There's an easy way to ensure no one "steals" your photograph: don't release it as a series of bits on a huge relatively unrestricted global network of computers. You can't have it both ways: having your photograph "out there" where everyone can see it, and still claiming absolute control over every single occurrence of that sequence of bits on every single device it ever gets copied to.
This Photograph Is Not Free
221–230 of 257 posts
Re: This Photograph Is Not Free
#222Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, a thousand times yes. "The principle applied in the U.S.S.R. is that of socialism: From each according to his ability, to each according to his work," said Joseph Stalin. Which is backwards. What many people with only a superficial understanding of economics don't seem to grasp is that the "perfect competition" ecosystem that is described in Econ 101 - in which goods are priced at cost - is an EMERGENT property…
I don't see what's wrong with his pricing model. He's basing his price on what it would cost someone, starting from nothing, to go out and create a picture like that. It's actually a discount in that regard since most people would have to spend considerable time learning how to take that photo. It's a perfectly good starting place for a price. And nowhere did he say that price wasn't negotiable.
He can set the price as he likes. But this does not mean that he will find a buyer.
Re: This Photograph Is Not Free
#223Earlier quoted context omitted.
The point was that you don't need any law to demand money for something. Copyright may legitimize your demand (in some people's eyes) but you can demand anything for anything. I demand you pay me $20 for the privilege of reading my posts. See, it worked fine. I have the same legitimacy as anyone else that asks for money. You can choose to pay it or not. There's no law that suggests I can charge you, but I can certain…
I still don't see the point. Are you arguing whether the author could ask for payments for copies? Sure he could. Even if there were no copyright laws. But only because of the copyright laws he can demand to be paid. Or you're arguing that "demand" doesn't necessary mean "ask for what is due, legally"? In this case I think what I meant was clear enough, since you seem to recognize that there's a nuance. If every word…
chest your english is clear and to the point. Ignore those comments he is off on a tangent. I suspect the anger, FEAR and disgust with SOPA PROTECT IP and the other efforts to censor the internet and eliminate sure processes is the origin of many of this not so generous comments. These undermine the internet our jobs, not to be overly dramatic, and everyones freedom not just in the US. The biggest copyright holders are at the forfront I can understand the spillover. Unfortunately many of the people that actually create the great works are against it but they don't have the say or the influence individually. Regards.
Re: This Photograph Is Not Free
#224Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean literally any movie that wasn't made by amateurs supported by another job, or philanthropic donations, or advertising funded. Its low to pick only the worst bits as a counterargument; it also implies no pro quality TV you like . And that you are willing to screw over people who genuinely do like Selena Gomez and Gilligan's Island and the like, just because you don't.
you are willing to screw over people who genuinely do like ... Gilligan's Island ... because you don't. Your response irritated me beyond its level of highhandedness. And I finally figured out why: I actually do like Gilligan's Island. I even bought "The Professor's" tell-all book, "Here On Gilligan's Isle". It doesn't matter if I like "Gilligan's Ilsand" or not, it's of low quality. The acting was low, the writing w…
Oh get over trying to shame me for "deciding I know what your ethics are" (I did no such thing and wouldn't know where to start). I've never even seen Gilligan's Island, I didn't know it was ropey quality, only that the parent had dismissed it and the entire industry because he thought it lowbrow.
Funded by advertising is a bit different it can still be run like a traditional business, but where is the amateur TV as good as BBC Frozen Planet, or Sherlock, Wallander or QI? And they're just people talking in scenic locations - or in a big room, nothing requiring months of filming and hundreds of people.
Where are the part time charity funded films like Lord of the Rings or The Shawshank Redemption? The Shining? 2001? Kill Bill?
Amateur work can be good, but mostly it's worse than professional work that's the informal definition of the difference between amateur and professional. The formal one being "profession: paid work".
Re: This Photograph Is Not Free
#225Earlier quoted context omitted.
