4 ms·
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 eq
by 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 agoLots 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 agoIt'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.