3 ms·

>Almost all of the value of a photo taken close up at a concert like this derives from the band rather than the photographer. The photographer is infinitely mor

by xoa 8y ago

>Almost all of the value of a photo taken close up at a concert like this derives from the band rather than the photographer. The photographer is infinitely more substitutable. You are by your own definition completely wrong. If the photographer is so substitutable and adds so little value like you argue, then they could have used anyone else including their own. Yet in actual fact they (and more to the point a clothing sponsor engaging in commercial advertising use) did not do that, they chose his. However many hundreds/thousands of people with cellphones and other cameras, however many hundreds of thousands of random people in the country they could have just given a camera and had a specific official hired "photographer" to take photos that they'd own the copyright to, and yet they didn't and just took someone else's without asking instead. Again by definition that means that they found his particularly valuable amongst everything else, and didn't find the cost/benefit right to hire somebody random for minimum wage to photograph for hire. This isn't some gray case whatsoever, there is no fair use here, it's not fans, it's not some perpetual copyright shenanigans, or any of the other many issues with IP. It's a company & band violating copyright immediately and using a photo for advertisement getting snooty about being asked to give 100 clams to charity. That's a pretty amazing thing for you to defend. >The photo is normally only interesting to people who are interested in the band, rather than for the craft of the photo itself. You can say "normally" but we're not talking averages, we're talking a specific case where the photo was "interesting" to a for-profit corp for advertising purposes. >But I think he's dealing in absolutes in a situation where the economics are strongly in the band's favour. "Absolutes" would mean a immediate c&d or for that matter a demand for restitution of at least the mandatory minimum statutory penalties. "If you want to keep using it please either pay me the normal amount or give 1/5 normal amount to charity" doesn't seem so bad to me at least. It was entirely their blunder and sense of entitlement. And the bit about hypocrisy for a "anarchist" metal band that also complains about infringement of their IP are pretty on point too if you want to go beyond legalities.

baddox 8y ago
Your argument doesn’t make sense. The fact that they chose some specific photograph doesn’t disprove that photographers are largely substitutable. Of course some specific photograph had to be chosen. If you chose no photograph then the issue wouldn’t exist. Choosing a bunch of photographs and blending them together is nonsensical. So yes, one photograph was chosen. But that doesn’t mean they couldn’t have chosen a different photograph. The only difference would be that a different photographer would be writing the same article about their interactions with the band and sponsor.
- xoa 8y ago
  >The fact that they chose some specific photograph doesn’t disprove that photographers are largely substitutable. It does, that's a market at work. Why do I choose one thing over another one when there are lots of competitive options and essentially no barrier to entry? Because I value it more, I think it's better for me then whatever else there was. This isn't an area of natural monopoly, in fact it's about as polar opposite as can be. >Of course some specific photograph had to be chosen Some photograph is not this photograph. You need to choose "some" car or "some" phone, that doesn't mean they're all perfectly interchangeable. Furthermore no, there was no "need" to choose anything that they didn't own copyright to or wouldn't negotiate for, because they could have made their own or asked any other person who took photos at that concert, many of whom likely would cheerfully give it up for free. This was for an advertisement. You're reversing logic here. >But that doesn’t mean they couldn’t have chosen a different photograph. Yes they could have which is precisely why it's so wrong. You could have chosen to use/buy, or not use/buy, many different things over the course of your life too. I somehow doubt you just roll a die for every decision you ever make though. >The only difference would be that a different photographer would be writing the same article about their interactions with the band and sponsor. No, the whole point is that different people will put different values and terms on their work. So if you don't agree with one person's, you go to somebody else. Not liking their terms though doesn't mean you necessarily get to just take it. Seriously, how could you possibly even get that into your mind in a case like this? And again, if photographers are so interchangeable then this is even more trivial, because they could find any random out of work person or student or fan and offer to pay them minimum wage (or less, many fans might do it just to be able to attend a paid concert for free or get some beer money or something) and take pictures as their agent. Then they'd simply own the copyright directly. If photographer doesn't matter then why not do that? "Equivalent photo" and they'd get it for 10-20 euros (or less).
  - baddox 8y ago
    > Why do I choose one thing over another one when there are lots of competitive options and essentially no barrier to entry? Umm, because you wanted one of the many substitutable options. You didn’t care which one, because they were largely indistinguishable from one another, so you chose one randomly. It makes absolutely no sense to claim that, because they chose one photograph, then clearly there werentnother substitutable photographs.
treis 8y ago
>You are by your own definition completely wrong. If the photographer is so substitutable and adds so little value like you argue, then they could have used anyone else including their own. Yet in actual fact they (and more to the point a clothing sponsor engaging in commercial advertising use) did not do that, they chose his. If you go buy an apple at the grocery store you pick it out of a hundred others but that does not mean there is anything special about that particular apple. It's just the one you happened to pick out of the many of other equally good ones. And I'm sure we'd all be equally annoyed if some apple picker e-mailed us saying they normally charge 500 per apple picked but they'll settle for a 100 dollar donation in this case.
- xoa 8y ago
  Your physical analogy attempt is not merely incorrect but it doesn't support you even taken at face value. >If you go buy an apple at the grocery store you pick it out of a hundred others but that does not mean there is anything special about that particular apple. It is a well known fact of marketing that much of the population absolutely will look carefully even at something like a crate of apples and try to pick "the best" one as well as they can, something which has resulted in unfortunate phenomena like supermarket fruits and vegetables being bred for appearance and resilience against shipping rather then taste such as the infamous Red "Delicious" (of course people specifically choosing against appearance for flavor aren't selecting at random either). Also compared to IP where there is infinite reproducibility the more apt analogy to choosing between various photos would be choosing between varieties of apples. Or one kind of apple, but some are organic and some conventional. They're all apples, and you can acquire as many as you wish to pay for, but they aren't all the same nor will their pricing be the same. >And I'm sure we'd all be equally annoyed if some apple picker e-mailed us saying they normally charge 500 per apple picked but they'll settle for a 100 dollar donation in this case. Sorry but not all of us would think picking an apple at random would entitle us to walk out of the store with it without paying for it. If after we took $500 worth of apples without paying the actual legal owner emailed us and stated that normally they'd call the police but would settle for a donation of 1/5 normal price to a charity yeah, that'd be pretty decent deal. It's genuinely kind of weird how you seem to think that you not caring would mean you can have whatever you want on whatever terms you want.

