5 ms·

The problem is now that everybody has an always available camera, everybody feels like a photographer, probably even a decent one. When it comes to explaining

The problem is now that everybody has an always available camera, everybody feels like a photographer, probably even a decent one. When it comes to explaining what makes a photo "good", there's the problem of it being a creative endeavour, so there are no strict guidelines. The point remains however, they chose his photo. Likely because it's a good photo: lighting, composition, pose, all work well, and these are more-or-less definable criteria of what makes a photo good. That's not an accident. Professional photographers know how to create the time and place for such photos to happen, unlike an average person with a camera. Good photographers cannot easily be substituted by a random crowd with phones, no matter how much they see themselves as "photographers". There's an art to being in the right time and the right place. It's not that a crowd can't produce good pictures, it's that a professional photographer can produce them with higher frequency and with intent. It could be just as easily argued that the "craft of the photo" here conveys a dynamic that is very favorable for the band (which is probably why they chose it), urging people who only peripherally know the band to check them out because they connect with that dynamic, so the "craft" here is more valuable than the subject.

barrkel 8y ago
> It could be just as easily argued that the "craft of the photo" here conveys a dynamic that is very favorable for the band (which is probably why they chose it), urging people who only peripherally know the band to check them out because they connect with that dynamic, so the "craft" here is more valuable than the subject. It can be argued - you've just argued it - but I think it's a stretch. Selling something to an audience you've already built is more valuable than a marginal increase in audience, especially if it's a static visual and the draw of the topic is dynamic. If the photographer had his own distribution channel, and could put the photo in front of lots of people who don't know about the band, then your argument would make more sense. But then it's a marketing value proposition, not a technical photo quality value prop. Oh and I agree that the photo isn't worthless. It's just not a strong bargaining position relative to the band, and trying to leverage law to get a better bargaining position isn't likely to turn out well, and there's no reason to believe that it won't turn out even better for the band in the future.
- craigsmansion 8y ago
  There is a lot of competition in the known-but-not-that-well-known bands space in any genre. Having world class pictures gets you in magazines and online publications, it creates a presence, especially since metal is a very visual genre. I don't think it's that much of a stretch, but we can agree to disagree there I hope. > a strong bargaining position relative to the band He doesn't need a bargaining position. A clothing company infringed on his work, that's the whole of it. The band is not even involved. It's just it turned out someone in the band was likely closely related to the company and it was perceived as some sort of extortion so they decided to get personally involved apparently without being very clueful about the matter. It really seems like a misunderstanding as was suggested ("Wait, photographs are subject to copyright too?") that should have ended at the manager, or at least their legal counsel, but somehow management was an idiot and doubled down being defensive and vindictive for no reason at all for what is really not some extraordinary practice. I'm unsure the photographer is trying to leverage the law or get a better bargaining position here, but he sure should try to retain access to venues by explaining his side of the story, hoping that other bands and organisers are a bit more clueful about copyright and realise that coverage and good photos don't appear out of thin air. P.S. I really doubt a simple message from the band stating that the clothing company was small business and a personal friend would not only have prevented the situation, but delighted the photographer in lieu of any monetary compensation.
baddox 8y ago
This doesn’t really conflict with the claim that the vast majority of value comes from the band. Yes, it would be possible for a less skilled photographer to take a worse picture of the band from that spot. But the amount of skill and gear required to take that photo is possessed by tens of thousands of people.
- zamalek 8y ago
  The gear required to play metal, or at the very least music, is likely possessed by more people. So by that logic, no value comes from the band either.
  - lmm 8y ago
    > The gear required to play metal, or at the very least music, is likely possessed by more people. You skipped over the skill part. Do you think there are more people who can play as well as Arch Enemy, or photograph as well as this guy? My money's on the latter. > So by that logic, no value comes from the band either. Not much value, sure, which is why playing in a band is rarely profitable.
    - zamalek 8y ago
      > You skipped over the skill part. I personally know more skilled musicians (three) than I do photographers (one). The music industry is dominated by luck precisely because there is such as a colossal pool of artists to choose from.

barrkel 8y ago

> It could be just as easily argued that the "craft of the photo" here conveys a dynamic that is very favorable for the band (which is probably why they chose it), urging people who only peripherally know the band to check them out because they connect with that dynamic, so the "craft" here is more valuable than the subject. It can be argued - you've just argued it - but I think it's a stretch. Selling something to an audience you've already built is more valuable than a marginal increase in audience, especially if it's a static visual and the draw of the topic is dynamic. If the photographer had his own distribution channel, and could put the photo in front of lots of people who don't know about the band, then your argument would make more sense. But then it's a marketing value proposition, not a technical photo quality value prop. Oh and I agree that the photo isn't worthless. It's just not a strong bargaining position relative to the band, and trying to leverage law to get a better bargaining position isn't likely to turn out well, and there's no reason to believe that it won't turn out even better for the band in the future.

craigsmansion 8y ago
There is a lot of competition in the known-but-not-that-well-known bands space in any genre. Having world class pictures gets you in magazines and online publications, it creates a presence, especially since metal is a very visual genre. I don't think it's that much of a stretch, but we can agree to disagree there I hope. > a strong bargaining position relative to the band He doesn't need a bargaining position. A clothing company infringed on his work, that's the whole of it. The band is not even involved. It's just it turned out someone in the band was likely closely related to the company and it was perceived as some sort of extortion so they decided to get personally involved apparently without being very clueful about the matter. It really seems like a misunderstanding as was suggested ("Wait, photographs are subject to copyright too?") that should have ended at the manager, or at least their legal counsel, but somehow management was an idiot and doubled down being defensive and vindictive for no reason at all for what is really not some extraordinary practice. I'm unsure the photographer is trying to leverage the law or get a better bargaining position here, but he sure should try to retain access to venues by explaining his side of the story, hoping that other bands and organisers are a bit more clueful about copyright and realise that coverage and good photos don't appear out of thin air. P.S. I really doubt a simple message from the band stating that the clothing company was small business and a personal friend would not only have prevented the situation, but delighted the photographer in lieu of any monetary compensation.

baddox 8y ago

This doesn’t really conflict with the claim that the vast majority of value comes from the band. Yes, it would be possible for a less skilled photographer to take a worse picture of the band from that spot. But the amount of skill and gear required to take that photo is possessed by tens of thousands of people.

zamalek 8y ago
The gear required to play metal, or at the very least music, is likely possessed by more people. So by that logic, no value comes from the band either.
- lmm 8y ago
  > The gear required to play metal, or at the very least music, is likely possessed by more people. You skipped over the skill part. Do you think there are more people who can play as well as Arch Enemy, or photograph as well as this guy? My money's on the latter. > So by that logic, no value comes from the band either. Not much value, sure, which is why playing in a band is rarely profitable.
  - zamalek 8y ago
    > You skipped over the skill part. I personally know more skilled musicians (three) than I do photographers (one). The music industry is dominated by luck precisely because there is such as a colossal pool of artists to choose from.