This Photograph Is Not Free - <AUTHOR> http://www.petapixel.com/2012/01/10/this-photograph-is-not-free/ <comment><USER2> 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/photo...](http://www.flickr.com/photos/johnmueller/6643032477/in/photostream) 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/>

<comment><USER3> 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.

<comment><USER4> This is parallel to a recent HN thread on copyright: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3303796>

I think photographers (like musicians) face two problems: the amateurization of photography, and the lack of marginal cost of distribution.

Photographers need to figure out how to get paid. You can try to charge me the cost of production if you want, but I'm not going to pay it, esp. when there's a large and growing base of amateurs who will give me their work for free. This is why there is a culture of asking for a free license in exchange for exposure: because market dynamics have driven the price down that far. Someone who approaches you for free work isn't going to pay you what you want no matter what. You need to find the people who will pay you.

The freemium model is the only one that really makes sense to me. You give away your past work for free, as a marketing cost, and charge a service fee for those premium customers who have the budget. You charge for the actual production, not for the distribution.

<comment><USER5> He has figured out a way to get paid. He takes incredible pictures people want to use for their company and sells it to them. He has also mentioned that people who give stuff away for free or "credit" are just burned again later on because other companies don't want to pay, they want to "credit"

As someone who considers himself an amateur photographer, there is no way I could just "reproduce" that for free to someone.

First consider the amount of money his lens costs, how much his filter costs, because those things are not "common" parts of an amateur photographer's kit.

Then consider the amount of time he put into his craft, the countless hours he spend reading up on photography: lighting, white balance, ISO, apeture, etc. Then going outside to do nature shoots or going inside for some modeling on a white screen. All of that is blood, sweat and tears he expended to be good at what he is doing.

Do you think a junior programmer is the same as a senior programmer? There are obviously times where some program or code is so simple that either programmer could get the job done (and even then a lesser programmer might miss some minute detail), but if it were true for all programming jobs then obviously the people in the industry would be screwed because no one would pay a salary for more than just a junior programmer. Replace what you've said about photography with programming and do you still believe it to be true?

If you really feel that you should get your photos free from an amateur photographer that is your choice, but you're not going to get the same picture that that guy took and he's happy to not sell you that picture for free. Just getting the perfect lighting for a photograph is tough and I doubt an amateur could just set that up and take it for you at that quality.

<comment><USER4> _He takes incredible pictures people want to use for their company and sells it to them._

That might work for him, but I doubt it's viable for photographers in general, at least in the future.

 _He has also mentioned that people who give stuff away for free or "credit" are just burned again later on because other companies don't want to pay, they want to "credit"_

Like I said, those companies aren't going to pay no matter what. They're looking for a free product. If yours isn't free, they're not going to change their budget, they're going to look elsewhere.

My point is that copies are basically free. When you use the copies as marketing, you're using their zero marginal cost as a feature. What you charge for is the part that costs you money: production. You have to find the people who are willing to fund the production of photos, not just the distribution.

My point about amateurization is that, no, maybe you or I couldn't reproduce that photo, but could a thousand amateurs? What about when the equipment gets rapidly better and more inexpensive at the same time?

 _Then consider the amount of time he put into his craft, the countless hours ..._

Here you're making an anti-capitalist argument. I should pay him what he _deserves_? Who decides how much his hard work is worth?

I'm actually not a programmer, but your point isn't lost on me. But I think it actually bolsters my argument. Programmers generally _have_ figured out how to make money, and it's not be selling free copies. It's the reason SaaS and freemium models are dominating.

So, yes, you can replace photographers with any job and I think it'll still be true: you have to charge for the parts people will be willing to pay, and zero marginal cost distribution isn't going to be it.

In fact, to make it personal: I'm an aspiring writer. I write on my blog and I just got a couple of pieces published in the Atlantic Tech blog. I don't get paid for any of that writing. If I tried to charge for it, no one would pay me. So I give it away for free while I hone my skills and build my (freely available) ouevre, in the hope that eventually the quality of my work will be such that I will be able to fund the _production_ of the work, not the distribution of copies. (I.e. in the hope that I'll get hired by a web site or magazine to write on staff full-time.) So my money is actually located exactly where my mouth is.

<comment><USER5> I had a long post written but I think for brevity sake I'll only include what I thought is relevant.

> In fact, to make it personal: I'm an aspiring writer. I write on my blog and > I just got a couple of pieces published in the Atlantic Tech blog. I don't > get paid for any of that writing. If I tried to charge for it, no one would > pay me. So I give it away for free while I hone my skills and build my > (freely available) ouevre, in the hope that eventually the quality of my > work will be such that I will be able to fund the production of the work, > not the distribution of copies. (I.e. in the hope that I'll get hired by a > web site or magazine to write on staff full-time.) So my money is actually > located exactly where my mouth is.

Who's to say he hasn't already paid his dues? Maybe he did do sample work when he was just starting out and he's now at the phase where he's monetizing his skill set by selling good photos. He doesn't have a problem with companies that don't want to pay, he just says that what he does isn't cheap or free to do so pay him some money for his time and effort or just don't use the picture. If some website asks you to write full-time but they can't pay you anything other than exposure, are you going to take it? No, because you have a valuable skill that should be paid.

But let's try to keep it in the context of the post. He has a picture, apparently companies _want_ this picture so he has something that they cannot get just by grabbing an amateur's version of the photograph. These companies also have large ad and marketing budgets so money shouldn't be an issue yet somehow it is. I think in this case he has a right to be mad. He can't work for free, and since he took it and owns the rights to it he should be able to tell those companies to piss off. If there is a demand for his photo to be used then he should get paid.

<comment><USER4> _Who's to say he hasn't already paid his dues?_

I'm saying it's not about paying dues. I'm saying dues-paying is exactly the wrong attitude. I'm not writing for free out of some sense of obligation to the field. I'm doing it because that's the only way I can think of to build enough credibility to be able to charge for my productive capacity in the future.

 _...and he's now at the phase where he's monetizing his skill set by selling good photos._

My argument is that selling copies is not a great way to monetize that skill- set that he's built. It might work for a few people, but I think market dynamics are such that that's not going to be viable for many people for very long.

 _If some website asks you to write full-time but they can't pay you anything other than exposure, are you going to take it?_

That's not the analogous situation. A closer one is: if a website asks to use a copy of one of my posts, paying only in exposure, would I take it? The answer is yes, I already do that. I _could_ ask them to pay me for work I've already done, but it's a hard thing to ask, when people can get the same thing for free elsewhere.

 _He has a picture, apparently companies _want_ this picture_

Yes. They want it for free, despite their large ad and marketing budgets. Money is always an issue. What makes you say "it shouldn't be an issue"?

 _He can't work for free, and since he took it and owns the rights to it he should be able to tell those companies to piss off. If there is a demand for his photo to be used then he should get paid._

You're right that he should be able to tell people to piss off if he wants to. He can _try_ to charge a billion dollars per photo if he wants. I'm not saying he shouldn't, I don't think anyone is. I'm saying it's not going to work. I'm saying it's not a viable strategy for photographers at large for the foreseeable future. You're crazy if you think the companies that are asking for the photo for free are going to read this blog post and realize the error of their ways.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The machinery needed to produce a ballpoint pen costs the best part of $10m. A ballpoint pen costs 20 cents.

Cameras are expensive. Photographs are almost worthless. Supply utterly outstrips demand, especially for shots like landscapes that have great appeal for amateur photographers but little commercial utility.

Ten years ago, you could name every paparazzo working in London. They were a small circle of time-served photogs who knew everyone, and whom everyone knew. There was an infrastructure of couriers and darkrooms to get images from film to press in time. They spent years cultivating relationships with celebrities, doormen and nightclub owners. Today, there are countless PJ students and teenagers hurtling around Soho on scooters. With a cheap DSLR and a smartphone, an image can be on the front page of dailymail.com in 20 minutes.