You know, it is pretty easy to kill someone. That doesn't mean it's morally acceptable, let alone legal. It doesn't matter how easy it is to copy the photograph. It's still not morally acceptable or legal. As to your second argument, that 'anyone can take pro quality photos with minimal talent': image quality isn't all that counts. In fact, it's substantially less important than composing a good photograph in the fir…
If I'm a programmer, and I let my customers download my program for free and include a crack -- who's fault is it if someone doesn't pay up for the program? This is the internet. I had to download a copy the photograph just to view the image. It's stored in my cache right now. You have an unlicensed copy as well. Do I feel like a murdering thief? No, I don't. If you run a bike-shop, don't leave the bikes out front wi…
"If I'm a programmer, and I let my customers download my program for free and include a crack -- who's fault is it if someone doesn't pay up for the program? This is the internet."
It's called trust, it's why we've been lauding Louis CK's latest effort. Also, Apple used to distribute their OS software that way, it didn't require a serial number or online validation.
"If you run a bike-shop, don't leave the bikes out front without locks. They're going to get stolen. Don't bitch about society when they go missing. If you're putting art out on the internet, don't bitch when everyone has a copy."
Nice argument for DRM. I thought all of us here were opposed to that kind of thing.
"At least watermark that sucker."
What is that supposed to accomplish? Even if those who appropriate the picture don't crop the pictures, that doesn't justify republishing it without permission and/or compensation.
Re: This Photograph Is Not Free
#226This has been all over my Facebook and twitter feeds..
Maybe "This photograph is not free.. But this marketing is" would be more apt now!
Re: This Photograph Is Not Free
#227Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, a thousand times yes. "The principle applied in the U.S.S.R. is that of socialism: From each according to his ability, to each according to his work," said Joseph Stalin. Which is backwards. What many people with only a superficial understanding of economics don't seem to grasp is that the "perfect competition" ecosystem that is described in Econ 101 - in which goods are priced at cost - is an EMERGENT property…
I don't see what's wrong with his pricing model. He's basing his price on what it would cost someone, starting from nothing, to go out and create a picture like that. It's actually a discount in that regard since most people would have to spend considerable time learning how to take that photo. It's a perfectly good starting place for a price. And nowhere did he say that price wasn't negotiable.
The flaw is that no one is going to recreate that photograph from scratch. Any professional who sells photographs is amortizing the cost of his equipment over many sales. Buyers pay according to what they (and the market) think that particular photograph is worth. The cost of the equipment doesn't really factor into it.
It's similar to buying anything on the market - A toaster would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to build from scratch (http://www.thetoasterproject.org/), but no one pays that much (not does any manufacturer expect that much) since no one is really going to build one from scratch.
The author's argument gets really weird at the end when he claims that if someone misappropriates the image, he would charge the cost of his camera, his laptop, his software - the whole shebang that went into it. It's a very strange way of computing the loss of value to him. The loss of value could be zero (if there was no buyer for that image in the first place - a lot of photographers take excellent images without anyone actually buying or wanting to buy them ever), or it could be many thousands of dollars if it is a piece of art that is highly valued. Basing the value on the cost of the equipment that went into producing it does not do justice to the image either way.
Re: This Photograph Is Not Free
#228What is bothering me is that he is not adding up the cost right. How about the cost of his upbringing that made him the person he is today?
Re: This Photograph Is Not Free
#229Earlier quoted context omitted.
Great, then the magazines should use one of the 300,000, not his. His cost money to use, and that's the way it is. Several of those 300k are mine, by the way, and they are indeed free to use, assuming I am credited as required by the license. Of course, there are countless stories of magazines ignoring even this very simple requirement.
I should add- Making my pics CC on flickr has resulted in a number of people using them and crediting me properly, from blogs to small magazines. One is even in use by a state park on one of their signs, which is somehow particularly gratifying. I really need to go take a pic of that sign.
What's your flickr account?
Re: This Photograph Is Not Free
#230cost != value != price. I could buy a flawless diamond and use it to shred a Picasso. What should I be paid?
£40,000, because you'd surely get the Turner Prize.