That's your contribution to an intelligent discussion? A vague, unspecified criticism, accompanied by an implicitly self-aggrandizing bit of arrogant dismissiveness?
He's not even asking for payment. Just asking for a donation to a charity. The company didn't have to try and use his photo without permission. This isn't your typical photographer snob going nuts on every person that posted it on social media.
Well, I somehow doubt that he asked the clothing company to use their work, nor the singer to use her likeness, so reposting the photo just makes them even.
Shutter monkies are nothing but pests in public situations - now they want to be compensated for it too? Nahhhh
You half cocked shame of a mongoloid family, read the fucking article
Guy takes a picture of band, he needs authorisation of band to monetise their likeness.
HOWEVER, band and other third parties need his authority to monetise his picture.
If you think that is unfair then please donate your body to science so we can figure out the literal medical miracle that is you being smart enough to breath.
oh wow, hot chick in cool costume
what an interesting visual that I have enjoyed for free
take pic of cool costume
sell for profit
person who made costume now wants to share your tracing paper copy of their creation without paying you $500
REEEEEEEE
So? Photographers have to let every sponsor use their work? That is bullshit. If they wanted this photo opportunity so bad they would either have their own photographer or pay for the picture.
how are the venue/artist ever going to get publicity for themselves and build a fan following without photos? "allowing" photogs to take pics of them isn't some act of goodwill, lol, it's how they further their careers.
especially concert photographers who are capturing an image that was intentionally created by other experts to look a certain way, probably all of whom are more skillful than the photographer - whoever designed the lighting, the clothes/makeup, the showmanship of the performer, etc.
Imagine this photo without the work that everyone besides the photographer put into creating it.
It would just be a white wall.
The costume, singer, background, makeup... all of it is someone else's work. He's performing the irl equivalent of a copy-paste, then trying to act like this depiction of someone else's work is his ~intellectual property~ that people should pay him to use. Oh sorry, not just any people, but the exact people who made the subject of the image, whom he didn't compensate in the first place.
He didn't ask the band to not use it, retard, he asked a sponsor who makes clothing and is advertising their product to pay the licensing fee or use another photo. This sponsor didn't credit him. It's in the fucking article.
Indeed, there is absolutely no difference between a terrible photographer and a great one, that's why every selfie is so well framed and perfectly in focus.
drama ceiling on this one is pretty high. You've got 'free exposure' meme, which is one of Reddit's hot new causes to fight against. A pop metal band, which could bring out the music snobs, two empowered women already playing the womyn card, if some prog journos take up their cause this could boil into the mens rights incel sphere.
Rise into the light and fade to the night
Sick of being told how to run your life
Their rules
They're fools
Empty words they promise so much
The present status quo remains untouched
If you want the world
Use your mind
Take control
Feel the strength
Rise from within
If you really want it the world is yours
Every empire was raised by the slain
Built through the age and you can destroy it in a day
Turn the page
Unleash your rage
Burn your golden cage and walk away
On your path toward ultimate power
If you want the world
Use your mind
Take control
Feel the strength
Rise from within
If you really want it the world is yours
Striking at the leash
Foaming at the mouth
No more subservience
Justice will be done
There was only so much
You could take
There was only so much
You could tolerate
When the bough breaks, the empire will fall
If you want the world
Use your mind
Take control
Feel the strength
Rise from within
If you really want it the world is yours
If you want the world
Use your mind
Take control
Feel the strength
Rise from within
If you really want it the world is yours
What a hypocrite.
Photography, as a hobby, is built on the foundation of talentless piggybacking.
The entire """"art"""" form is just replication. An even easier version of tracing. And the irl subject is nearly always other people's work, intellectual property or likenesses.
Without this chick & her costume, it's a picture of a blank background. The subject of the photo & the costume creator are the only things that have given him a decent product to sell. He wants to be able to use these people's actual effort to make money for himself with the click of a button, then somehow gets ass-mad that the person who actually put in the time to make the costume wants to share a copy of their work in action.
IP laws are fucked imo. The ownership rights for the subject(s) of the photo should always trump that of the bumbling camera-monkey.