The new breed see their work as a more exciting alternative to working weekends in a shop. Most of them are happy to get a quarter of what images used to sell for. They shoot using the modern equivalent of "f/8 and be there" and need practically no technical skill. Rather than cultivating relationships and building sources, many of them rely on Twitter. Unlike the previous generation, many of them are happy to tip each other off and share information. It's now scarcely possible to make a proper living and most of the old-timers are shooting commercial work or weddings.

<comment><USER7> > It's now scarcely possible to make a proper living and most > of the old- > timers are shooting commercial work or weddings.

Strange you should say that, as we actually hired an ex photo-journalist to do our wedding photos as we didn't want any posed nonsense, just genuine photos of people as they naturally were. The photos that we received were amazing and we were really happy with the results.

I spoke to him on the day of the wedding and he gave me almost the exact same story you've just posted.

It seems to me that every industry that relies on technology gets seriously disrupted when the technology becomes cheap enough - printing, publishing, photography and I'm sure there are many more.

<comment><USER8> That's because people doing weddings are NOT selling photographs. They are selling their time and expertise, which will always be in short supply.

<comment><USER9> Kind of. Let's not forget that most wedding photographers explicitly own the rights to the photos they take of your wedding, and have print and digital packages they explicitly push both to you and to your friends and family as part of their offering. Some wedding photographers don't even offer the digital pictures as part of their base packages.

<comment><USER10> Our wedding photographer gave us a DVD with everything and an explicit release to do anything we wanted with them. She was very forward thinking and she seemed to be doing very well for herself.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> What utter nonsense.

> * 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.*

I hope he's never pirated a film or he could owe the studio millions and millions of dollars.

He should be arguing that it is expensive to take photos, and that any sales of them need to add up to cover initial and future costs. He should also be arguing that they are paying not just for the expense of taking it, but for his skill and time.

By arguing that one photo is worth that much, he is doing neither and looks like a moron.

<comment><USER12> I don't think he said that $6,612 is the cost of licensing its photo. He said he considers $6,612 the "replacement value", should someone publish it in a magazine without licensing first. So it's more akin to distributing _for profit_ a movie you don't own any rights too.

I don't see why he would use this value as a basis for damages incurred though, since even someone publishing his photo without licensing it, hasn't taken (stolen) the photo from him. "Replacement value" has no meaning in this digital context.

In my opinion, there's no relation whatsoever between the cost of taking the photo and the damages he should seek. I think the damages should be correlated with the licensing value of the photo, majored appropriately for not acquiring licensing prior to using it.

<comment><USER11> A replacement value is only relevant if it has to be replaced - if I use his photo without permission in a magazine or a website, he still has the photo, no replacement needed.

While I am not denying him of the photo, I would of course be denying him of the revenue he would have earned had I licenced it from him, and would be entitled to demand that, and some more. If he had said that he would sue for $6k in punative costs, fair enough. Or even if he had said that he values his art at that price, and therefore that is what he charges for a single license.

Take Hollywood as an example, when they go after someone for illegally downloading a film they don't ask for the cost of a cinema ticket, or a cost of a DVD, they want a lot more than that. They don't however say "this film cost us £40m to create, that is it's replacement value, you now owe us £40m for downloading it".

<comment><USER13> "He still has the photo" is a nonsense argument -- he doesn't "still have the photo" from a licensing perspective in that he can no longer license exclusive or first usage rights (which also exist in regional and media contexts). The photograph has been irreparably damaged _vis-a-vis_ its commercial value after unauthorised use/publication. That is something people seem to be unwilling to understand or consider for some strange reason -- the image file itself may still exist in a usable state, but its value is not in its bits, it's in its licensability. Unlicensed use demotes the picture's value to the level of royalty-free microstock in the eyes of potential buyers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> The photographer, John Mueller, is absolutely amazing and deserves to be paid for the art he produces. See his work here: <http://www.johnbmueller.com>

Regarding the value of the photo, I highly doubt he believes a single photo is worth $6,612. He is merely trying to explain that he should be paid for his work, and he has. Arguing that it is expensive to take photos wouldn't have gotten your attention. This got your attention. He won.

Edit: I have absolutely no affiliation with Mueller nor have I heard of him prior to this article, but was bothered by the negative and deliberately ignorant comments posted here. Very unlike Hacker News...

<comment><USER15> I don't see anyone here arguing he should not be paid for his work, that would be a preposterous position to take and I am not sure where you are reading this. The problem I have with his math logic is that it could actually hurt genuine arguments against copyright infringement from pro photographers. A better argument would be to disregard this bizarro math entirely and instead justify the photo's worth from his undeniable skill, talent and artistic merit. He could say the photo is worth $20,000 instead of using illogical reasoning.

<comment><USER16> I haven't seen anyone on HN making the argument that artists shouldn't be paid, but I have seen several saying they don't think artists should control the pricing and distribution of their work. To me, that is the most fundamental part of copyright.

Gary Larson gets to say that his works don't appear online and the creators of Penny Arcade get to put all their work online and make money indirectly. The point is that they as creators get to choose.

We can go back and forth all day about if you copy a photograph without the photographer's permission you have stolen from them, but what you have done is violate his/her copyright.

In recent days, we've all been applauding Louis C.K. for the approach he took distributing his stand-up video. Some have been saying that all video content should follow that model. This ignores the fact that DRM-free online distribution was his choice, and every content creator should be free to choose what method works best for them.

I personally think the author should have included the cost in hours and education to get him to the skill level he has today. His cost of living vs. how many photographs of that quality he makes is also valid in how he prices his work. The point he was trying to make, though, is that this is not just a hobby for him and the idea that his work is not free is worth ranting about.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> The photographer has gone about this the wrong way - the cost is actually his experience and time.

It's like the 'Picasso Principle' where a woman approached Picasso for a sketch, he did something in 5 minutes and quoted her $10,000.

She said 'it only took you 5 minutes' and his response was 'no, it took me a lifetime'.

Full read here: <http://bit.ly/A8ABL4>

<comment><USER18> This reminds me of...

Tapping with a hammer ......................... $ 10.00 Knowing where to tap .......................... $990.00

<comment><USER19> The story is much longer... it involved a creaky wooden floor and two contractors. One quotes say $1000 and 7 days to fix, tears the whole thing up and fixes it. The other quotes $1000 pulls out his hammer and fixes the creaky floor with one nail in a few seconds.

Both fixed the problem, but the expert isn't worth any less than the guy who put in tons of man-hours.

<comment><USER20> In fact, the expert is worth a lot more, because he saves you 7 days of disruption.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> The replacement value is actually much more than that. You could take that same equipment and shoot your entire lifetime and never get a shot like that.

The internet is not about content. It's about distribution. It costs a LOT of money to use a human -- the artist -- to "distribute" that image from nature onto his digital camera. From there it costs zero to distribute it to the rest of the world.

The answer is to tie the initial "distribution" of the data with the end consumer. So share the small image for free with whomever wants to see it, then charge a small fortune for a steganographically watermarked 10MB one. If you "sign" your images with a tamper-proof record of whom the recipient is, who you are, and perhaps a personalized message, not only can you track the image, you increase its value for the buyer. It's a good thing for both patron and artist.

ADD: As a real-world example of how this works, take my funny picture collection. (<http://caption-of-the-day.com>) I have a hobby of collecting funny pictures. Finally decided to put them all on a blog.

Now many of these pictures are actually web comics, or demotivators, or whatever. I want to credit each artist, but I'm just some schmuck collecting funny pictures. I don't have time to research each and every one.

But with watermarking I don't have to. Most of the times whoever made the image also put a watermark on it pointing back to their website. So instead of "lifting" the pictures, I'm actually providing free advertising for the artist. Artists compete to have their work distributed for free. Consumers become big fans of certain brands and help the artists advertise. Think of how worse this system would be if the artists controlled everything. DRM is a menace. The business models might be different, but The technology community has solved the exact problem this photographer is concerned about.

<comment><USER22> Firstly, I'm loving <http://caption-of-the-day.com/> \- but it appears to be broken. "Click to View" only activates the top post (in Firefox 9 at least). Will be adding you to my list of sites to visit regularly though...

