2 ms·
Yeah I don't get why he went the charity route at all. It's completely out of left field, and makes the situation in which there was clearly already a misunders
by dcosson 8y ago
Yeah I don't get why he went the charity route at all. It's completely out of left field, and makes the situation in which there was clearly already a misunderstanding even more confusing. Is this a common means of payment for licensing creative works? (when not explicitly part of a charity auction or something)
I assume the author thinks that this makes him look unselfish, i.e. he is merely concerned about the principle of the matter and his artistic integrity rather than the money itself. But it actually comes across as overly self-righteous, and feels like he's just being difficult for no real reason since he doesn't even stand to gain anything from it.
- muzani 8y agoHe likely wanted to donate the photo to the sponsors. But he wanted to do it in a manner as to not lower the value of the photo, and also highlight that it was his IP. If he did not mention his 500 Euro price tag, the company would assume that next time it's only worth 100. Unfortunately, it was worded to make it sound like, "I took a photo of you. Your can either pay me 500 Euros or pay someone else 100 Euros."