31–40 of 257 posts
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
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 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…
Which is still so obviously moronic, that I don't even know why I bother pointing this out. Replacement value of a photo has to include the price of the camera it was taken with? This would be true if he used a brand new camera for each photo.
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
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.
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…
What if the photo was crap, would he not deserved to be paid?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
> He said he considers $6,612 the "replacement value", should someone publish it in a magazine without licensing first. Which is still so obviously moronic, that I don't even know why I bother pointing this out. Replacement value of a photo has to include the price of the camera it was taken with? This would be true if he used a brand new camera for each photo.
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…
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.
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
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.
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.