Secondly, whilst watermarking works for funny pictures, or people who solely sell artwork, it isn't something I would class as a solution. For people who mainly want to share their work, but simply don't want it ripped off, it's ruining the original artwork. Watermarks are ugly.

Also, the OP says he's not concerned with distribution...

<comment><USER21> Thanks!

I read his concerns about distribution a different way.

 _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._

It occurs to me that as much as I hate DRM, I'm actually making a "DRM-light" argument.

I think it's possible to have a file format in which the artist "signs" his work, perhaps along with whomever he sold it to -- a secure provenance chain. The payment provider would perform this service as part of the digital transfer.

That way you could distribute anything you want, however you want. The value would be in the distribution chain.

I'm a hobby photographer and professional programmer and author. Believe me, I know the pain this guy is experiencing. But the simple fact is bits are worthless. The _photos_ of Ansel Adams aren't worth nearly as much anymore. But the provenance of a piece of work, being able to show that it came directly from the artist, perhaps with a personalized message on the back? That's priceless.

The economy just isn't based on physical goods as much as it used to be.

(BTW, "click to view" is supposed to slide out a section where I provide my own snarky comments. That way if I decide to use one of the images in a presentation some day I've already got a few jokes lined up. Works on FF 8.0 in Ubuntu for me, but I'll look into it.)

<comment><USER22> _"click to view" is supposed to slide out a section where I provide my own snarky comments_

On your home page, go to the second post, and click...

You're javascript only slides things with the id sampleOuter. As you have multiple entries with the id sampleOuter on your homepage, most browsers will pick the first.

If you're intent is to slide open ALL of them, I'd use a class, rather than an ID.

If you're intent is to just slide open the one that's clicked on, you need each "sampleOuter" to have a unique identifier you can select it on. You can then pass that to your "toggleSampleView" method.

HTH.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Is he paying Frou Frou royalties for streaming their song on his professional [1] for-profit website?

[1] <http://www.johnbmueller.com/index2.php?v=v1>

</comment><comment><USER24> I think I understand the point that the photographer is trying to make, but phrasing it as "It cost me $6,612 to take this photo" is leading to a bunch of tangential arguments over that specific number.

The photographer's beef is with people who want to take his work, use it in their own publications without paying him _anything_ , and then tell him that he should be happy with such a deal because he's getting free publicity out of it. But this photographer did not get his camera, lenses, computer, etc. for free, and the people who want to use his work are doing it for an enterprise where _they_ expect to be paid, so why should the photographer be the only one holding the bag?

The "$6,612" number is beside the point. A publisher who says "I will pay you one dollar for the right to use that picture" is in a whole different league from one who says "let me use it and I'll give you credit", because the "one dollar" fellow is at least _respecting the photographer as a fellow businessman_.

</comment><comment><USER25> If you really go ahead and try to recreate that photo ... you must first invent the universe. And that's going to cost a lot !

<comment><USER26> This is extremely interesting. What prove that it is yours if you are taking photos of state-owned lands? Do you have the right to sell photos for money for things (lands/nature/sky) that you don't own?

<comment><USER27> If yours is the only creative work that contributed to the photograph, then copyright on it is exclusively yours. If the creative work of a landscaper or architect is involved, consult a lawyer.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> I'm also a photographer, and I don't really buy into this particular philosophical argument.

The problem with photography is that you're never dealing with ORIGINAL ART. When John or I give a JPEG to a magazine or website, we're not _losing_ anything. This is the same argument that the RIAA and MPAA have tried to spin for over a decade.

I sell prints of my photos, and as long as no one else sets up shop and starts selling cheaper copies, I don't see a problem with sites and magazines using my photos.

The basic gist is: You have spent $6k. You can either have your photo in some magazine, or not. You can have that free publicity, or not. The only way you are 'losing' money is if the magazine would've paid you in the first place -- but again, for a non-original piece of art that they're (almost certainly) not getting an exclusive license on... the going rate isn't very much anyway.

<comment><USER29> I find it strange that more people have not brought up the 'lost-sale' fallacy. By saying 'no' he actually loses out in the end because if the magazine is only looking for free photos, say to the keep costs down, it will just go elsewhere and the readership of that magazine will probably never know about that amazing photograph nor the photographer himself.

<comment><USER30> That argument is only bullet-proof when _all_ magazines are in exactly that position. But some magazines may well just want to use that picture and try to press the cost of using it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The author talks about _sunken costs_ : <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk_costs>

These are costs that can't be added in a discussion on the cost of producing the products on an on-going basis. Otherwise you need to take those 6000 bucks mentioned and divide it by the thousands of photos you're going to make with that equipment.

Which will bring the cost of a photo to something much more real (excluding on-going time and gasoline investments): less than $1

Also, in capitalism the price doesn't necessarily reflect the cost of producing something. It is rather an equation of value, supply and demand. So a much better technique is to convince me why I should like that photo. Educating readers on recognizing quality is better than analyzing the costs involved.

</comment><comment><USER31> The very existence of an intellectual property market is absurd. In my opinion, the scenarios in which person should expect to make a profit doing something creative are:

A. The person is hired to create something.

B. The person creates something that's not easy to copy.

If you were hired to design a set for a play, you would get paid for your work. If you created a physical three-dimensional sculpture, someone else could try to imitate it, but the imitation wouldn't be a perfect copy. That means your original sculpture would still have value and could be sold. On the other hand, if you, on your own time, created something that cost nothing to copy, such as--oh, I don't know--a picture of a sunset, you should not expect to profit from selling it. It wouldn't matter how much time/effort/money/energy you put into creating it.

So, what's going on with SOPA then? The government realized that they don't have the resources to police the Internet for copyright violations. Of course they don't. It's impossible. So now they're attempting to foist that impossible responsibility on website owners. I have no idea how the bill is worded, but I can't imagine a scenario where the wording could be "fixed" while keeping the intention. The intention is broken. Copyright law is broken.

Copyright should be non-exclusive. Anyone should be allowed to copy anything for free.

<comment><USER32> So you want a world wiyh no more pro quality books, films, music or TV series?

<comment><USER33> "Pro quality" TV series? You mean like "CSI: Miami"? Or "Gilligan's Island"? Or do you mean movies like "The Smurfs" or the US version of "The Vanishing" or "Leave it To Beaver"?

Yes, I'd gladly do without all that TV and all the movies, and most or all of the books. Oh, and the popular music. Especially the music by Selena Gomez and Demi Lovato and Ashlee Simpson.

<comment><USER32> I mean literally any movie that wasn't made by amateurs supported by another job, or philanthropic donations, or advertising funded.

Its low to pick only the worst bits as a counterargument; it also implies no pro quality TV you _like_. And that you are willing to screw over people who genuinely _do_ like Selena Gomez and Gilligan's Island and the like, just because you don't.

<comment><USER33> _you are willing to screw over people who genuinely do like ... Gilligan's Island ... because you don't._

Your response irritated me beyond its level of highhandedness. And I finally figured out why: I actually do like Gilligan's Island. I even bought "The Professor's" tell-all book, "Here On Gilligan's Isle". It doesn't matter if I like "Gilligan's Ilsand" or not, it's of low quality. The acting was low, the writing was low, and the production was laughable. That hasn't kept me from liking it, or regarding it as High Bulldada.

Sherwood Schwartz and CBS should be ashamed of putting out such schlock, whether I like it or not, and you should be ashamed of deciding you know what my aesthetics are.

But I'm also curious: why does a movie made by people supported by another job, or philanthropic donations, or one funded by advertising not meet the standard of "pro quality"?

<comment><USER32> Oh get over trying to shame me for "deciding I know what your ethics are" (I did no such thing and wouldn't know where to start). I've never even seen Gilligan's Island, I didn't know it was ropey quality, only that the parent had dismissed it _and the entire industry_ because he thought it lowbrow.

Funded by advertising is a bit different it can still be run like a traditional business, but where is the amateur TV as good as BBC Frozen Planet, or Sherlock, Wallander or QI? And they're just people talking in scenic locations - or in a big room, nothing requiring months of filming and hundreds of people.

