This Photograph Is Not Free

John Mueller · Jan 10, 2012

So this was the first sunset I captured in 2012. It cost me $6,612 to take this photo.

$12 in gas to go from work to this spot and then home. The camera I took this with cost $2500. The lens was another $1600. The Singh Ray Reverse Neutral Density filter was $210. The Lee Wide-Angle Adapter and Foundation kit was another $200. The Slik Tripod was another $130. The shutter-release was another $60. When I got home, I uploaded it to a computer that cost me $1200, and then I used Lightroom 3 which I got for $200. I then exported it and tinkered with it in Photoshop which costs about $500.

12+2500+1600+210+200+130+60+1200+200+500= $6,612

So if you’re a magazine, website, corporation, sports team, or advertiser who wishes to use this photo, please don’t come and ask to use it for free, or in exchange for credit or “exposure”. You found my photo so obviously I have “exposure”. You have an advertising budget, and this is what it’s for. You obviously don’t expect your writers to work for free, or your secretary, or your boss. No one is going to publish it for free. Just because the picture is digital doesn’t mean it was free to make.

As someone mentioned, THIS single photo didn’t cost me $6,612, but if you wanted to create it, from scratch, that is what is involved. So I consider it the replacement value if it’s stolen, or how much my lawyer will send you a bill for if it’s found being used without my permission.

If you give your photo away for “credit” then the best possible scenario for you is someone will see your photo, contact you, and ask if they could borrow one of your photos… for credit. Try this… next time you’re at dinner, tell your waiter you’ll tell all your friends how good the service was if he gives you dinner for free.

About the author: John B. Mueller is a photographer based in Ventura County, California. Visit his website here.

Thanks for the tip, Morts!

http://twitter.com/ParentsGuide101 Smart Parenting

I think he forgot to mention the cost of his electricity while processing this photo.
PerformingArtist

The photo isn’t valued at what YOU think its worth, its valued at what the market thinks its worth. Itemising costs doesn’t change this. Market law dictates that if you set a price that no one will pay for then ultimately your photo is worth nothing. It doesn’t matter the reasons behind the price you set. A lot of artists are so passionate about their art they tend to forget the laws of economics. I am a model/dancer/musician and I manage other models. I get asked for free stuff all the time. Some models are new and need exposure, others have a larger fan-base and are in demand. I cannot simply charge based on how expensive their gogo outfit cost or their level of dance qualifications.
Ashley Beolens

Every sing person here who has made a comment critisising this post needs to remember YOU do NOT work for free, if YOU were to go to work tomorrow and do a great job and then your boss said we will give you credit for a job well done but we no longer pay YOU would be pissed!

Or how would you feel if someone decided to volunteer to do your job so they no longer willing to pay?

The price listed is as an example to how the cost of a great photo is not about free digital images but that time effort and money go into great works.
Matthew_photos

This picture sucks, nobody will use it man.
http://twitter.com/gerdaspics Gerda Grice

Travel and equipment costs and the professional status or lack of it of the photographer are not the issue. The issue is surely that the photographer owns the images s(he) makes and has a right to demand payment for them if s(he) chooses.
KnotWright

Just keep your photos to yourself and never show them – then nobody will rip you off!
Or – take your chances and keep putting great photos out there – you’ll make some $ – eventually! Photographer’s aren’t restaurants or even plumbers – we’re lucky to get paid, and it’s a miracle if we get paid a fraction of what we deserve…

Just take great and unique images and quit bitching!
http://www.theraisak.com/ Theraisa K

Couldn’t have said it better myself!
http://www.enzodalverme.com/blog enzo dal verme

To the clients that ask me to shoot for free, I am now sending the link to this short video: Exposure Doesn’t Pay Bills http://bitly.com/GWoEFD
Guest

I hope you do, then John can sue you. And then maybe you’ll find a free lawyer to represent you (good luck on that). But before you get sued, send me 100 of those t-shirts for free. You’ll get exposure… as a poster child of IP infringement when I plaster them around the local law school.
Guest

Totally agree with you… And then people wonder, why am I scraping bottoms with my photography? Because of people like these commenters on this forum who’ve collectively agreed to work for next to nothing and dragged down the industry with them.
gLOW-x

This is always funny to read reactions about money subjects.

In our “all should be free” internet world (sounds like communism :D ), a chance there are ppl buying productions made by others.

But the “it is on the internet, so i can steal it” spirit is related to capitalist system.

-”Everything counts in large amount” (Depeche Mode)
Witch mean if a company steal 1000 pictures a month instead of paying 1 buck each, they gain 1000 dollars a month and 12.000 a year.That’s why even big bucks enterprises steal photos, musics…if they don’t make money with them, they loose nearly nothing anyway.

-As nobody will suit me (too expansive), i can overuse everything i can download.

I even discovered recently ppl download watermarked pictures, remove the watermark and sell them on another website.
Sometimes they even create their own website, to be sure they will not be kicked from legit websites…
This is their full time activity.
Guest

I am a photographer and what people pay for is your skill and time. That is all. They dont’ pay for your camera, or equipment, etc. They pay for the prints, and the time. If you hire a plumber to come to your house does he charge your for the pipe wrench, or does your landscaper charge you for his rake? No, because that would be stupid, like this article. Anyone can buy those things, but not everyone can take a good picture. That’s what they pay for.

Your argument is honestly sad and telling that you value your art based on the equipment used and not the skill that very few have. Shame….
Paulie

It’s fairly clear the photographer was making a point, not trying to sell the image for $6612. EVERYTHING goes into making an true fine art image, as opposed to the junk stuffed onto Flickr with camera phones. Good images have value (as do ANY kind that mean something to the owner), that was the point. When anyone’s hard drive crashes, what is the first thing they panic over? Excel files with last year’s budget?
isaac

well if you don’t want it stolen/borrowed don’t put it on the internet! my 35mm camera I got from my grandfather would take this shot. for far less being old useful and not needing photoshop!
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100001079783254 Michael MrAdorkable Markauskas

I think I could get into this method of billing.

oil = 25$
filter = 10$
ASE certifications = 300$
mechanics tools = 35,000$

so Mr Mueller, your next oil change will cost you 35,335$. we take cash and credit card.
http://www.eheizerphotography.blogspot.com Emily Heizer Photography

Copyright infringement under Federal law is a $150,000 fine PER violation. Removing a watermark from a marked image is $6,000, again, PER violation. Doesn’t matter how much he “spent” on creating the image. He’s entitled to $150k per illegal use. Think about that the next time you download someone’s images without their permission!
http://www.eheizerphotography.blogspot.com Emily Heizer Photography

Wrong. It’s federal copyright law. Doesn’t matter how much he spent. Federal law allows for $150k fines per violation PLUS cost.
notenoughtime

I can’t believe how so many of you totally miss the point of the article. Duh

This Photograph Is Not Free

Related Posts