[the band manager] expected all photographers that cover Arch Enemy‘s shows to do so for free
Well duh. It's a concert, not a photoshoot. If you want pictures of them then yeah, you should be paying them. The service provided was a music show. He should honestly pay extra if he wants the additional experience of a photo session. It's not like the band invited him personally so that they could get some headshots.
And even if they wanted pictures of themselves - why the shit would they hire YOU when there's a million other idiots with cameras out there? Ones who won't try and lord over who's allowed to share their glorified copy-pasting skills.
What a hypocrite.
Commercial music is built on the foundation of talentless piggybacking for $$.
The entire """"art"""" form is just replication. An even easier version of miming. And the irl subject is nearly always other people's work, intellectual property or likenesses. Without this photographer & his camera, their band's instagram is a picture of a blank background. The subject of the photo & the costume creator are incapable of taking a decent picture without a professional like him to give them a decent product to sell. She wants to be able to use his actual effort to make money for her clique without even the effort of the click of a button, then somehow gets ass-mad that the person who actually put in the time to make the picture wants to offer a donation to charity in leiu of a fee.
IP laws are fine imo. The ownership rights for the creator(s) of the photo should always trump that of the subject who just did whatever it is they were doing anyway.
[the band manager] expected all photographers that cover Arch Enemy‘s shows to do so for free
Well duh. Of course they don't want to pay artists for their work, they are run by band managers. If you want pictures of them then yeah, you should be paying them. The service provided was promoting their music career. He should honestly charge extra if she wants the additional experience of a professional photographer. It's not like the band asked him personally for permission to infringe his copyright, so that they could sell some merchandise using his headshots.
And even if they wanted pictures of themselves - why the shit wouldn't they hire YOU, especially when there's a million other idiots with cameras out there that think they can capture a gorgeous image like you did but in reality don't stand a chance without years of dedication to their craft? Ones whose only talent is glorified copy-pasting skills.
Commercial shitposting is built on the foundation of talentless piggybacking for $$.
The entire """"art"""" form is just replication. An even easier version of copypasta. And the irl subject is nearly always other people's posts, intellectual property or autism. Without this OP & unbridled aspergers, your post is a blank comment. The subject of the post & the post creator are incapable of making a decent post without a professional shitposter like me to give them decent shit to post. You want to be able to use my actual effort to earn karma in your private subreddit with the click of a button, then somehow you get ass-mad that the person who actually put in the time to make the post wants to share a screencap of their post in action.
Reddit rules are fine imo. The ownership rights for the creator(s) of the post should always trump that of the subject who just did whatever it is they were doing anyway.
[the band manager] expected all photographers that cover Arch Enemy‘s shows to do so for free
Well duh. Of course they don't want to pay mods for their work, they are run by admins. If you want screencaps of them then yeah, you should be paying them. The service provided was promoting their subreddit. They should honestly post extra if they wants the additional experience of shitposting. It's not like the mods asked me personally for permission to infringe my human rights, so that they could sell some reddit gold using my shitposts.
And even if they wanted shitposts for themselves - why the shit wouldn't they hire ME, especially when there's a million other idiots with computers out there that think they can capture a gorgeous soliloquy like I did but in reality don't stand a chance without years of dedication to their craft? Ones whose only talent is glorified copy-pasting skills.
It was the fact that they used the photo without permission to sell merch. If they wanted to, they could have easily afforded to get their own photographer to take pictures for the band.
It was the fact that the photographer was using their merch without permission to sell photos. If he wanted to, he could have easily afforded to find a subject that isn't someone else's work or likeness, like nature or some shit.
Are you retarded? Thats not at all what the article said. He took a picture, merch website used it to sell merch and he asked either to pay him for making money off his photo, donate to a charity, or take it down. He was fine with anyone else using it for free.
What a hypocrite.
Painting is built on the foundation of talentless piggybacking for $$.
The entire """"art"""" form is just replication. An even easier version of sculpting. And the irl subject is nearly always other people's work, intellectual property or likenesses.
Without this chick & her costume, it's a painting of a blank background. The subject of the painting & the costume creator are the only things that have given him a decent product to sell. He wants to be able to use these people's actual effort to make money for himself with the sweep of a brush, then somehow gets ass-mad that the person who actually put in the time to make the costume wants to share a copy of their work in action.
IP laws are fucked imo. The ownership rights for the subject(s) of the painting should always trump that of the bumbling brush-monkey.