Where are the part time charity funded films like Lord of the Rings or The Shawshank Redemption? The Shining? 2001? Kill Bill?

Amateur work can be good, but mostly it's worse than professional work that's the informal definition of the difference between amateur and professional. The formal one being "profession: paid work".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> Actually I wouldn't be surprised if some food journalists or whatever get to dine for free in restaurants. Goods for exposure is a valid business proposition. It is valid to reject it, too, but I don't understand the fuss.

If 37signals would feature me on their homepage for a week I would probably also give them some "free" work in exchange. No offense taken.

I guess the "problem" is that he was approached by people he did not deem worthy. Reminds me of women who complain about being approached all the time, but I suspect they wouldn't complain about being approached by Brad Pitt or George Clooney. Just saying it is not the approaching that is actually the problem, it is the who is doing the approaching.

</comment><comment><USER35> I guess he only uses his camera, lens and PC once and then throws them away.

<comment><USER36> And once one person uses the photo, all other copies of it need to be deleted.

<comment><USER37> A friend told me a bizarre story... His local library also allows you to borrow eBooks. Apparently they work by "expiring" after some time limit.

He went in to borrow an eBook, but the librarian said "Oh I'm sorry, that copy is currently on loan at the moment".

Kinda defeats the whole point of things being digital...

<comment> mkr-hn I would happily accept that limitation if O'Reilly made all its books available with the local library's eBook lending system. The local library system takes its limited funding and prioritizes variety over recency.

It's great if you're doing a research paper on something non-technical, but not so great if you want a current book on anything relating to computers. Even quantity-limited eBooks would solve that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> He makes a good point but his calculations are based on material goods only. The years of education and experience are surely far more valuable.

<comment><USER39> Right. So there's a difference between _cost_ , _price_ , and _value_.

</comment></comment><comment> one-man-bucket This comment cost me $2000 to write.

<comment><USER40> Mine cost $4k. This is getting expensive for anyone who might copy this page.

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> While I don't agree with the justification of the cost based on required tools to create the image. I do believe that the main value from the photograph is the user's creativity and passion for using the tools to capture the photograph.

</comment><comment><USER42> This comment is not free. Using the same weird accounting method, it cost me around 1000$ to make. So what ?

If you don't want a file to be used, don't put it on internet. Understand what IT is, understand what it means to freely exchange information. You are right, you got free exposure, for free. That's why we get your image, for free. The information super-highways flow in both directions.

</comment><comment><USER39> Discussion of fixed costs, variable costs, sunk costs, marginal costs, and opportunity costs and lots of other accounting and economics pricing models avoided.

But you should make sure your CFO can explain and your marketing department has a deep understanding.

And consider taking some accounting and micro-econ courses when you have the chance.

ESPECIALLY if you are the technical founder....

</comment><comment><USER43> He forgot to add the cost of the sun. It took billions of year to make. And the clean environment. I hear that's priceless.

</comment><comment><USER44> I enjoyed the article. It's a good reminder that the act of consuming creative work is far easier than its creation.

Too many people forget this and, IMHO, thereby fail to appreciate the creative work. Waxing poetic, but the view from the top of the mountain doesn't mean as near as much if you didn't climb up it.

</comment><comment><USER45> The money figure doesn't matter. We could quibble over the dollar amount or the fact that even if I had all that great equipment I couldn't reproduce the photo myself. All of those pedantic arguments don't matter. The Intellectual Property value of the photo does.

I think we've reached(-ing) the point where freedom for all to publish isn't as magical as it was 5 or 10 years ago. Democracy of publishing is giving away to Capitalism of publishing. The new killer app isn't enabling people to publish or get exposure. It's a platform for getting people paid for their time and skills.

</comment><comment><USER46> The problem is with the simple word _free_.

Well it depends on the way the photo is used. If i just save it as my wallpaper (I'd copy it from my browser cache, etc), it is free for me. Complaining about this makes no sense, or overlaying it with a transparent image..

But, if i, having done nothing in its creation, try to make some money from it (like putting it on a magazine), then the actual creator needs to get some value from what I gain. It will be the ethical thing to do. In this case John Mueller, will should morally have the right to accept or deny my request to reshare/use it.

</comment><comment><USER47> Fundamentally - he should be paid because he has something valuable that other people want, and has value to them. The cost of his equipment, or skill as a photographer are immaterial - at the end of the day, at least in the western world, the amount that you can reasonably expect to charge for something is the intersection of what you are prepared to sell it for, and what someone is willing to pay for it. The fact that the person taking the picture paid $1,000, $10,000 or $100,000 for the resources (Training, Equipment, Time, etc...) to take the picture is completely irrelevant.

I took pictures at the Company Party last night. My EOS 7D cost me $1600. My Canon 17-55 IS USM lens cost me $1000. My MacBook Air Cost me $1600. Aperture Cost me $80. Acorn Cost me $50. My Card Flash Cost me $95. My DaneElec SDHC USB 2.0 card reader cost me $14.99, etc..

I spent 90 minutes taking pictures, 2 hours triaging and selecting, and 1 hour tweaking/adjusting those pictures - ending up with 20 out of about 400 original shots that the company placed in their event album.

I was paid $0 - because that was the intersection of what I wanted for them, and what the company was prepared to pay for them.

In all things financial - that should be the driving force as to what a transaction should take place at. If I can sell 100 megabytes software that costs $0.001 to transmit over the internet for $25,000 then that is fine as long as the buyer is will to pay $25,000 for the software and I'm willing to sell it for that much.

</comment><comment><USER48> Some people take photographs because they just like taking photographs, like myself. If someone happened to use one of my photos, then so be it. I'm not in it to make money. I'm in it because I like the process of taking a photo, as well as editing it. After that, I'm done with it. Steal it! Remix it! Open source it!

All my photos on flickr have a Creative Commons license of "Attribution, Noncommercial, Share Alike". My photos have ended up on some great web sites: Rolling Stone, Yes Magazine, NY Magazine, city newspaper sites, random blogs, etc... I didn't receive one dime from them, but I did receive a link back to my flickr page in the photo credit. Even when they offered compensation, I turned them down.

Some people think that if they have fancy gear, they'll take better photos. This is not always the case. Photography is more art than having great gear. Does having a sweet ass laptop make you a better programmer? I don't have super fancy gear: A Canon T1i, and some pretty decent 2.8 lenses (Tamron 2.8 17-50, Sigma 2.8 70-200, Lens Baby, Canon 50mm 1.8). Any camera can take an award winning photo (I work for the largest stock photography company and have seen this to be true more times than not).

</comment><comment><USER49> I would suggest that the capittal cost vs marginal cost is the wrong argument. Yes, its correct but the marginal cost of a single photo is soooo low you will never make any money back (expect perhaps with massively popular photos and very good DRM systems)

ANd this approach does _need_ a DRM and all the attendant (SOPA?) legal framework

The article does mention the solution

"You would not expect your writers to work for free"

No - but writers work for commission. If you went out without any commission and took the photo, then you dont get paid for the photo. If a beach front hotel wanted a nice shot for its website and paid you 200USD to go do it, then you got paidf - _and any extra resell value you make is a bonus_

So, if you are in an industry where your work can be reproduced at near zero margins, you get paid in commission of the initial creation - not the ongoing rights sales. Some ancillary benefits may acrue (credit)

As someone who gets paid to write code, and also writes code for free (OSS), this difference is clear - and to be fair it is clear also to Madonna (couple of years ago she gave up rights for music sales to more of the cash from tours.)

</comment><comment><USER50> There's an easy way to ensure no one "steals" your photograph: don't release it as a series of bits on a huge relatively unrestricted global network of computers. You can't have it both ways: having your photograph "out there" where everyone can see it, and still claiming absolute control over _every single occurrence_ of that sequence of bits on every single device it ever gets copied to.

</comment><comment><USER51> > 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.

I get it.

He is saying that he wants to charge the other person the amount it would cost FOR that other person to create this work from scratch (to buy all the equipment, etc).

