5 ms·

How exactly do you believe a random photo is to be compensated? If it were on a stock photo website, sure. Otherwise, how do you believe the transaction were t

How exactly do you believe a random photo is to be compensated? If it were on a stock photo website, sure. Otherwise, how do you believe the transaction were to be arranged? It wasn't work done for Netflix. He put it somewhere and did NOT expect to be paid for it.

ProAm 9y ago
Take 1000 photos and 1 might make you earn enough to consider it a meager living, but you still had to take the other 999 to get to that point. That's how art works. That's how most jobs work.
- vadimberman 9y ago
  I don't think there was anything close to 1000 there. It was one puny random unremarkable photo which had nothing to do with art or a job.
  - sumedh 9y ago
    You are missing the point. Maybe he didnt upload those other 999 photos on the blog.
    - vadimberman 9y ago
      Really now? If there was a way to verify, I would put money on the assumption that he has not uploaded the other 999 photos to the blog because there were no 999 photos.
      - sumedh 9y ago
        Do you upload each and every photo you take to your blog?
        vadimberman 9y ago
        Do you believe that someone in sound mind will take 1,000 photos of a VHS tape to put on a low-traffic blog?
        sumedh 9y ago
        You have completely missed the metaphor. Let me break it down for you. Everyone is not born as a good photographer. So people practice by taking many photos of various things, now all of them wont be good, some of them can be good but they probably wont be noticed by anyone but there will be that one photo which will be good and gets noticed by people that matter and they will pay a good amount for that photo. So that 1 photo will make up for zero revenues from all the other photos. The 1000 photos is a metaphor, dont take it literally. Now do you get it?
      - ProAm 9y ago
        The point is you don't know which of the 1000 is going to be your pay day.
lysp 9y ago
That's the whole purpose of a stock photo website. To easily track down the owner of the image and buy a license to use it for money. You can do it manually by contacting a person directly, negotiating a fee for a license to use that image, but that takes time. Stock sites speed up the process. Just because the photo was not sourced from a stock photo website does not remove the need for copyright or payment. It's like saying "I copied a dvd and didn't buy it from a dvd shop, so I don't need to pay for it".
- vadimberman 9y ago
  So let me get it straight. You, a designer in a big company, see a plain, unremarkable photo that has no artistic value on a private blog that has 5 visitors a month. You go to your boss and say, "Mr Boss, there is no price here but I would like to negotiate with the owner of the blog and pay them. Can you please ask the accounting to open a vendor file for kewldude32893, owner of WakeUpSheeple.org, and issue a purchase order and ask the legal department to send him a SOW?" No, it's more like exceeding the speed limit on an uninhabited island. Nobody is impacted and nobody cares.
  - lysp 9y ago
    Your analogy - I'm allowed to copy John Carter (2012) dvds and do what I like with them because it made a loss of $125m and the only people who saw it were the director's family, next door neighbour and pet dog. The bigger the design firm, the more aware they should be of copyright law and their legal obligations. The fact they used the photo shows it had value, otherwise they would have taken a custom photo themselves. There are plenty of stock photos of VHS tapes, the fact they used google is a massive error on their part. This is their daily job and the image will be reproduced millions of times. This is not simply someone who borrows a photo for their personal blog.
    - vadimberman 9y ago
      Except the photo that was copied was not created in order to make a living. That is sorta kinda the point.

ProAm 9y ago

Take 1000 photos and 1 might make you earn enough to consider it a meager living, but you still had to take the other 999 to get to that point. That's how art works. That's how most jobs work.

vadimberman 9y ago
I don't think there was anything close to 1000 there. It was one puny random unremarkable photo which had nothing to do with art or a job.
- sumedh 9y ago
  You are missing the point. Maybe he didnt upload those other 999 photos on the blog.
  - vadimberman 9y ago
    Really now? If there was a way to verify, I would put money on the assumption that he has not uploaded the other 999 photos to the blog because there were no 999 photos.
    - sumedh 9y ago
      Do you upload each and every photo you take to your blog?
      - vadimberman 9y ago
        Do you believe that someone in sound mind will take 1,000 photos of a VHS tape to put on a low-traffic blog?
        sumedh 9y ago
        You have completely missed the metaphor. Let me break it down for you. Everyone is not born as a good photographer. So people practice by taking many photos of various things, now all of them wont be good, some of them can be good but they probably wont be noticed by anyone but there will be that one photo which will be good and gets noticed by people that matter and they will pay a good amount for that photo. So that 1 photo will make up for zero revenues from all the other photos. The 1000 photos is a metaphor, dont take it literally. Now do you get it?
    - ProAm 9y ago
      The point is you don't know which of the 1000 is going to be your pay day.

lysp 9y ago

That's the whole purpose of a stock photo website. To easily track down the owner of the image and buy a license to use it for money. You can do it manually by contacting a person directly, negotiating a fee for a license to use that image, but that takes time. Stock sites speed up the process. Just because the photo was not sourced from a stock photo website does not remove the need for copyright or payment. It's like saying "I copied a dvd and didn't buy it from a dvd shop, so I don't need to pay for it".

vadimberman 9y ago
So let me get it straight. You, a designer in a big company, see a plain, unremarkable photo that has no artistic value on a private blog that has 5 visitors a month. You go to your boss and say, "Mr Boss, there is no price here but I would like to negotiate with the owner of the blog and pay them. Can you please ask the accounting to open a vendor file for kewldude32893, owner of WakeUpSheeple.org, and issue a purchase order and ask the legal department to send him a SOW?" No, it's more like exceeding the speed limit on an uninhabited island. Nobody is impacted and nobody cares.
- lysp 9y ago
  Your analogy - I'm allowed to copy John Carter (2012) dvds and do what I like with them because it made a loss of $125m and the only people who saw it were the director's family, next door neighbour and pet dog. The bigger the design firm, the more aware they should be of copyright law and their legal obligations. The fact they used the photo shows it had value, otherwise they would have taken a custom photo themselves. There are plenty of stock photos of VHS tapes, the fact they used google is a massive error on their part. This is their daily job and the image will be reproduced millions of times. This is not simply someone who borrows a photo for their personal blog.
  - vadimberman 9y ago
    Except the photo that was copied was not created in order to make a living. That is sorta kinda the point.