>This is weird. Why am I having to explain such fundamental basic decision processes to somebody on HN? I don't know, but you clearly explained my (and others)

>This is weird. Why am I having to explain such fundamental basic decision processes to somebody on HN? I don't know, but you clearly explained my (and others) point and then go on some bizarre tangent about the foundation of our modern economy. To wit: >Yes, if you took their first pick (or if someone else had come first and chosen it) they'd be left with a reduced pool, which would then be evaluated independently, and they'd choose the "second best" pick, aka, the new first pick Exactly. And with photographers, like with apples, you have to go through a lot of apples before it matters. Which is why when you say things like this: >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. You're wrong. There's nothing special about this guy or the photograph he took. >Either all photographs are equivalent in which case there is no reason not to choose one that is free, or there was something better about that one in particular which is why it specifically was highlighted amongst all the others. They chose it before they knew it wasn't free. Five posts into the thread and that never occurred to you?