But that's just one way to look at it, and it can roll down hill fast when you start including the cost of the amount of time and education that other person would need.

At the end of the day, when someone steals this photo, they don't also steal all the equipment and software that he used to create it. That remains as-is.

He would do better to claim copyright and ask for what he would charge x 3 (penalty) plus lawyer fees.

</comment><comment><USER52> Actually considering that his computer, camera + lens, etc is basically a sunk cost and that in a free market the price can be expected to go to the marginal cost of producing the next photograph, he should expect to be paid $12 (since the gas isn't a sunk cost).

</comment><comment><USER53> Works of art can have a monetary value - there is something called art market. The value is determined by how much buyers are willing to pay as well as how much the sellers are willing to sell. The monetary value of a copy of this low resolution jpeg file can only be determined by the market value. You can't use replacement value to charge theft, because when someone "steal" it from the internet, they always copy it, you don't lose your origin one and thus no replacement is needed.

</comment><comment><USER54> He included the cost of the camera, but only the cost of the _gas_ , not the cost of the _car_. Why include the _whole_ cost of the camera equipment, but only the _operating_ cost, and barely that, of the car? To be consistent, he should include the total cost of the car.

Yeah. I get that the photo isn't free, but to include all costs related to it is a bit hyperbolic. That's not a six thousand dollar photo.

</comment><comment><USER55> This post reminds me of many a childhood argument I had.

</comment><comment><USER56> Honestly, that was a rubbish calculation! Price of the camera? Gas? Really?

The thing with any service that is heavily dependant on the person that does it, is that it cannot be priced by anyone other than the person doing it. How can you put a price on talent or skill or experience or luck or any of the non-material things that went into taking that picture? That picture is worth a million bucks if he says it is.

</comment><comment><USER57> Does he expect to receive $6,612 each time anyone buys the photo, or $6,612 is the total amount needed to release the photo into public domain?

<comment><USER58> He's being slightly facetious, I'd think, but: $6,612 is the amount he claims it would take the 'thief' to recreate the photo on their own. (Of course, he's only talking about material costs; he could easily claim $300,000 and get away with it, but anyway.) Thus, if the thief uses the photo inappropriately, since it "should" have cost 6k, that's what the lawyer will charge. In theory.

</comment></comment><comment><USER59> This webpage isn't free.

\- Served from a $5,000 web server

\- Data queried from a $10,000 database server

\- Traffic routed via a $10,000 load balancer

\- Traffic switched via a $2,000 switch

\- Read on my $300 monitor

\- Browser running on my $2000 workstation

etc, etc

</comment><comment><USER60> I'm little confused here. Yes - you must not steal some others photos and post it. But this kind of photography is more like art and the bar for making it worth actual money is quite high - it has to have soul, meaning, etc.

tl;dr:

* Don't steal other people crap even it you consider it worthless

* Don't assume your stuff is worth something just because you spend some money making it

</comment><comment><USER61> A Finnish tabloid's photo of the Angry Birds dress was illegally published in several places and sparked a similar discussion in Finland: [http://www.arcticstartup.com/2011/12/08/world-media- infringe...](http://www.arcticstartup.com/2011/12/08/world-media-infringes- copyright-to-show-more-of-angry-birds)

</comment><comment><USER62> I don't understand this. Upload your image to a (micro)stock agency to sell it, then see how much it is really worth, i.e. how much people will pay for it in the free market. (Value and production cost are two very different things.) But making it available like this while claiming it's worth $6,612 seems naive to me at best.

</comment><comment><USER63> weird argument. Being a photographer myself, I understand they need to be properly rewarded for their creativity, effort and more importantly time.. but this is not the way to put your point. On similar lines, any thing you are buying day to day will cost you a fortune..be it a Coffee or a candy.

<comment><USER64> No, you understand that you _want_ to be rewarded.

I've collected all my navel fluff for the past 10 years in jars. Give me a million dollars! (not really)

</comment></comment><comment><USER65> All that equipment and and gas are _not_ the valuable part of this photo. You pay the guy for knowing where this spot is and how to get a decent photo of it.

By insisting that the photo is "expensive" because it required all of that easily duplicate-able tech actually cheapens it.

</comment><comment><USER66> That's almost the same as when music industry seeks millions of dollars in damages when suing someone who copied an mp3 without permission. At first I thought this article is a parody of something similar in "photo industry" but was rather disappointed.

</comment><comment><USER67> " I consider it ($6,612) 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."

I wonder how much his lawyer will send a bill for if someone uses 2 or more of his pictures without permission.

</comment><comment><USER15> I would always take the side of a photographer who has his/her photos misused/abused, but this is just illogical reasoning. If a grocery store has a loaf of bread stolen, it is not worth the value of the entire business.

</comment><comment><USER68> This reminds me of a rant by Harlan Ellison I saw at [http://quotevadis.com/post/5897791429/does-your-boss-get- a-p...](http://quotevadis.com/post/5897791429/does-your-boss-get-a-paycheck)

</comment><comment><USER69> If he doesn't want his photo to be seen then why does he put it online?

<comment><USER70> How would you propose he advertise his photos? With really good descriptions?

<comment><USER69> Sorry, I still don't get it. I mean if I want people to see it (advertising), but then write I already have exposure then I'd feel really weird.

Showing (be it advertisement or whatever), but not allowing it to be seen by others is (for the lack of another word) strange. At least it sounds pretty weird to me. I don't get what's wrong by getting this version he published and for example put it on a blog saying. Hey look, what I found on the bog/website of this guy. Isn't it awesome?

I mean in a way it is like taking a photo of his work and show it to others. It's not like I'd be taking it away from him.

I'd respect it, if the author doesn't want more exposure. It's his choice, but then I'd even feel bad to link his blog posts, website or even mention his name.

Maybe I miss something, but I don't understand why a photo of nature, published freely on the internet has to be kept like a secret.

I mean what if we put this to other stuff, like when I make my money selling text, knowledge or thoughts in general. Does this mean everyone is supposed to not share the thought, quote or recite it. It also costs me time and sometimes money (education).

Again, I am not taking anything away. After all it's just data. Should I ever draw a painting or describe a scene in a book. I may even base my work on his, without noticing. Still some people don't want anything based on their work.

If I'd have to ask about everything I copy and share with others I wouldn't dare to do anything.

What I also don't get is the asking thing. What's so bad about people asking whether they are allowed to use the photo?

The argument about the dinner is also flawed. In fact there are lots of businesses giving stuff away for free, to get more exposure. Also the dinner means that the restaurant will actually loose something.

And then there are these companies that even give you a free dinner in order to show you something/get exposure. Advertising also isn't free.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER71> This rant is very similar to Harlan Ellison's "Pay the Writer" rant (<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mj5IV23g-fE>).

</comment><comment><USER72> He wasn't saying that this is what he would charge you for the photo, he was saying this is what he we sue you for if you use it without permission.

</comment><comment><USER73> Lets say I pay him $6,612 then I would want not just the photograph but also the equipment he listed in the add up to the price.

Is that ok?

If yes then it makes perfect sense to me.

</comment><comment><USER74> What is bothering me is that he is not adding up the cost right. How about the cost of his upbringing that made him the person he is today?

</comment><comment><USER75> this comment cost $3629 american dollars.

$2500 (map pro) + $999 (apple display) + $50 (1 month of fios) + $50 (espresso machine) + $30 (coffee)

</comment><comment><USER76> This has been all over my Facebook and twitter feeds..

Maybe "This photograph is not free.. But this marketing is" would be more apt now!

</comment><comment><USER77> I'm sorry, but his photography is terrible. Cliche, boring and not even that well produced in the technical sense.

<comment><USER78> Yeah, I thought it was understood that Kinkade-style material is in poor taste.

</comment></comment><comment><USER79> Thanks, I'll be using it for my banner ad for a video streaming service that I advertise an a torrent site abroad.

</comment><comment><USER80> So what if three magazines commit copyright infringement on the same photo? Does it cost $19836 now? Ridiculous.

