3 ms·

>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 ch

by 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.
- xoa 8y ago
  >Umm, because you wanted one of the many substitutable options. Even for total commodities which are perfectly substitutable the fact remains that offering terms (including of course price) are an integral part of the product. If I'm selecting between two containers of flour that I knew were truly perfectly the same and chose the one that was cheaper, that's not random either. The terms under which someone makes a photo available is part of choosing one. They could have chosen one that was put into public domain or something like Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International, or that someone was willing to just give for free, but didn't. And of course in real life even our most basic commodities often merely have smaller differences, but still differences. Some brands may still be more reliable, or offer specific differentiation, or just make people feel subjectively better. This is hardly some new discovery of human psychology. Which gets into this: >You didn’t care which one, because they were largely indistinguishable from one another, so you chose one randomly. Not that you actually support an assertion that the company Thunderball Clothing did in fact just use a random number generator and somehow got from that to his photo, but even if you did that would weaken your argument, not support it. Because if the products in question are indistinguishable, that's all the more reason to go with whatever has the most favorable terms. In a less competitive market there becomes more of an argument that someone's terms could have elements that were unconscionable, but in a commodified one "take it or leave it" is at its most justified. Again, I don't think you or anyone else actually chooses at random very often. "Largely indistinguishable" is not "indistinguishable". Making a decision tree super simple ("lowest price wins" or "the first one that comes up in search" say) isn't random either. But even if you do choose randomly, that doesn't give the moral (let alone legal) right to just take it on your terms.

by xoa 8y ago

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.

xoa 8y ago
>Umm, because you wanted one of the many substitutable options. Even for total commodities which are perfectly substitutable the fact remains that offering terms (including of course price) are an integral part of the product. If I'm selecting between two containers of flour that I knew were truly perfectly the same and chose the one that was cheaper, that's not random either. The terms under which someone makes a photo available is part of choosing one. They could have chosen one that was put into public domain or something like Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International, or that someone was willing to just give for free, but didn't. And of course in real life even our most basic commodities often merely have smaller differences, but still differences. Some brands may still be more reliable, or offer specific differentiation, or just make people feel subjectively better. This is hardly some new discovery of human psychology. Which gets into this: >You didn’t care which one, because they were largely indistinguishable from one another, so you chose one randomly. Not that you actually support an assertion that the company Thunderball Clothing did in fact just use a random number generator and somehow got from that to his photo, but even if you did that would weaken your argument, not support it. Because if the products in question are indistinguishable, that's all the more reason to go with whatever has the most favorable terms. In a less competitive market there becomes more of an argument that someone's terms could have elements that were unconscionable, but in a commodified one "take it or leave it" is at its most justified. Again, I don't think you or anyone else actually chooses at random very often. "Largely indistinguishable" is not "indistinguishable". Making a decision tree super simple ("lowest price wins" or "the first one that comes up in search" say) isn't random either. But even if you do choose randomly, that doesn't give the moral (let alone legal) right to just take it on your terms.