[the band manager] expected all photographers that cover Arch Enemy‘s shows to do so for free
Well duh. It's a concert, not an art studio. If you want paintings of them then yeah, you should be paying them. The service provided was a music show. He should honestly pay extra if he wants the additional experience of a painting session. It's not like the band invited him personally so that they could get some headshots.
And even if they wanted paintings of themselves - why the shit would they hire YOU when there's a million other idiots with paintbrushes out there? Ones who won't try and lord over who's allowed to share their glorified scribbling skills.
Funny how he keeps bringing that up. That band is as corporate and by the numbers as they come. The reason that Angela chick sings in the band is because the former singer replaced herself with a hotter, younger version, in an effort to stay relevant. This sort of cold, calculated cuntyness is exactly what I'd expect from her.
95 comments
1 BussyShillBot 2018-12-27
That's your contribution to an intelligent discussion? A vague, unspecified criticism, accompanied by an implicitly self-aggrandizing bit of arrogant dismissiveness?
Outlines:
I am a bot for posting Outline.com links. github / Contact for info or issues
1 SnapshillBot 2018-12-27
Being a racist loser that makes fun of racist losers doesn't make you any less of a racist loser.
Pretending you're too stupid to understand how you spend your free time doesn't make it any less pathetic to spend your free time that way.
Snapshots:
I am a bot. (Info / Contact)
1 MikeStoklasaAlcohol 2018-12-27
It's over for trve-kvlt-cels
1 transoceanicdeath 2018-12-27
"photographers" are such faggots about their low-effort point-and-click intellectual property
1 froibo 2018-12-27
This guy seems like one of the few reasonable ones though.
1 transoceanicdeath 2018-12-27
nah, typical petty as fuck photographer bullshit
1 froibo 2018-12-27
He's not even asking for payment. Just asking for a donation to a charity. The company didn't have to try and use his photo without permission. This isn't your typical photographer snob going nuts on every person that posted it on social media.
1 harbringot 2018-12-27
Well, I somehow doubt that he asked the clothing company to use their work, nor the singer to use her likeness, so reposting the photo just makes them even.
Shutter monkies are nothing but pests in public situations - now they want to be compensated for it too? Nahhhh
1 RobotApocalypse 2018-12-27
If you read the article, they actually explain how the copyright works
Or did you just open it to look at the pictures?
1 harbringot 2018-12-27
Legal ≠ correct
Copyright laws are retarded, and you should feel bad for whiteknighting them.
1 RobotApocalypse 2018-12-27
You half cocked shame of a mongoloid family, read the fucking article
Guy takes a picture of band, he needs authorisation of band to monetise their likeness.
HOWEVER, band and other third parties need his authority to monetise his picture.
If you think that is unfair then please donate your body to science so we can figure out the literal medical miracle that is you being smart enough to breath.
1 harbringot 2018-12-27
You are a literal fucking inbred with the reading comprehension of a vegetable.
he needs authorization blah blah blah none of your shit matters because
tl;dr - Legal ≠ correct
1 RobotApocalypse 2018-12-27
Ur mom gay lol
1 UpvoteIfYouDare 2018-12-27
True, it wouldn't have been legal to smother you in the crib but it sure as hell would've been correct.
1 harbringot 2018-12-27
There you go sweatie. Took you a while to admit I'm right but you got there champ.
1 UpvoteIfYouDare 2018-12-27
ya got me
1 automatic_cluck 2018-12-27
Pedos are correct now?
1 froibo 2018-12-27
More like harbridiot
1 harbringot 2018-12-27
Also, help fight pollution by killing yourself immediately
1 froibo 2018-12-27
There's no copyright in taking pictures of clothing dumbass. Holy shit you people are retarded.
1 ricoue 2018-12-27
He directs people to donate to ACLU so he can get fucked tbqh desu
1 my_other_drama_alt 2018-12-27
honestly this, imagine being a Principled Constitutional Defender unless the people you're defending were mean to you
1 LightUmbra 2018-12-27
ACLU. Defending rights when they get us money.
1 UpvoteIfYouDare 2018-12-27
Don't hate the player, hate the game.