Guess what, here's[1] 325000 photographs of sunsets anyone can use on their magazine for free. You've just been priced out of the market.

[1]: [https://secure.flickr.com/search/?l=comm&q=sunset](https://secure.flickr.com/search/?l=comm&q=sunset)

<comment><USER81> Not all photos of sunsets are equal, just as the huge number of portraits of women doesn't price the Mona Lisa out of the market.

If people decide that this photo has a particular merit, then that is worth something. Of course, that's an entirely subjective issue and will vary from person to person.

<comment><USER80> Sure, but I was talking in the context of filler photos for magazines and such, where very low cost is usually important.

If someone considers it a true _œuvre d'art_ then the post is meaningless, because the available resolution isn't enough for a decent print at full page, and so nobody can "steal" it; they'll need to contact him regardless.

<comment><USER70> Great, then the magazines should use one of the 300,000, not his. His cost money to use, and that's the way it is.

Several of those 300k are mine, by the way, and they are indeed free to use, assuming I am credited as required by the license. Of course, there are countless stories of magazines ignoring even this very simple requirement.

<comment><USER70> I should add- Making my pics CC on flickr has resulted in a number of people using them and crediting me properly, from blogs to small magazines.

One is even in use by a state park on one of their signs, which is somehow particularly gratifying.

I really need to go take a pic of that sign.

<comment><USER82> What's your flickr account?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> cm-t When I read this article, it remind me how english have a problem with the semantic of the word "free".

When he says: "this photograph is not free" he means : "this photograph has a cost" when I understand: "this photograph has a licence witch does not allow people to share, copy, modify as wish"

Librement

</comment><comment><USER83> People want beautiful things. The art is finding a way for them to pay

<comment><USER84> But they don't have to because world is filled with "beauty". Supply far outstrips demand. People pay for scarcity. IP law and this guy are trying to enforce artificial scarcity in order to prop up a no longer relevant business model.

</comment></comment><comment><USER85> Poor guy seriously over paid for his equipment.

</comment><comment><USER86> cost != value != price. I could buy a flawless diamond and use it to shred a Picasso. What should I be paid?

<comment><USER87> £40,000, because you'd surely get the Turner Prize.

</comment></comment><comment><USER88> Meh. It's not that good anyway.

</comment><comment><USER89> I find this kind of rant rather silly. Whatever, he should be paid for his work, it's his artistic value etc.

Just like he (or any photograph with a reputation) is able to set a very high price because of his quality seal, he doesn't have the right to bitch about how much he thinks the picture worths. If you go out in the market then play by the rules. And the rules are: any product is worth whatever amount the consumer is willing to pay for it. That's what an open market is about. If you don't like it, don't get into it. Simple as that.

Ok, using it without permission is a simple legal matter. Bitching about how much he thinks he should be paid... honestly that is no one else's problem.

</comment><comment><USER90> On one hand, I feel your pain. On the other hand, cost and value are not the same thing, and so aren't value and market price.

If you do something and what you do costs much more than the market value of its output, make sure it's not your job. Hobbies usually fall in this category.

<comment><USER91> You could argue about the value and market price.

In the same way that a liquid betting market, the price is a reasonable estimate for probability, in a any liquid market, the price is a reasonable estimate of value.

<comment><USER90> Define "liquid market".

<comment><USER92> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_liquidity>

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER93> Many folks would be happy to allow their photos to be used just for "exposure" or even for fun. Likewise many writers would happily allow their writing to be published for free. This is the case for both aspiring professionals and amateurs who never intend to make significant money with their hobby.

Unions often successfully pressure major players not to deal with these "scabs." There are some good arguements for maintaining a market for professional services by setting a minimum price through collective bargaining.

In a pure market economy, professionals must either demonstrate they are that much better than free or cheap amateur work. Clearly in this case the photographer is much more skilled than a typical amateur and produces stellar work. Unfortunately, in most cases, a publication can easily settle for an inferior free work without any impact on sales.

The marginal cost of a photograph these days is almost zero. Professionals are under a lot of pressure to demonstrate value. I think the good ones can, although many hobbyists produce professional quality work.

In my opinion, a respectable publication should set a minimum price for a work and pay, even of they do not have to. This improves their relationship with their suppliers and encourages better work down the line. Sadly, the economics of publishing may make such generosity infeasible.

<comment><USER94> """Many folks would be happy to allow their photos to be used just for "exposure" or even for fun. Likewise many writers would happily allow their writing to be published for free. This is the case for both aspiring professionals and amateurs who never intend to make significant money with their hobby."""

More power to them. Many others DO NOT.

<comment><USER95> As this post illustrates, HN depends upon writers who allow their writing to be published for free.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER96> Well, all I can do is wish you luck with all that. I'm an amateur photographer who could never take a photo that beautiful, but I get people hitting me up to use my photos for free sometimes. I just say no (my photos are CC licensed, but not for commercial use). I don't have any illusions about siccing my nonexistent lawyer on someone who steals my photos.

But, I agree that photographers should be paid for their work. People and firms just want to get things for as little cost as they can, that's why they do this and that's why they try to get freelancers to do spec work. It costs the firm nothing but a half-hearted promise that they'll be nice to the designer later.

</comment><comment><USER97> I have all this equipment for you use. And by your price breakdown i can pay your $0 hour.

when can you start working for me?

</comment><comment><USER98> wrong. This photograph WAS not free. For you. As for me, I've just seen it, read some of your text underneath, and moved on.

Until you can actually stop USERS from benefiting from someone ELSE doing the same thing with your work, your work very much IS free.

<comment><USER98> Well, excuse me for explaining how the Internet works. I agree with the sentiment, but you also have to look at reality, which is that the cost of reproduction does not even involve going down to a copy shop. It's a tough market, and that's the reality. Why not add a watermark?

</comment></comment><comment><USER99> Wow, grumpy!</comment>


Show HN: Nihongo – Study Japanese using authentic text from games, songs, etc. - <AUTHOR> http://nihongo-app.com <comment><USER2> OP, this is wonderful. I'm a long time japanese learner and I wrote the iOS Anki app.

Just looking through the website (unfortunately I don't have an iOS device on hand), you've got some killer features here that I've wanted for a long time.

'clippings' looks really excellent. I would go so far as to say this is a game-changer for me as it currently stands. If you took the same idea and went bigger, that would be awesome: I'm thinking an e-book reader. That is, load up a Japanese ePub and then have one-click access to a context-aware J->E dictionary lookup via your app. Then being able to generate cards from the book would be perfect.

If I had to pick a missing feature (again just going from the description) it would be audiovisual context. This has been crucial to my learning - any plans to integrate it?

Finally, I don't know if you're aware but there is precedent for 'clippings' in the tools that generate Anki apps from movie subtitles. They create cards that have a still from the movie, the audio clip, and the subtitles in Japanese and English. Yours is more universal, but I think something that combined features of both would be even more powerful (i.e. audio and images).

<comment><AUTHOR> I would LOVE to have integration with e-books, I think that could totally change the way I learn Japanese. Since over time the app learns what words you know and what words you don't, it could even suggest books for you that are around the right difficulty level. Wouldn't that be amazing?

Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find any place where you can purchase DRM-free e-books, so I think this would require working with Japanese book publishers. The one exception is the Harry Potter books, which are published DRM-free through their own website. I read the first two Harry Potter books using clippings to generate flashcards for each chapter as I went along, and it was incredibly helpful.

The idea of audiovisual context is interesting. Could you tell me more about what you have in mind? I've thought about adding text-to-speech options on the dictionary entries and in flashcards. But something more complete, like what Rosetta Stone does, seems a lot harder, just from the perspective of acquiring rights to the images.

<comment><USER2> Aozora Bunko ([http://www.aozora.gr.jp/](http://www.aozora.gr.jp/)) is the only legitimate source I know of for ebooks (and they are free). Long term it would be really great to get some Japanese publishers to commit to ebooks, but I know that historically they have been strongly, publicly resistant.

The Wakaru app does allow ebooks reading with a dictionary, but I always found it clunky and I don't think it allows easily generating cards from a book, the dictionary was less useful than yours looks, and it doesn't learn your vocab over time.

