I can see the guy's point, but at the same time, I found the tone of the write-up to be unbearably smug.
Evidently the law is on his side, but reading the way this page is written makes me wish that it weren't.
Evidently the law is on his side, but reading the way this page is written makes me wish that it weren't.
My take has been people who work with code build up a view of copyright that is completely biased by the way open source model works. A model where sharing everything benefits your peers, because most people using open source will generally make their living off of products or services that are built using those tools.
The end result of photography is not a tool, it is an original creative work that is how professional photogrpahers make their living. Besides the very limited scope of fair use there is no general benefit for the community to be able to freely use the creative works of others who have licensed that work as All Rights Reserved other than to be a cheapskate.
His answers may be a little snarky and sarcastic, but the questions he is answering properly represent the attitude and tone of the people who use creative work without permission.
"It’s just a photo! Surely a photo can’t be worth that much."
I can't believe people would actually think that after having obviously done something wrong.
The problem is while things like oil and food and human labor are physically scare, information is not, and not because that information was easy to initially create, but just as a matter of fact, it is terribly easy to reproduce.
It might have more to do with psychology than anything.
It's hard to value something that isn't scarce.
The matter of fact is that artificial[0] constraints on the product of such creations are the best method we have developed to ensure that the creators continue to be paid for their work, and I'm not sure of another, feasible way. Things like generous benefactors, be them individuals, institutions, or governments, are too few and not with enough capital to support enough creators without selling their products.
If anyone has a better idea, they could revolution history forever. Apart from Copyrights, Trademarks, and Patents, however, I know of no other way that will work.
[0]when I say artificial, I am speak matter-of-factly, not to offend anyone. The interesting thing is such talent and experience needed to produce such works is scarce, it's just the product isn't.
The act is getting easier and easier to reproduce, up to a certain basic level - which seems to be good enough for commercial purposes.
The arts have seen an unbelievable explosion of activity. There are more people writing, making art and music, taking photos, creating code, and everything else besides, than ever before - not just by a little, but by an astronomical amount.
The problem is that most of the work is eh-okay. Average-and-worse mediocrity is very easy to fine. Basic entertaining competence is less common, but still not rare.
And that seems to be all most consumers want - hence the success of 50 Shades of Grey, Twilight, and the rest, and their equivalents in other media.
In the past, culture was good at distilling out the extreme talent, so historically the arts have amassed a fine collection of game-changing geniuses, while allowing the eh-okay creators to drop into oblivion.
It's Salieri vs Mozart - commercially Mozart was the loser while alive, but not so much a few centuries later.
Today it's harder to find a Mozart because the modern equivalent is probably working for an ad agency, and has limited time to produce truly game-changing genius-level work.
And it might not sell anyway. And it would probably get lost in the noise even if it did sell.
The answer is probably the much-discussed living wage. Let everyone who wants to make art get on with making art full time, without having to worry about starving or being homeless.
Most of it will suck, some of it will be okay, a little of it will be jaw-droppingly awesome.
tl:dr; It's the socially-enforced dogma that art exists primarily for profit that causes the problems. Get rid of that, and a lot of the issues go away.
We may be smug about it and criticise his business model, saying "he should give his image for free and charge for making custom picture or work for the BBC or another imaginary plan based on whatever works in our field".
But that should not be difficult for us to understand the value and the work there is behind a single picture. That's too similar to making a small fortune writing code which is what most of us are doing here.
Yes, it's often tedious and frustrating, and involves hours of work that I'd rather spend writing or photographing new material. On the other hand, I don't live in fear of demand letters.
That's better than chance, but not really enough to pass judgment on someone. This may be why you have been downvoted. It may also be that others read his tone (with 56% accuracy) differently.
The tone of this message is meant to be neutral and informative.
Refer to DH2 in "How to Disagree" by Paul Graham (2008) http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html (not that this is a disagreement... but the article is still relevant)
The reason that comment got down voted and the reason I got down voted had nothing to do with PG'S 2008 post. It had everything to do with an abrasive community...
Yet, as my old man used to say, "Never wrestle with pigs. You both get dirty and only the pigs like it." So it is on HN...
QED Turtles all the way down.