3 ms·
While I agree in part with your argument, using words like nonsense' and 'moron' somewhat let it down. He didn't argue that that was the cost of viewing his ph
by sambeau 15y ago
While I agree in part with your argument, using words like nonsense' and 'moron' somewhat let it down.
He didn't argue that that was the cost of viewing his photograph, he argued that his is what he would be looking for if you used it for commercial gain without permission.
Some photographs do sell for millions of dollars; many news photographs sell for thousands despite the photographer having no skill and having just been in the right place at the right time.
Do you actually now how much a magazine pays to use a single photograph?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/gallery/2011/nov/12/worlds-most-expensive-photographs-in-pictures http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/gallery/2011/nov/12/w...
- corin_ 15y agoIt's the logic of it that's my issue, not the cost. Cost to purchase doesn't have to be tied to cost to produce, plenty of people buy Gucci without thinking that Gucci is spending 100% of what you pay on the materials. Yes, a photograph can sell for seven figures, but not generally speaking because that's how much the equipment used to take it costs, but because of how it is valued as art.