by xoa 8y ago

baddox 8y ago

Your argument doesn’t make sense. The fact that they chose some specific photograph doesn’t disprove that photographers are largely substitutable. Of course some specific photograph had to be chosen. If you chose no photograph then the issue wouldn’t exist. Choosing a bunch of photographs and blending them together is nonsensical. So yes, one photograph was chosen. But that doesn’t mean they couldn’t have chosen a different photograph. The only difference would be that a different photographer would be writing the same article about their interactions with the band and sponsor.

xoa 8y ago
>The fact that they chose some specific photograph doesn’t disprove that photographers are largely substitutable. It does, that's a market at work. Why do I choose one thing over another one when there are lots of competitive options and essentially no barrier to entry? Because I value it more, I think it's better for me then whatever else there was. This isn't an area of natural monopoly, in fact it's about as polar opposite as can be. >Of course some specific photograph had to be chosen Some photograph is not this photograph. You need to choose "some" car or "some" phone, that doesn't mean they're all perfectly interchangeable. Furthermore no, there was no "need" to choose anything that they didn't own copyright to or wouldn't negotiate for, because they could have made their own or asked any other person who took photos at that concert, many of whom likely would cheerfully give it up for free. This was for an advertisement. You're reversing logic here. >But that doesn’t mean they couldn’t have chosen a different photograph. Yes they could have which is precisely why it's so wrong. You could have chosen to use/buy, or not use/buy, many different things over the course of your life too. I somehow doubt you just roll a die for every decision you ever make though. >The only difference would be that a different photographer would be writing the same article about their interactions with the band and sponsor. No, the whole point is that different people will put different values and terms on their work. So if you don't agree with one person's, you go to somebody else. Not liking their terms though doesn't mean you necessarily get to just take it. Seriously, how could you possibly even get that into your mind in a case like this? And again, if photographers are so interchangeable then this is even more trivial, because they could find any random out of work person or student or fan and offer to pay them minimum wage (or less, many fans might do it just to be able to attend a paid concert for free or get some beer money or something) and take pictures as their agent. Then they'd simply own the copyright directly. If photographer doesn't matter then why not do that? "Equivalent photo" and they'd get it for 10-20 euros (or less).
- baddox 8y ago
  > Why do I choose one thing over another one when there are lots of competitive options and essentially no barrier to entry? Umm, because you wanted one of the many substitutable options. You didn’t care which one, because they were largely indistinguishable from one another, so you chose one randomly. It makes absolutely no sense to claim that, because they chose one photograph, then clearly there werentnother substitutable photographs.

treis 8y ago

>You are by your own definition completely wrong. If the photographer is so substitutable and adds so little value like you argue, then they could have used anyone else including their own. Yet in actual fact they (and more to the point a clothing sponsor engaging in commercial advertising use) did not do that, they chose his. If you go buy an apple at the grocery store you pick it out of a hundred others but that does not mean there is anything special about that particular apple. It's just the one you happened to pick out of the many of other equally good ones. And I'm sure we'd all be equally annoyed if some apple picker e-mailed us saying they normally charge 500 per apple picked but they'll settle for a 100 dollar donation in this case.

xoa 8y ago
Your physical analogy attempt is not merely incorrect but it doesn't support you even taken at face value. >If you go buy an apple at the grocery store you pick it out of a hundred others but that does not mean there is anything special about that particular apple. It is a well known fact of marketing that much of the population absolutely will look carefully even at something like a crate of apples and try to pick "the best" one as well as they can, something which has resulted in unfortunate phenomena like supermarket fruits and vegetables being bred for appearance and resilience against shipping rather then taste such as the infamous Red "Delicious" (of course people specifically choosing against appearance for flavor aren't selecting at random either). Also compared to IP where there is infinite reproducibility the more apt analogy to choosing between various photos would be choosing between varieties of apples. Or one kind of apple, but some are organic and some conventional. They're all apples, and you can acquire as many as you wish to pay for, but they aren't all the same nor will their pricing be the same. >And I'm sure we'd all be equally annoyed if some apple picker e-mailed us saying they normally charge 500 per apple picked but they'll settle for a 100 dollar donation in this case. Sorry but not all of us would think picking an apple at random would entitle us to walk out of the store with it without paying for it. If after we took $500 worth of apples without paying the actual legal owner emailed us and stated that normally they'd call the police but would settle for a donation of 1/5 normal price to a charity yeah, that'd be pretty decent deal. It's genuinely kind of weird how you seem to think that you not caring would mean you can have whatever you want on whatever terms you want.