damn much. how about $50 a copy instead. their sales would probably increase more than enough to compensate for it. I mean let's imagine that half the people who get cracked copies instead got legal copies at $50 a pop. of course it's gonna improve their sales. I've seen people just giving out copies of Photoshop and other programs all over the place. companies have a monopoly on their software since nobody else makes the identical product (only one label will have a song by a specific artist, only one company will have the exact program, etc), and because of that think they can charge such high prices. Yet monopolies are supposed to be illegal. Gov't looks the other way on software, music, video, etc monopolies and trusts because they like getting the taxes from every sale and from the profit margins of all the companies.

You have NO clue how much it costs time and money to develop a single application.

Julia Gerace wrote:
maybe someone could clarify this for me then... I also want to say that this has been just an excellent discussion!...   


How come if I buy a cd I can't play it in my studio when I'm doing a session? also, legally, you can't even be playing the radio... 


Julia

It's that catch 22 thing.

When you buy a program, legally you can only run it on ONE computer, even if you have two in your household. Ideally, the companies would like for you to buy a copy for each computer, but this, they don't enforce. A lot of business software these days comes with license numbers and you have to call for activation, preventing you from using it on multiple computers. CS2 is one of those. I have one copy on one computer, yet I own three computers that I do work on. I run PS7 on one and Corel Painter on another. All bought and paid for because I don't want to be my daughter's incarcerated mom by being ignorant. It sucks at times, but oh well.

As for music, you can legally make your own mixes once you buy your copy of the CD. You cannot sell, give away copies to friends or upload to the internet. So, you can play your copied CD at work or in your car.

Julia Gerace wrote:
maybe someone could clarify this for me then... I also want to say that this has been just an excellent discussion!...   


How come if I buy a cd I can't play it in my studio when I'm doing a session? also, legally, you can't even be playing the radio... 


Julia

Actually it depends on your square footage, number of speakers (per room and total), etc.
In some instances (mostly studios bigger than 2000 gross square feet w/ 6 or more speakers with at least 4 in any one room [I believe]) you will have to obtain a separate license for the music you want to play in studio. But, most likely if you put you I Pod down on one of those speakers they sell for it you will not need a license.
-Source PPA guide to music listening/licensing (or something like that)-

Alexei Fomin wrote:
It gives you a chance to charge a fair price if you have your income come from somewhere else, and let your art be that and not something you sell.

Which sums up your entire point about art, doesn't it? A "fair price" is one that causes insomnia, early death, and an inability to pay bills.

Hardly seems "fair" to me.

Alexei Fomin wrote:
But I will not tell people that the camera I bought 6 months ago and the one i want to buy are overhead. they are my decision to upgrade tools, and i pay for them out of my pocket, not my customer's.

There's no reason to tell them. It's still an expense. (See your next sentence.)

Alexei Fomin wrote:
I've lost at least $10,000 to photography in the last 3 years.

Alexei Fomin wrote:
I would NOT consider myself a cusal photographer, since i spend too much time on it to be casual. Every time I do get a paying gig, I give the customers what they want. Never had anyone be unsatisfied. Always met my deadlines. And you know what, my body's paying for it - I have not had a consecutive 2 days where I properly slept in a few years.

Are you so eager for your children to be able to sell your art posthumously that you're deliberately taking steps to die young? Wow; That's dedication!

Alexei Fomin wrote:
as for the decision on software - "infringing on copyrights" when it comes to a giant corporation like Adobe, Microsoft, or Macromedia, I think they are the thieves themselves. using a program written by a single person or a small organization is different

You don't consider it theft if you steal a little bit from each of a few hundred people and the people (stockholders) who sponsored their efforts? Is it only theft when you steal from someone poor? That's an interesting "philosophy".

Alexei Fomin wrote:
And with many programs there is no alternative. There is not other program that will be able to handle the same assignments in the same way. It's either save up for a year and buy a copy (at which point they will issue a new version that will take another 4 months to save up for the upgrade) or get a copy through a guy who knows a guy who knows a guy.

AKA receiving stolen property. Hey, it's your call.

Alexei Fomin wrote:
I would never even consider investing or giving money to someone who was charging inexplicably huge amounts of money for their software.
[...] It doesn't hurt them as long as enough people who do have the money buy the programs and thereby pay for the ceo to have a mansion in the hamptons.

Would you also feel justified in stealing $10 from that same CEO's wallet, since it's a drop in the bucket to him, and no real loss?  You're taking money from his pocket either way.

You believe that some companies are "charging huge amounts of money" for reasons you can't explain, and that--to you--justifies stealing it.  Your ethics are yours alone, and you choose them; that's unquestionable. The law, on the other hand, is what it is, and your individual opinion has very little influence on that.

Do you also steal cameras or lenses you want, because the manufacturers are "charging inexplicably huge amounts of money"?

I guess I'm a bit of a fuddy-duddy, in that I don't feel that someone has the right to take something that doesn't belong to them, just because the other person can afford the loss.

Julia Gerace wrote:
How come if I buy a cd I can't play it in my studio when I'm doing a session? also, legally, you can't even be playing the radio...

Size of your space doesn't matter, what does is usage for public consumption as that crosses personal use.  It is called Public Performance Rights.  However, there are exemptions.   An establishment is eligible for the exemption if it (1) has less than 2000 gross square feet of space; or (2) has 2000 or more gross square feet of space and satisfies the same loudspeaker and television set requirements as for food service or drinking establishments. 

BMI/ASCAP are the watchdogs over licensing and royalty payment and when music is used beyond just personal pleasure, such as adding an enhancement to the ambience of a public or private business facility, then that qualifies for royalty payment.

Star wrote:
The only stealing I have ever done is software, and time. I have always turned any loose money or wallets I have found into the nearest security officer or police station. I give back change if I am given too much. I do the best I can,  i think everyone does

There's the rub, isn't it?  One type of stealing is okay while another is not.  By stealing software, you are essentially taking that "loose money" out of the wallets of the people who worked hard (and continue to work hard) on developing Adobe CS2.  You said that you are a student - did you investigate academic versions of CS2?  They're half the price (legally.)

And to those of you who think piracy isn't that big of a problem, remember that there are probably 500,000,000 other people out there who feel the exact same way you do.  Even if 1% of that many people pirate, that's 5,000,000 illegal copies floating around.  If I ran a software company, I would see that as a problem.

bencook2 wrote:

How am I wrong if you just agreed with me?  Sony is in trouble for intalling tracking software on folks computers. In Texas and other places that have anti spam laws attorneys general are gearing up to sue Sony BMG.  PLUS all the things you just said as well are 100% how I heard it.

People get in such a hurry to tell folks they a wrong...even when they actually are in agreement.

Technically he didn't agree with you.  Sony is not "IN TROUBLE" as you state.