Peter Lik sells photo for $6.5 million

pixelbasher wrote in post #17326019
It's a nice image, but to be brutally honest, when I first saw a thumbnail of this story on petapixel, I thought it was an x-ray of something caught in some unfortunates cavity!!

When I saw it on the news it was a very bad image of it and I thought the same thing.

Jonathan Jones in the Guardian UK reamed him a new... well, you know.

http://www.theguardian​.com …-ever-hackneyed-tasteless

it's his finest shot. Easily more visually pleasing than most fine art.

Charlie wrote in post #17326265
it's his finest shot. Easily more visually pleasing than most fine art.

I'd hardly call it his best shot - even some of his other Antelope Canyon shots are better. A good shot, but not his best.

joedlh wrote in post #17326179
Jonathan Jones in the Guardian UK reamed him a new... well, you know.

This guy is a douchebag that likes to hear himself talk. An art critic that writes a column in the Photography section declaring that photography is not art. smh

IMO, this is not his best. However, if someone wants to pay that price, let him.

joedlh wrote in post #17326179
Jonathan Jones in the Guardian UK reamed him a new... well, you know.

http://www.theguardian​.com …-ever-hackneyed-tasteless

Beauty is still in the eye of the beholder, even better if they have money..

Amazing ... even more amazed at all of the haters. Some need a life because each & every one of them would take more than what any crappy they shot would be worth..

Mark II wrote in post #17363399
Amazing ... even more amazed at all of the haters. Some need a life because each & every one of them would take more than what any crappy they shot would be worth..

No kidding. Though if I sold a photo for that much I'd have every right to laugh at someone hating me and post a selfie from B&H picking up every L-lens they offer

I agree with others that it's a very nice image, just not worth 6.5 million IMO.

I'd expect that kind of money for a rare photo that can't be recreated (i.e. something from the Titanic, the photo of Billy the Kid, etc)

Peter Lik : Master of self promotion, good photographer. So who was the person who paid $6.5 million? Unless the canvas that the print is mounted on has $6.5 million in gold it would have been a very poor investment. The more likely scenario is that Lik or some of his investor friends "conjured" up this so called sale to drum up publicity and sell more of his books and "less pricey" works for a premium and get his name out print (once again). It is a genius way to create demand for someone with modest talent.

pixelbasher wrote in post #17326019
Pick any half decent and relatively famous photographer, let the world know you just sold an image of a bent light pole for say 3.9 million (lets not get too greedy first up and go for record price!) but you haven't actually sold it at all....... A few years later when it becomes the norm for you to "sell" multi million $ images to anonymous people, it goes to auction, time for your pay day.....your real pay day.

Of course, that can go horribly wrong when the taxman sees that publicity and notices that you only paid tax on a tiny fraction of that amount for the whole year, so pops round to audit your books. They will probably take some convincing that it is all a publicity stunt, when there is no sign of such a sale in your accounts. If you can't convince them that the sale was fake you could get a very hefty tax bill, and if you CAN convince them that it was all a con, then they have a pretty good idea of your level of honesty and integrity and will view your accounting with that in mind. The last thing you want is a tax inspector who thinks you are happy to screw around with figures to your advantage.

sandpiper wrote in post #17395169
Of course, that can go horribly wrong when the taxman sees that publicity and notices that you only paid tax on a tiny fraction of that amount for the whole year, so pops round to audit your books. They will probably take some convincing that it is all a publicity stunt, when there is no sign of such a sale in your accounts. If you can't convince them that the sale was fake you could get a very hefty tax bill, and if you CAN convince them that it was all a con, then they have a pretty good idea of your level of honesty and integrity and will view your accounting with that in mind. The last thing you want is a tax inspector who thinks you are happy to screw around with figures to your advantage.

Of course he sold it and of course he's going to pay taxes on it. He sold it to himself. So the he's basically only paying the tax amount for the free publicity. The publicity is priceless. Just look at this thread. People are still talking about it. He's a genius, just not that great of a photographer.

sandpiper wrote in post #17395169
Of course, that can go horribly wrong when the taxman sees that publicity and notices that you only paid tax on a tiny fraction of that amount for the whole year, so pops round to audit your books. They will probably take some convincing that it is all a publicity stunt, when there is no sign of such a sale in your accounts. If you can't convince them that the sale was fake you could get a very hefty tax bill, and if you CAN convince them that it was all a con, then they have a pretty good idea of your level of honesty and integrity and will view your accounting with that in mind. The last thing you want is a tax inspector who thinks you are happy to screw around with figures to your advantage.

Not really... People can state whatever they like (outside from inciting hatred, insults, advocating crime and similar.)
If there is no evidence of any transaction, they cannot tax you for it. At least assuming the legal system is worth anything...
-> They may ask to see your accounts, fine. They may even investigate if they have a good reason to do so, BUT if there is nothing in your accounts and you state it was a publicity stunt, the authorities would have to prove that a sale took place.

Otherwise the "innocent until proven guilty" would not mean a thing - and in that case it isn't a country I'd want to live in.

rick_reno wrote in post #17325352
wow.

http://www.thephoblogr​apher.com …6-5-million/#.VIjeD1WJNpA

Makes you wonder which millionaire or company had to reduce their tax load by writing some money off as expenses...
A century old painting is at least unique - and even if a painter painted 50, they age differently, decay, some are lost... but a photograph from "today" which can be reproduced as often as you like?
(I'd exclude historic photographs because negatives are lost and prints decay/age.)