11–20 of 257 posts
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....
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.
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.
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 !
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 ar…
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.
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 at…
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.
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 ar…
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.
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 !
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?