1 froibo 2018-12-27
It's about ethics in photography copyrights
1 Norci 2018-12-27
I disagree. The venue/artist allowed him to take pics, excepting good will back, he proceeds to reeee.
1 froibo 2018-12-27
This isn't the venue/band though. This is a random clothing company trying to piggy back on him.
1 harbringot 2018-12-27
1 froibo 2018-12-27
I'm retarded and don't know how to green text but I'm going to do it anyway even though I don't know what I'm taking about
1 Norci 2018-12-27
It's not a random company, it's the artist's official partner.
1 froibo 2018-12-27
So? Photographers have to let every sponsor use their work? That is bullshit. If they wanted this photo opportunity so bad they would either have their own photographer or pay for the picture.
1 Norci 2018-12-27
Nope, but sponsor of the band that allowed them to take pics in the first place makes sense.
1 froibo 2018-12-27
Nah dude, people can have a ton of sponsors, you don't get to share with everyone.
If they wanted pictures of their sponsorship wearing their cloths at a live show, then they should hire someone or at least get permission.
1 froibo 2018-12-27
Did the sponsor actually run the show? I thought they were just sponsoring the band.
Regardless, that would make it even weirder that they didn't have their own photographer at their own promotion.
1 DukeOfSquirrels 2018-12-27
how are the venue/artist ever going to get publicity for themselves and build a fan following without photos? "allowing" photogs to take pics of them isn't some act of goodwill, lol, it's how they further their careers.
1 ineedmorealts 2018-12-27
Finally someone had the balls to say it
1 Inceltiers 2018-12-27
Everyone is hated here and I’m fairly sure the majority of posters are castrated or trannies
1 Osterion 2018-12-27
Lmao what kind of idiot would cut off their girldick?
1 Alicesnakebae 2018-12-27
A trans one
1 transoceanicdeath 2018-12-27
especially concert photographers who are capturing an image that was intentionally created by other experts to look a certain way, probably all of whom are more skillful than the photographer - whoever designed the lighting, the clothes/makeup, the showmanship of the performer, etc.
1 harbringot 2018-12-27
Imagine this photo without the work that everyone besides the photographer put into creating it.
It would just be a white wall.
The costume, singer, background, makeup... all of it is someone else's work. He's performing the irl equivalent of a copy-paste, then trying to act like this depiction of someone else's work is his ~intellectual property~ that people should pay him to use. Oh sorry, not just any people, but the exact people who made the subject of the image, whom he didn't compensate in the first place.
Copyright laws are fucked. Shutter monkies kys.
1 whatinconservation 2018-12-27
The makeup and costume people were compensated, retard.
1 whatinconservation 2018-12-27
He didn't ask the band to not use it, retard, he asked a sponsor who makes clothing and is advertising their product to pay the licensing fee or use another photo. This sponsor didn't credit him. It's in the fucking article.
1 whatinconservation 2018-12-27
Imagine that post with a shitty photograph instead of a really professional looking one, retard.
1 Mother_Jabubu 2018-12-27
If it's so easy than the company needing photos to advertise should just take their own
1 ineedmorealts 2018-12-27
Most do
1 Alicesnakebae 2018-12-27
Than man this one is Shit
1 nanonan 2018-12-27
Indeed, there is absolutely no difference between a terrible photographer and a great one, that's why every selfie is so well framed and perfectly in focus.
1 cheers_grills 2018-12-27
Then they should make their own.
1 yunghastati 2018-12-27
retard
1 transoceanicdeath 2018-12-27
faggot
1 my_other_drama_alt 2018-12-27
shitfag
1 diggity_md 2018-12-27
😀🙂😪😴
1 Arachnotron69 2018-12-27
Arch Enemy is a death metal band riot grrl is grungy punk shit like L7
​
1 diggity_md 2018-12-27
Who the fuck cares
1 -12x- 2018-12-27
☝️☝️☝️
1 loli_esports 2018-12-27
♪ When we pretend that we're dead♫
1 LightUmbra 2018-12-27
Babymetal or nothing
1 jewdanksdad 2018-12-27
Imagine being such a dumb fuck that you unironically believe the messages that music artists spit out, not realizing it is for their monetary benefit
1 Quietus42 2018-12-27
https://youtu.be/PoWMmZEoT84
1 headasplodes 2018-12-27
Rage against the machine that makes us millionaires
1 BCUOSPSEY 2018-12-27
I really couldn’t care less about an instant photo being re posted on insta
1 Mother_Jabubu 2018-12-27
drama ceiling on this one is pretty high. You've got 'free exposure' meme, which is one of Reddit's hot new causes to fight against. A pop metal band, which could bring out the music snobs, two empowered women already playing the womyn card, if some prog journos take up their cause this could boil into the mens rights incel sphere.
