Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

This Photograph Is Not Free

petapixel.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 257 posts

Re: This Photograph Is Not Free

#51

Post by waterlesscloud »

Suncho wrote: post #49

The very existence of an intellectual property market is absurd. In my opinion, the scenarios in which person should expect to make a profit doing something creative are: A. The person is hired to create something. B. The person creates something that's not easy to copy. If you were hired to design a set for a play, you would get paid for your work. If you created a physical three-dimensional sculpture, someone else…

All this sort of intellectual property market does is move the decision to "hire" someone, that is to use their work in exchange for money, to after the work has been executed rather than before.

The person has produced the work and they offer the opportunity to enter into an agreement for payment after the fact.

You say you're fine with entering into an agreement before the work is produced, but you don't believe it should be possible to enter into such an agreement after the fact. This doesn't seem very consistent to me.

Re: This Photograph Is Not Free

#52

Post by slavak »

Suncho wrote: post #49

The very existence of an intellectual property market is absurd. In my opinion, the scenarios in which person should expect to make a profit doing something creative are: A. The person is hired to create something. B. The person creates something that's not easy to copy. If you were hired to design a set for a play, you would get paid for your work. If you created a physical three-dimensional sculpture, someone else…

Did you really just discount the entire digital realm as worthless because of the inherent fungibility of bits? Thank God not everyone thinks like you, otherwise our technological progress would basically grind to a halt, as people would be back to trading 6 pigs for 10 loaves of bread.

Re: This Photograph Is Not Free

#53

Post by slavak »

digitalclubb wrote: post #31

The photographer has gone about this the wrong way - the cost is actually his experience and time. 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

This reminds me of...

Tapping with a hammer ......................... $ 10.00 Knowing where to tap .......................... $990.00

Re: This Photograph Is Not Free

#54

Post by jodrellblank »

Suncho wrote: post #49

The very existence of an intellectual property market is absurd. In my opinion, the scenarios in which person should expect to make a profit doing something creative are: A. The person is hired to create something. B. The person creates something that's not easy to copy. If you were hired to design a set for a play, you would get paid for your work. If you created a physical three-dimensional sculpture, someone else…

So you want a world wiyh no more pro quality books, films, music or TV series?

Re: This Photograph Is Not Free

#55

Post by hessenwolf »

digitalclubb wrote: post #31

The photographer has gone about this the wrong way - the cost is actually his experience and time. 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

It's like the guy who charged a thousand bucks to fix the machine by turning a screw; 1 buck for turning the screw, and 999 for knowing which screw to turn.

Re: This Photograph Is Not Free

#57

Post by stan_rogers »

corin_ wrote: post #24
elisee wrote: post #19

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…

"He still has the photo" is a nonsense argument -- he doesn't "still have the photo" from a licensing perspective in that he can no longer license exclusive or first usage rights (which also exist in regional and media contexts). The photograph has been irreparably damaged vis-a-vis its commercial value after unauthorised use/publication. That is something people seem to be unwilling to understand or consider for some strange reason -- the image file itself may still exist in a usable state, but its value is not in its bits, it's in its licensability. Unlicensed use demotes the picture's value to the level of royalty-free microstock in the eyes of potential buyers.

Re: This Photograph Is Not Free

#58

Post by Suncho »

slavak wrote: post #52
Suncho wrote: post #49

The very existence of an intellectual property market is absurd. In my opinion, the scenarios in which person should expect to make a profit doing something creative are: A. The person is hired to create something. B. The person creates something that's not easy to copy. If you were hired to design a set for a play, you would get paid for your work. If you created a physical three-dimensional sculpture, someone else…

Did you really just discount the entire digital realm as worthless because of the inherent fungibility of bits? Thank God not everyone thinks like you, otherwise our technological progress would basically grind to a halt, as people would be back to trading 6 pigs for 10 loaves of bread.

No. I did not. Just because something can't be bought or sold does not mean it lacks worth. Please explain why you think "technological progress would basically grind to a halt" in a world where people are allowed to collaborate freely.

Re: This Photograph Is Not Free

#59

Post by josefresco »

slavak wrote: post #53
digitalclubb wrote: post #31

The photographer has gone about this the wrong way - the cost is actually his experience and time. 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

This reminds me of... Tapping with a hammer ......................... $ 10.00 Knowing where to tap .......................... $990.00

The story is much longer... it involved a creaky wooden floor and two contractors. One quotes say $1000 and 7 days to fix, tears the whole thing up and fixes it. The other quotes $1000 pulls out his hammer and fixes the creaky floor with one nail in a few seconds.

Both fixed the problem, but the expert isn't worth any less than the guy who put in tons of man-hours.

Post reply on HN