4 ms·

> If we publish our home brewed content without watermarks and it is lifted off google and used to compete against us, we have no effective recourse. Sure you

by drcube 13y ago

> If we publish our home brewed content without watermarks and it is lifted off google and used to compete against us, we have no effective recourse. Sure you do. Compete back. Preferably on price and quality of your product rather than the prettiness of your pictures. Anyone can take a picture of a CPAP machine. Yours aren't special, and if that's what's harming your business, you're doing something wrong. Probably a lot of things.

johnnyg 13y ago
We do compete in those areas as well. Anyone can take a picture of a CPAP machine but not every can do so after 5 years experience serving customers using them. What angles do they want to see, what zoom shots make things most clear, how do those zooms relate to the specific features and usage of that machine/mask/product. CPAP is unfamiliar and visuals are the guide. It is important to do it right and hard to do it right. I think they are special as are the people who made them.
bendauphinee 13y ago
As to the "prettiness" of photography, it is special. If I take a snapshot of a product with my camera-phone and post it, versus a well-staged photo with pro equipment and lighting, I can guarantee as a photographer that the higher quality photo will sell more product, all else being equal. Decent photography has a real-world cost attached to it. Why should the fact that anyone else can do it be a reason I give it away for free, with no attribution?
- drcube 13y ago
  Lots of things have a real world cost to them, that doesn't mean everything that costs anyone anything to make or do should be restricted and withheld from the public. Presumably there was a cost to figuring out the angles and zooms that showed these machines in the most informative way. Do you think that particular, informed camera setup should be patented? If not, why should the particular photographs be copyrighted or otherwise excluded from use? Presumably when setting up your business (or the OP's), they looked to other more successful businesses as an example to follow. Should those other businesses be compensated for contributing to the OP's success? What makes one idea, or expression of an idea, exclusive, private property, while other, often more valuable ideas, are free for the taking? Sounds to me like the OP is trying to suppress competition through rent seeking, rather than competing on an even playing field by providing more value to the customer.
  - commentzorro 13y ago
    It's not about patents, angles, lighting, or whatever. Anyone is free to take as close as they can to the exact same shot. It's just that that person also has to pay the costs for that image too and not just take them from the OP.

by drcube 13y ago

johnnyg 13y ago

We do compete in those areas as well. Anyone can take a picture of a CPAP machine but not every can do so after 5 years experience serving customers using them. What angles do they want to see, what zoom shots make things most clear, how do those zooms relate to the specific features and usage of that machine/mask/product. CPAP is unfamiliar and visuals are the guide. It is important to do it right and hard to do it right. I think they are special as are the people who made them.

bendauphinee 13y ago

As to the "prettiness" of photography, it is special. If I take a snapshot of a product with my camera-phone and post it, versus a well-staged photo with pro equipment and lighting, I can guarantee as a photographer that the higher quality photo will sell more product, all else being equal. Decent photography has a real-world cost attached to it. Why should the fact that anyone else can do it be a reason I give it away for free, with no attribution?

drcube 13y ago
Lots of things have a real world cost to them, that doesn't mean everything that costs anyone anything to make or do should be restricted and withheld from the public. Presumably there was a cost to figuring out the angles and zooms that showed these machines in the most informative way. Do you think that particular, informed camera setup should be patented? If not, why should the particular photographs be copyrighted or otherwise excluded from use? Presumably when setting up your business (or the OP's), they looked to other more successful businesses as an example to follow. Should those other businesses be compensated for contributing to the OP's success? What makes one idea, or expression of an idea, exclusive, private property, while other, often more valuable ideas, are free for the taking? Sounds to me like the OP is trying to suppress competition through rent seeking, rather than competing on an even playing field by providing more value to the customer.
- commentzorro 13y ago
  It's not about patents, angles, lighting, or whatever. Anyone is free to take as close as they can to the exact same shot. It's just that that person also has to pay the costs for that image too and not just take them from the OP.