101–110 of 257 posts
Until you can actually stop USERS from benefiting from someone ELSE doing the same thing with your work, your work very much IS free.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
That's because people doing weddings are NOT selling photographs. They are selling their time and expertise, which will always be in short supply.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Of course it's not consistent. The only way it makes sense is if it's not consistent. Why should I have to pay for the creation of something that already exists?
Look at the big picture of the system, not at single transactions. With payment after the fact, artists can optionally use their gut feeling about demand and produce something that they think may sell without having any reputation beforehand. I think that this is essential to entrepreneurship and would hate to see it lost. Many arguments about piracy don't make sense until you look at the big picture. To someone acti…
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 mai…
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…
While I agree in part with your argument, using words like nonsense' and 'moron' somewhat let it down. He didn't argue that that was the cost of viewing his photograph, he argued that his is what he would be looking for if you used it for commercial gain without permission. Some photographs do sell for millions of dollars; many news photographs sell for thousands despite the photographer having no skill and having ju…
Cost to purchase doesn't have to be tied to cost to produce, plenty of people buy Gucci without thinking that Gucci is spending 100% of what you pay on the materials.
Yes, a photograph can sell for seven figures, but not generally speaking because that's how much the equipment used to take it costs, but because of how it is valued as art.
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…
Really? Then the photographer could say: if that's so, go use ANOTHER picture, because I don't fu*n supply mine.
You can't have it both ways, i.e the picture is worthless AND I still insist on using it.
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…
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…
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…
No, he doesn't still "have the photo" as in "no damage done".
He has a digital file, but he just lost BOTH the exclusivity of the photo AND his say in how his work should be distributed.
I wonder how much his lawyer will send a bill for if someone uses 2 or more of his pictures without permission.