>> With this kind of logic, you should bill your customers your years of education, from the time you started to read, and effectively charge them millions of dollars per product. This is so ridiculous I don't even know if there's a name for this kind of fallacy.
I think the fallacy here is that you extrapolate the things you mention to 'millions of dollars per product'. I don't think its ridiculous logic to attach a premium to your 'market value' based on how much (time, money) you invested in your education or side projects, and I also don't think it's ridiculous at all to account for equipment cost and travel expenses to determine the cost of (for instance) a photograph. In fact, I think it's perfectly normal, and I assume the similar logic was used in determining the price of about every product or service I buy. Usually costs like these are amortized over a large range of products ('photos', to stay with your example) and/or a large number of sales, so the numbers don't add up to 'millions of dollars per product'.
> I also don't think it's ridiculous at all to account for equipment cost and travel expenses to determine the cost of (for instance) a photograph
It is ridiculous, because your equipment is not disposable, and is going to serve for multiple pictures (possibly hundred of thousands before it dies out) and your trip was not just for that particular picture, but for other purposes as well (relaxing, tourism, etc...). It seems very far fetched to justify the price of a single photograph this way.
I don't believe anyone is suggesting that you charge the full price of the camera for every photo, but rather that it's a factor in determining the correct price for a single photo.
Also, if someone wanted me to fly somewhere to do a project for them, I am absolutely going to charge them for the plane tickets. Travel is difficult and costly, there's not only the cost of the ticket itself but the opportunity cost of all the things you could be doing instead of dealing with flying somewhere.
> Also, if someone wanted me to fly somewhere to do a project for them
I'm not sure if you have read the post I am referring to, but that was not the case. The guy was not asked to go and fly somewhere to take a picture. He just said his picture was worth x thousands dollars because he took it with x,y equipment and travelled to that place to take it by himself.
I'm just saying that's not how pricing usually works. You don't charge for your costs, your charge at the price you can sell, and whether that's above your fixed costs is only a matter of whether your work is valuable or not. If I were a complete noob with expensive equipment, my market value would still be zero.
I think the fallacy here is that you extrapolate the things you mention to 'millions of dollars per product'. I don't think its ridiculous logic to attach a premium to your 'market value' based on how much (time, money) you invested in your education or side projects, and I also don't think it's ridiculous at all to account for equipment cost and travel expenses to determine the cost of (for instance) a photograph. In fact, I think it's perfectly normal, and I assume the similar logic was used in determining the price of about every product or service I buy. Usually costs like these are amortized over a large range of products ('photos', to stay with your example) and/or a large number of sales, so the numbers don't add up to 'millions of dollars per product'.