For audiovisual context, I'm really thinking of:

      - images to match vocab items (potentially auto-sourced from a Creative Commons licensed image search engine)
      - images from articles to match sentences from articles
      - sound clips to match text taken from audio captions
      - video clips OR audio clips + screenshots to match sentences from video subtitles

Regarding image rights, I would say that there is a huge amount of stuff in the public domain or liberally licensed (e.g. on Mediawiki). But you could also allow the user to add their own images, where they take responsibility for making sure they have the rights.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah, unfortunately I find the content in Aozora Bunko not all that interesting. Or at least, I don't know how to find good content in it. I actually built a proof-of-concept of a "Books" tab in Nihongo using Aozora Bunko, but I found it sort of unsatisfying, so I never pursued it further. I haven't used Wakaru before, I'll have to check that out.

I'll explore the audiovisual ideas more, that's pretty interesting, thanks. I'd love to have user-generated content in the app, like the ability to share decks. Seems like that could be a good way to handle image rights as well.

<comment><USER3> I've got the same problem with finding decent content in Aozora Bunko. For me, the main issue is how to find content which matches my level (actually being interesting being the other problem, but seemingly harder to solve).

I set up a really hacky "grader" algorithm and run it on a bunch of the Aozora Bunko books, then put them online [1]. The very "easiest" books are kinda boring, but it is certainly easier finding usable material in that list than looking in Aozora Bunko itself. The one I've found most interesting so far is 銀河鉄道の夜 [2]

[1] [http://www.readyourgrade.com/](http://www.readyourgrade.com/)

[2] [http://www.aozora.gr.jp/cards/000081/files/43737_19215.html](http://www.aozora.gr.jp/cards/000081/files/43737_19215.html)

<comment><AUTHOR> This is awesome. I'd love to have these kind of features in Nihongo.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Hey HN, creator of Nihongo here!

I spent a long time studying Japanese vocabulary using Anki, Flashcards Deluxe, etc., but I found that studying using premade word lists never worked that well for me. Nihongo is built around studying the words you're encountering naturally through your own hobbies and interests. Flashcard packs are automatically generated from the words that you look up in the built-in dictionary. You can also copy and paste Japanese text into the app like song lyrics, textbook readings, videogame scripts, or books, and it will automatically find all the words contained in the text, and generate flashcards from them.

I built Nihongo because it was the tool that I wanted and felt like was missing for studying Japanese. Hopefully it'll be useful for some of you too! I'd love to hear your feedback.

<comment><USER4> Hi Chris, looks like an awesome start. Some quick suggestions and questions:

1\. You should fully support romaji entry for looking things up. The mechanics of switching input methods on iOS are pretty terrible so it is really inconvenient to have to switch into Japanese input mode. I searched for "hana" but got only 花合わせ and 花を引く as matches -- because those have 'hana' in the English definition string. Searching for はな brought the two obvious matches (花 and 鼻) to the top, but I had to go back and cycle through several other input methods to get to Japanese input mode, which was annoying and took longer than the rest of looking up the word. Some other dictionaries do this, and even sites like Amazon Japan now do this for searches as well -- dealing with input methods is just a hassle in general.

2\. The understanding of verb conjugation seems really awesome and jumping between things on a "learning tangent" works really well.

3\. You _have to_ sync vocab lists and spaced repetition drill status/progress to the cloud. It's just too useful not to do it -- you want to be able to do that in quick downtime moments from any device. Luckily there are many easy ways to do it nowadays. I don't blame you for shipping without that, though! ;-)

All in all, great start!

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the feedback!

1\. I actually just finished implementing romaji entry, and it will be coming in the next version update. Honestly, after implementing it, I can't believe how much time I've wasted switching input methods. =)

2\. Thanks!

3\. I know, I know! I really want to, but I spent a couple weeks diving into it and found it really buggy and hard to get right. I'm using Core Data under the hood to store this stuff. Any suggestions for tools I should look at to help with syncing?

<comment><USER5> For syncing, look at couchbase mobile, which recently has added support for Core Data: [http://blog.couchbase.com/syncing-with-core- data](http://blog.couchbase.com/syncing-with-core-data)

<comment><AUTHOR> Looks promising, thanks. I initially tried with iCloud syncing, and it was a mess.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> @chrisvasselli:

When I was a child, my parents tried to teach me Japanese as my first language, but we live in Brazil and that didn't work out, as soon as I got into school I dropped it and started to speak exclusively in Portuguese. Still I have some knowledge of "spoken Japanese", even though I don't know how to write the kanjis.

That's why I found this clippings feature really great. I can read the pronunciation over the kanjis and deduce what it means by context, I've always missed that when trying to study Japanese, and if I can't deduce its meaning, it's also easier to lookup in the dictionary if I know its pronunciation (in the app it's probably just a click). Some people think that going through this trouble actually helps memorizing the kanjis, but for me it's just a time consuming task.

Too bad I have no plans to buy an iPhone. No plans for an Android or a web version?

Also, how did you get these texts to feed the clippings? By hand? Scraping?

<comment><AUTHOR> Nice, that's exactly what I'm going for! Part of my philosophy with the app was to make my studying of Japanese as efficient as it could possibly be. I tried to shave out all of the time spent doing tasks that don't contribute to my actual learning, like trying to draw kanji, count strokes, manually type out flashcards, etc.

As for the clippings, those are all user-supplied. For example, I love classic JRPGs, and FFVI is my favorite. If you google around a bit, you can find the script for the Japanese version of FFVI. Import the script into Nihongo, and you can pre-study the words as you play along. You can also filter the flashcards down to just the words that show up more than once, so if you're not ready to study everything, you can just focus on the important words. It also works great if you want to study song lyrics, and I even used it to read Harry Potter in Japanese (thanks J.K. Rowling for putting out DRM-free books!)

Unfortunately, I don't have any plans for Android or the web right now, since this is a solo side-project for me, and I just don't have the time. But I'd love to do it in the future!

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Looks great! Any timeline on Android?

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks! Unfortunately, I don't have any plans for Android right now. This is a solo side-project for me, so I just don't have the time. I'd love to at some point in the future though!

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> _> Our dictionary is made to find what you're looking for fast, with the words Japanese speakers actually use at the top of every search result._

May I ask how this was factored? Also what if I want to use a certain dialect? Osaka might opt for a different word than Hokkaido. I assume standard Tokyo dialect?

 _> Word Commonality_

Also interested in how you measure this. Frequency used in a newspaper? Is it part of the Jouyou kanji? How about age of speaker? "Common among younger generation" and "common among older generation" might be a better benchmark for commonality.

 _> We'll even add furigana._

Is it editable for instances when it is wrong?

I don't have an iPhone to test, but I am very interested in helping others' learn Japanese and more importantly making sure they are learning _correct_ information. I've seen few coded systems that weren't heavily curated provide accurate information. There's nearly always a "well...that's...actually wrong" somewhere in the dataset that things use.

Not saying that's the case here - just that it is a possibility.

<comment><AUTHOR> Great questions!

We include words from all different dialects, but standard Tokyo dialect will inevitably float to the top. I learned Japanese in Kansai, so I'm sensitive to this issue. =)

As for how the commonality is determined, I use a combination of corpuses including newspapers, novels, literature/poetry, and spoken language. I actually initially had a feature that would tell you "this word is more common in novels", but it didn't work consistently well enough, so I ended up scrapping it.

When we actually choose how to order the search results, we take into account a few more things - like if the search string is part of the primary meaning of the word, if it's a partial match of the meaning string or a full match, etc. In order to determine the relative importances of the various factors, we actually automatically optimized them against a huge set of vocabulary lists that a Japanese native, English fluent speaker made for Japanese students studying English. This gives us the best chance of picking the Japanese word that a Japanese native speaker would choose for a given English word.

As for the furigana, since we're taking arbitrary user input, there are bound to be mistakes here or there, and that's the case with this app too. I don't have any plans to let people edit the furigana right now, but I am improving the parsing all the time.

