Publication using my pictures

[iflyforfun]

Many years ago I was instructing out of Boeing Field. At the Time Boeing was making hydrofoil boats, and two of them were cruising along at high speed together.

They still fly those beautify beasts here in Hong Kong. My partner laughs every time I run to the side of the ferry to watch a Boeing Jetfoil fly by. Riding (flying?) one is pretty amazing. They lean into turns like a plane. They cut through waves with not much more than a thump through the hull. Absolutely LOVE the Jetfoil.

 

[iflyforfun]

Many years ago I was instructing out of Boeing Field. At the Time Boeing was making hydrofoil boats, and two of them were cruising along at high speed together.

They still fly those beautify beasts here in Hong Kong. My partner laughs every time I run to the side of the ferry to watch a Boeing Jetfoil fly by. Riding (flying?) one is pretty amazing. They lean into turns like a plane. They cut through waves with not much more than a thump through the hull. Absolutely LOVE the Jetfoil.

 

[F01LA]

I just wanted to update....

I did receive an email from the editor of the publication, not from the author of the article.

Good, sounds like everybody came to a reasonable solution. The part where he talks about a web site that didn't carry a clear copyright notice, which is a common source of photographs for us bothers me though. No copyright notice is required.

I'm sorry, but there's a world of difference between a person pointing their iPhone at something and a professional photographer.

OK, if they both produce a photo that has value in a certain situation, what's the difference? Why the elitist attitude? It seems you are scoffing at the idea that someone's photo could have value just because they don't have $XX,XXX in camera equipment or a long publication history.

I've never expected to see a bunch of greedy, self-justifying attitudes as I've seen in this thread.

Where are you seeing greed? Is it greedy when photographers or artists want to be compensated for their work instead of having it ripped off? Maybe some photos aren't worth much-- let the market determine that. But they're worth something, or they wouldn't be in a magazine.

 

[Matthew]

https://expertphotography.com/most-expensive-photographs/

 

[flyingron]

G
OK, if they both produce a photo that has value in a certain situation, what's the difference? Why the elitist attitude? It seems you are scoffing at the idea that someone's photo could have value just because they don't have $XX,XXX in camera equipment or a long publication history.

Eh? I specifically stated it's not the cost of the equipment. The issue is that those who rise to being able to make a living at photography (or very gifted amateurs) do have creative talent that is different than a random person pointing either an iPhone or a Nikon D5.

Where are you seeing greed? Is it greedy when photographers or artists want to be compensated for their work instead of having it ripped off? Maybe some photos aren't worth much-- let the market determine that. But they're worth something, or they wouldn't be in a magazine.

You seem to have missed my point. I was arguing that the people who think that it's OK to STEAL the photos because "they aren't worth much because anybody can take them with inexpensive equipment were the greedy ones. Letting the market decide a price is what I advocated. Not letting the "market" run off with steal things because they think it's not worth paying for them is GREED.