Re: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images

["Anthony Atkielski" <atkielski.anthony@wanadoo.fr>]

Tom writes:

> I'm not a pro by any means -- just a rank
> amateur having fun, but if you believe $200
> less expenses is a good wage for a
> photographer, I'm sure never entering the
> business.

Well, $200 a day is $50,000 per year.  Removing, say, half for expenses, that's
still $25,000 a year, which is a living wage, although it won't make you rich.
Still, that's a lot of money for a freelance photographer; it's so much, in
fact, that hardly any photographers achieve it, which is one reason why so many
photographers are amateurs rather than professionals, and still keep their day
jobs.

Trying to make a living with photography is a good way to starve.  Of course,
this is true for all of the fine arts, not just photography (at any given moment
80% of SAG is unemployed, and I think the average acting income among members is
only a few thousand dollars a year).

> Best case, that's $25 an hour, if there were no
> expenses and it was an eight hour day.  Worst
> case it is a 16 hour day with thousands in expenses.

Yes.  Not a pretty picture.  Royalties don't necessarily make a dent in that,
either.