1 Morgoff 2018-12-27
She sounds better on the old albums
1 ArtisanalCollabo 2018-12-27
Metal is the anime of music
1 MayoIsSpicy 2018-12-27
THIS
1 clichebot9000 2018-12-27
Reddit cliché noticed: THIS
Phrase noticed: 1469 times.
1 MayoIsSpicy 2018-12-27
😍😍😍
1 myeff 2018-12-27
Bad bot
1 TrailerParkBride 2018-12-27
Tbh you're the best user here.
1 fraustnaut 2018-12-27
the 1488 comment was removed
>BIG THUNK
1 my_other_drama_alt 2018-12-27
wtf it was removed? DRAMA NAZI ANTIFA MODS
1 fraustnaut 2018-12-27
It was /r/conspiracy
HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM
1 loli_esports 2018-12-27
let me introduce you to my 700+ song anime playlist
1 nanonan 2018-12-27
Eurobeat is the metal of anime.
1 Chukril 2018-12-27
Fucking el oh el
1 POST_BUSSY 2018-12-27
Unironically tbh. I even write metal music but it's pretty anime.
1 Jimbo_B_Beterson 2018-12-27
Russian Hardbass is the only real music
1 BonoboZilla 2018-12-27
This title made me wonder if I was having a stroke
1 harbringot 2018-12-27
What a hypocrite.
Photography, as a hobby, is built on the foundation of talentless piggybacking.
The entire """"art"""" form is just replication. An even easier version of tracing. And the irl subject is nearly always other people's work, intellectual property or likenesses.
Without this chick & her costume, it's a picture of a blank background. The subject of the photo & the costume creator are the only things that have given him a decent product to sell. He wants to be able to use these people's actual effort to make money for himself with the click of a button, then somehow gets ass-mad that the person who actually put in the time to make the costume wants to share a copy of their work in action.
IP laws are fucked imo. The ownership rights for the subject(s) of the photo should always trump that of the bumbling camera-monkey.
Well duh. It's a concert, not a photoshoot. If you want pictures of them then yeah, you should be paying them. The service provided was a music show. He should honestly pay extra if he wants the additional experience of a photo session. It's not like the band invited him personally so that they could get some headshots.
And even if they wanted pictures of themselves - why the shit would they hire YOU when there's a million other idiots with cameras out there? Ones who won't try and lord over who's allowed to share their glorified copy-pasting skills.
1 LongPostBot 2018-12-27
All them words won't bring your pa back.
I am a bot. Contact for questions
1 nanonan 2018-12-27
What a hypocrite. Commercial music is built on the foundation of talentless piggybacking for $$.
The entire """"art"""" form is just replication. An even easier version of miming. And the irl subject is nearly always other people's work, intellectual property or likenesses. Without this photographer & his camera, their band's instagram is a picture of a blank background. The subject of the photo & the costume creator are incapable of taking a decent picture without a professional like him to give them a decent product to sell. She wants to be able to use his actual effort to make money for her clique without even the effort of the click of a button, then somehow gets ass-mad that the person who actually put in the time to make the picture wants to offer a donation to charity in leiu of a fee.
IP laws are fine imo. The ownership rights for the creator(s) of the photo should always trump that of the subject who just did whatever it is they were doing anyway.
Well duh. Of course they don't want to pay artists for their work, they are run by band managers. If you want pictures of them then yeah, you should be paying them. The service provided was promoting their music career. He should honestly charge extra if she wants the additional experience of a professional photographer. It's not like the band asked him personally for permission to infringe his copyright, so that they could sell some merchandise using his headshots.
And even if they wanted pictures of themselves - why the shit wouldn't they hire YOU, especially when there's a million other idiots with cameras out there that think they can capture a gorgeous image like you did but in reality don't stand a chance without years of dedication to their craft? Ones whose only talent is glorified copy-pasting skills.
