3 ms·
So I implore you to think twice about your actions the next time you are approached with a similar deal. Don’t help to erode the market for high-quality artwork
by wtvanhest 15y ago
So I implore you to think twice about your actions the next time you are approached with a similar deal. Don’t help to erode the market for high-quality artwork just because you’re not relying on that market to feed yourself.
Just because someone chooses to make a fun activity in to a job does not mean that person deserves to get paid for it. If they are not delivering economic value, they don't get paid. I cannot go in to my office and decide that I would rather sit around talking to people than putting in real work which adds value and expect to make my salary.
There are types of photography that do pay OK, mainly wedding and event photography. The reason they pay more is because the photographer needs to be contracted to capture a specific image at a specific time. If you decide to be a landscape artist you are competing with every image made ever. This is not a good competitive position to be in and why people will give away their work for free.
- eli_gottlieb 15y agoThis is true only if you equate "value" with "property", rivalrous and excludable private goods.
- wtvanhest 15y agoFor those not aware, Eli_gottlieb is referring to this 2X2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_good http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_good Photos are Rivalrous and Excludable as long as the photographer protects them by not posting full sized images or using watermarks. (see iStockphoto). I do associate value with that property, but that property is limited in value, not due to it not being rivalrous and excludable, but rather because of substitutes.