3 ms·

A replacement value is only relevant if it has to be replaced - if I use his photo without permission in a magazine or a website, he still has the photo, no rep

by corin_ 15y ago

A replacement value is only relevant if it has to be replaced - if I use his photo without permission in a magazine or a website, he still has the photo, no replacement needed. While I am not denying him of the photo, I would of course be denying him of the revenue he would have earned had I licenced it from him, and would be entitled to demand that, and some more. If he had said that he would sue for $6k in punative costs, fair enough. Or even if he had said that he values his art at that price, and therefore that is what he charges for a single license. Take Hollywood as an example, when they go after someone for illegally downloading a film they don't ask for the cost of a cinema ticket, or a cost of a DVD, they want a lot more than that. They don't however say "this film cost us £40m to create, that is it's replacement value, you now owe us £40m for downloading it".

stan_rogers 15y ago
"He still has the photo" is a nonsense argument -- he doesn't "still have the photo" from a licensing perspective in that he can no longer license exclusive or first usage rights (which also exist in regional and media contexts). The photograph has been irreparably damaged vis-a-vis its commercial value after unauthorised use/publication. That is something people seem to be unwilling to understand or consider for some strange reason -- the image file itself may still exist in a usable state, but its value is not in its bits, it's in its licensability. Unlicensed use demotes the picture's value to the level of royalty-free microstock in the eyes of potential buyers.
dextorious 15y ago
"""A replacement value is only relevant if it has to be replaced - if I use his photo without permission in a magazine or a website, he still has the photo, no replacement needed.""" No, he doesn't still "have the photo" as in "no damage done". He has a digital file, but he just lost BOTH the exclusivity of the photo AND his say in how his work should be distributed.

by corin_ 15y ago

stan_rogers 15y ago

"He still has the photo" is a nonsense argument -- he doesn't "still have the photo" from a licensing perspective in that he can no longer license exclusive or first usage rights (which also exist in regional and media contexts). The photograph has been irreparably damaged vis-a-vis its commercial value after unauthorised use/publication. That is something people seem to be unwilling to understand or consider for some strange reason -- the image file itself may still exist in a usable state, but its value is not in its bits, it's in its licensability. Unlicensed use demotes the picture's value to the level of royalty-free microstock in the eyes of potential buyers.

dextorious 15y ago

"""A replacement value is only relevant if it has to be replaced - if I use his photo without permission in a magazine or a website, he still has the photo, no replacement needed.""" No, he doesn't still "have the photo" as in "no damage done". He has a digital file, but he just lost BOTH the exclusivity of the photo AND his say in how his work should be distributed.