1 LongPostBot 2018-12-27
Wow, you must be a JP fan
I am a bot. Contact for questions
1 harbringot 2018-12-27
What a hypocrite.
Commercial shitposting is built on the foundation of talentless piggybacking for $$.
The entire """"art"""" form is just replication. An even easier version of copypasta. And the irl subject is nearly always other people's posts, intellectual property or autism. Without this OP & unbridled aspergers, your post is a blank comment. The subject of the post & the post creator are incapable of making a decent post without a professional shitposter like me to give them decent shit to post. You want to be able to use my actual effort to earn karma in your private subreddit with the click of a button, then somehow you get ass-mad that the person who actually put in the time to make the post wants to share a screencap of their post in action.
Reddit rules are fine imo. The ownership rights for the creator(s) of the post should always trump that of the subject who just did whatever it is they were doing anyway.
Well duh. Of course they don't want to pay mods for their work, they are run by admins. If you want screencaps of them then yeah, you should be paying them. The service provided was promoting their subreddit. They should honestly post extra if they wants the additional experience of shitposting. It's not like the mods asked me personally for permission to infringe my human rights, so that they could sell some reddit gold using my shitposts.
And even if they wanted shitposts for themselves - why the shit wouldn't they hire ME, especially when there's a million other idiots with computers out there that think they can capture a gorgeous soliloquy like I did but in reality don't stand a chance without years of dedication to their craft? Ones whose only talent is glorified copy-pasting skills.
1 LongPostBot 2018-12-27
Wow, you must be a JP fan
I am a bot. Contact for questions
1 Wraith_GraveSpell 2018-12-27
lol imagine being this retarded ^
It was the fact that they used the photo without permission to sell merch. If they wanted to, they could have easily afforded to get their own photographer to take pictures for the band.
1 harbringot 2018-12-27
u don't have to imagine, sweats 😘
It was the fact that the photographer was using their merch without permission to sell photos. If he wanted to, he could have easily afforded to find a subject that isn't someone else's work or likeness, like nature or some shit.
1 RobotApocalypse 2018-12-27
Literally where was he selling this photo tho
1 Wraith_GraveSpell 2018-12-27
Are you retarded? Thats not at all what the article said. He took a picture, merch website used it to sell merch and he asked either to pay him for making money off his photo, donate to a charity, or take it down. He was fine with anyone else using it for free.
1 saint2e 2018-12-27
What a hypocrite.
Painting is built on the foundation of talentless piggybacking for $$.
The entire """"art"""" form is just replication. An even easier version of sculpting. And the irl subject is nearly always other people's work, intellectual property or likenesses.
Without this chick & her costume, it's a painting of a blank background. The subject of the painting & the costume creator are the only things that have given him a decent product to sell. He wants to be able to use these people's actual effort to make money for himself with the sweep of a brush, then somehow gets ass-mad that the person who actually put in the time to make the costume wants to share a copy of their work in action.
IP laws are fucked imo. The ownership rights for the subject(s) of the painting should always trump that of the bumbling brush-monkey.
Well duh. It's a concert, not an art studio. If you want paintings of them then yeah, you should be paying them. The service provided was a music show. He should honestly pay extra if he wants the additional experience of a painting session. It's not like the band invited him personally so that they could get some headshots.
And even if they wanted paintings of themselves - why the shit would they hire YOU when there's a million other idiots with paintbrushes out there? Ones who won't try and lord over who's allowed to share their glorified scribbling skills.
1 LongPostBot 2018-12-27
If only you could put that energy into your relationships
I am a bot. Contact for questions
1 80BAIT08 2018-12-27
Yeah well there’s your problem. Expecting one to pay anything.
1 satanismyhomeboy 2018-12-27
Funny how he keeps bringing that up. That band is as corporate and by the numbers as they come. The reason that Angela chick sings in the band is because the former singer replaced herself with a hotter, younger version, in an effort to stay relevant. This sort of cold, calculated cuntyness is exactly what I'd expect from her.
1 CPT_Clarnence 2018-12-27
It's over for shittymusiccels.
1 demirontherocks 2018-12-27
What a shame, I used to listen to arch enemy. Ok. I gave my comment. Now it's your turn NCIS. I also demand mod.