Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/03/25
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]> It is obvious that he has stated his work method, as much as we may > abhor his method, we do not have a hope in hell that we can change the > poor (monetary) man's mind and his ways! Thanks Ted, I'm doing quite well monetarily. > However, I do believe we should have sympathy for him > as he has cast aside multi-thousands of dollars over the years while > insisting in his "give my work away for nothing" method. I doubt I've cast aside thousands, but even if I have, I have to live with what I believe is right and fair, and I believe someone pays you to build a fence, the person paying owns the fence, and all rights to it. If you decide to add to the fence, you don't have to go back and pay the first guy for his 'artistic talent' that you replicated in the fence extension. Why isn't the guy who built your fence equally as much an artist as you are? Hell, you obviously think he just digs 'em and drops 'em! He used his creative eye and mind to make a very pretty fence! > us more astute businessmen Hum. I would hardly call that method of business 'astute'. > to deal with many of the mentally challenged people > who already think that what we do is "just a snap!" Some do "just snap", and obviously some don't. My issue with the current interpretation of the law has nothing to do with the quality of the work, so don't throw this red herring into the foray. It is also insulting to call people who believe that if they pay someone to do something, they should own what it is they paid them to do. > And don't understand > they are buying a creative eye and mind, not a P&S master! I understand that is what is generally used in defense of what it is you believe. I've heard it a thousand times, and it still holds no water to the argument. Most every job that is done has some element of 'creative' to it, and who is to say a photographers creative is worth more than someone else's' creative. If every mason who worked on the Empire State Building, or every engineer who worked on the Intel x86 CPU, claimed this 'artistic privilege'...well, you can extrapolate the results. It gets absurd. Perhaps, instead of patronizing insults, you could give cogent argument, aside from "it's the law", why a photographer should garner further monetary compensation from something they were already paid in full to do? Please point out the 'risk'? Try not to get into ethereal argument, like, "creative eye" etc.