3 ms·
Sports journalists don't have to worry about some bridezilla taking their images, soft-filtering them and adding glowing pink hearts, and publishing every singl
by beat 13y ago
Sports journalists don't have to worry about some bridezilla taking their images, soft-filtering them and adding glowing pink hearts, and publishing every single one, no matter how awful. Their work-for-hire is going to professional editors. This is a VERY important distinction.
- moron4hire 13y agoActually, it's not a distinction at all, because the fear is unwarranted. There is no realistic impact that such a bridezilla can have on a photographer.
- beat 13y agoThere is if artistic integrity matters.
- moron4hire 13y agoart is a completely different subject from works created for hire
- beat 13y agoNo, there's coupling involved. Every paying job I've ever gotten as a photographer, I've gotten due to my artistic qualities. This isn't universal, but it's common. So releasing work that undermines my artistic integrity also undermines my commercial appeal. Besides, art is WHY many of us take up photography! When you just whore out your work for money, it's demoralizing. You think less of yourself as an artist, and as a person.
- moron4hire 13y agoI'm not denying that such an image could possibly besmirch the name of a photographer, I'm just denying that it could have such the reach that it would require such destructive terms as exclusive copyright. It's the same sort of classic conflation and/or misunderstandings of impact and likelihood that plagues security audits. And it's only demoralizing if you subscribe to the notion that "art" is more important than "work" or that "work" is less important than "art". These are largely conceits that are forced on us by our culture, so you'd basically be letting other people's values make you a depressed mess.