<comment><USER8> _> we actually automatically optimized them against a huge set of vocabulary lists that a Japanese native, English fluent speaker made for Japanese students studying English. This gives us the best chance of picking the Japanese word that a Japanese native speaker would choose for a given English word._

That's actually a pretty awesome way to handle it compared to other methods I've seen used.

 _> As for the furigana, since we're taking arbitrary user input, there are bound to be mistakes here or there, and that's the case with this app too._

Of course, I'm understanding of that issue. Parsing arbitrary input will always have errors, Google isn't exempt from this problem either. :)

It's very, very difficult to get some of these things right (and sometimes just impossible given current technology/software).

My issue with it is that not all people who use the app will be technologically savvy and understand that the furigana could be wrong. For someone _learning_ a new language, giving the wrong reading could be extremely detrimental for them.

I guess just voicing a gripe I have. I understand from a marketing point, every JP app does this when they automatically add furigana readings. I just wish there was some transparency that they aren't always accurate. :\

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah, it's a good gripe to bring up. I'd love to come up with some indication of "confidence" in the parsing. Or maybe when there are two possible parses, give the user the ability to see both somehow?

<comment><USER8> I think giving an option of two possible parsing would confuse people learning. They wouldn't know which is the right one to pick! So adding a second option just ads to the confusion...

I think showing a confidence level would be a good solution based on the number of available readings for the given context of the kanji.

生 would be a good example. When used by itself, the confidence that the reading is correct should be low (since there are many possible options!) but if it is used in 生まれる the confidence level is very high (because there is only the one possible reading). When used in 生す it could be 50/50 (since it could be read な or む).

Explaining this to learners is a little tricky.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah, 生 is a good example. Fortunately, there are corpuses out there with hand-parsed sentences, so we at least train on those to pick the word for 生 on its own that's most common (I just tried - it's なま). We could use this to get our confidence even better than 50-50 for 生す.

I can see how giving users more options could just bring more confusion. Such a tricky problem! I'll be thinking about this one.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Sweet! Looks like a nice addition to WaniKani. I'm using WaniKani for my general studies, but automatic card generation based on my word lookup is definitely neat.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah, I think Nihongo makes a great compliment to WaniKani! Nihongo doesn't have lessons, and isn't really meant to teach you Japanese in the same way WaniKani is. I like to think of Nihongo as a great companion tool for however you're learning Japanese already, whether that be from a class, from living in Japan, reading books, or studying using other tools.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Lately I've been thinking of learning Japanese just like I started learning English. After two years of basic English courses starting from third grade, I started to play videogames like Pokemon and watch movies with subtitles and my vocabulary and proper expression greatly increased. So I should begin studying elementary Japanese for a while and then start playing pokemon in Japanese and study as it seems fit.

Good job OP! An Android version would be great!

</comment><comment><USER11> Is there anything like this in different languages? I think you could make a great language-learning platform with this idea.

<comment><AUTHOR> Not that I know of! I'd love to expand to other languages at some point.

One of the tricks is that I think it's important for there to be a best-in- class dictionary attached to it. If users feel like they'd rather use a different dictionary, then you don't get their dictionary history as flashcards, and overall you create a crappy user experience for them if they have to switch back and forth all the time.

Best-in-class dictionaries require someone deeply familiar with the language, and specifically the pitfalls of learning the language, to make. So I think to expand to other languages, I'd want to get passionate learners of the other languages involved as well.

Definitely a long-term goal though.

<comment><USER11> I'd be interested in helping out, if you decide to take this further. I'm a passionate learner of French and Arabic but I am not deeply familiar with either language yet. I do know some people who are native speakers though.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> > _Have you ever tried to use a word you looked up in the dictionary, only to > find out that no one has ever heard of it?_

This is so great. EDICT has so many entries that Japanese speakers have either never heard of, or would never use, or even where the definition is archaic or just plain wrong.

Maybe someday, this app will be available for Android :-)

</comment><comment><USER13> Unfortunately doesn't run on iOS 7 or below. Any chance you could support it? I'd love to use this app.

<comment><AUTHOR> The first couple versions of the app supported iOS 7, so when you try to download it, you should get a prompt to download the earlier version. Unfortunately, I don't have any plans to support iOS 7 going forward. =/

<comment><USER13> The App Store doesn't present me with that option. I believe you need to have an older version already installed to be able to redownload it.

<comment><AUTHOR> Ah, sorry, I didn't realize that! Unfortunately I make use of some of the features in iOS 8 in a way that would make it difficult to add support for iOS 7. If you ever get a new device compatible with iOS 8 I hope you'll check it out!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Android version please!

</comment><comment><USER15> I have android :(

</comment><comment><USER16> I need this, but for Mandarin

</comment><comment><USER17> And now for Android please! Always looking for a good japanese learnign app.

</comment><comment><USER18> Could you shed some light on your algorithms (how you declare something as Common, Uncommon) and datasources (JMDict, tatoeba) ?

Disclaimer: I am developing a free japanese dictionary for android

</comment><comment><USER19> Does it leverage text to speech for pronouciation purposes?

<comment><AUTHOR> Not yet! But it's on my short list of features to add! Good to know there's interest.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Looks lovely.

Seems like even a starter-level student could benefit from this, with the flashcards and word commonality features.

</comment><comment><USER21> just curious, how do you mark a word as common? I often used jisho.org or classic.jisho.org (from wwwjdic) and from what i remember, a lot of those words marked as "common" were mostly definitely not.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah, I found the commonalities in WWWJDic/JMDict to be pretty problematic, so I came up with my own. I use a combination of corpuses including newspapers, novels, literature/poetry, and spoken language. Some of these have been hand- parsed by humans, and others I parse using the same parsing as clippings. I think the result is pretty good!

<comment><USER22> Commonality is a tricky thing. There are words that most native won't actually know, words they know but rarely use, words that used to be trendy but aren't anymore, etc. It's hard to know from "common", "uncommon", and "rare" in what kind of bucket a word or expression would enter, while "native won't actually know" is a very important distinction to make. Moreover, it's not clear which of "uncommon" and "rare" ranks above the other and below "common", both words being synonyms. To give an example, since I gave a try to your app (best I've found so far, by the way, but unfortunately doesn't match my own needs): 自問自答 is marked rare. 出勤 is marked uncommon. Now, looking at this and some other words, my guess is that uncommon is above rare. Fine. 自問自答 might be rare, but there's no Japanese I know (excluding small kids) that wouldn't understand it. (And, in fact, it stuck in my mind because I keep hearing it). So in your classification, there is no room to tell apart those words that most japanese won't know.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks, it's useful to hear that the difference between "uncommon" and "rare" was unclear to you. I'll think about how to make that better.

I definitely would love to have a distinction in the app for "this is a word that any educated Japanese person would know". I haven't found the dataset yet that can let me build that, unfortunately. I checked, and in the case of 自問自答, it actually doesn't appear even once in any of the corpuses I'm using. So it seems like we need some other source of data.

<comment><USER22> The data used for commonality in JMDict is a little dated (1998) and biased (exclusively based on newspapers, which tend to have specific vocabulary), which I guess is why you mentioned they were problematic. However, there are more recent data sets available on the Monash ftp archive. [http://ftp.monash.edu.au/pub/nihongo/](http://ftp.monash.edu.au/pub/nihongo/) . For example, there's one dataset from 2008 using blog entries from goo.ne.jp, and another with novels. They could be good additions to your corpus (fwiw, for 自問自答 there are 18038 occurrences indicated in the dataset for goo.ne.jp and 68 in the dataset from novels). Certainly, doing some similar work with current data from the net would be useful too. I wish there was some regular scraping done, so that we could always use fresh data. Hell, I wish Google, Bing or any other search engine were just giving out such word frequencies from their spider bots data (and not just for japanese).

<comment><AUTHOR> Hmm, I actually use that novels corpus. Sounds like you may have found a bug in Nihongo. I'll look into it. Thanks!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> 'Clippings' looks really handy. Thanks!</comment>