> He said he considers $6,612 the "replacement value", should someone publish it in a magazine without licensing first. Which is still so obviously moronic, th

> He said he considers $6,612 the "replacement value", should someone publish it in a magazine without licensing first. Which is still so obviously moronic, that I don't even know why I bother pointing this out. Replacement value of a photo has to include the price of the camera it was taken with? This would be true if he used a brand new camera for each photo.