Peter Lik sells photo for $6.5 million

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

I stopped reading after "photography is not art, it's technology".

If its sold as a limited edition of 1, then legally no, it can't be reproduced, unless the wording states the specific size, medium etc...

digirebelva wrote in post #17403293
If its sold as a limited edition of 1, then legally no, it can't be reproduced, unless the wording states the specific size, medium etc...

In case you are commenting to me:

-> It is already reproduced (in one way or another) by adding an image of it into an article about said image.
-> Copyright is time limited (as far as I am aware) so at some point in the future after he died, if someone gets the image file they can do what they want with it. (Might be 100 years or so from now, but still.)

Plus, you say "legally" - in what country? Does it apply if you are rich enough?
If you follow everyday events, then you can only conclude that being rich enough/having a large enough company/having a legal department makes you (to some extent) immune from legal repercussions. Add to that, that legal systems are "nationally skewed" - protecting their own industries to some extent... And that is before you consider immunity of politicians in some parts of the world...

If you have a painting then there is only one of the one you own.
You can produce a replica - a very good one even - BUT it will always stay a replica, it will never be identical. (Quite simply because for example oil paint produces a landscape whereas a printer does not.)

Sirrith wrote in post #17403248
I stopped reading after "photography is not art, it's technology".

Well, to some extent it is - especially today.
The dynamic range of today's sensors allows you to take photographs that would be a lot harder if not impossible to take in the same way 10 years ago.
Look at the improvement in lenses with regards to chromatic aberrations, distortion - which all also play a part. And lastly, the computer used to post-process.

Art is the idea and the setup (where required).
Technology is the tools used.

DetlevCM wrote in post #17403726
In case you are commenting to me:

-> It is already reproduced (in one way or another) by adding an image of it into an article about said image.
-> Copyright is time limited (as far as I am aware) so at some point in the future after he died, if someone gets the image file they can do what they want with it. (Might be 100 years or so from now, but still.)

Plus, you say "legally" - in what country? Does it apply if you are rich enough?
If you follow everyday events, then you can only conclude that being rich enough/having a large enough company/having a legal department makes you (to some extent) immune from legal repercussions. Add to that, that legal systems are "nationally skewed" - protecting their own industries to some extent... And that is before you consider immunity of politicians in some parts of the world...

If you have a painting then there is only one of the one you own.
You can produce a replica - a very good one even - BUT it will always stay a replica, it will never be identical. (Quite simply because for example oil paint produces a landscape whereas a printer does not.)

That may be true, but in a legal sense, when you sell a "Limited Edition", you are in effect entering into a contract with the buyer. And simply adding an image of it in a article etc.. does not in anyway have an affect on the actual print. As you know, a certain percentage value of any art is attributed to the artist original signature. The more famous the artist, the more value the signature commands. And copyright extends to 70 years beyond the artists death, even in a lot of European countries. And if the image file is deleted permanently (and was never uploaded to any online sites..), then no, it can no longer be printed, at least not as an original..so someone would not be able to do with it what they want...

digirebelva wrote in post #17403924
That may be true, but in a legal sense, when you sell a "Limited Edition", you are in effect entering into a contract with the buyer. And simply adding an image of it in a article etc.. does not in anyway have an affect on the actual print. As you know, a certain percentage value of any art is attributed to the artist original signature. The more famous the artist, the more value the signature commands. And copyright extends to 70 years beyond the artists death, even in a lot of European countries. And if the image file is deleted permanently (and was never uploaded to any online sites..), then no, it can no longer be printed, at least not as an original..so someone would not be able to do with it what they want...

I suppose there are scenarios where you can restrict the availability of an image file - but then, it is equally likely that those who inherit his stuff will keep all files. Plus, it is unlikely that the original creator will delete the file because he may be required to reproduce it. (Say the buyer's house burns down and he wants to replace the image.)
From an academic point of view - respecting all laws - a limited edition may be limited.
In reality it means absolutely nothing - at least until something has objectively become rare and old.
Even a great painting produced today is not inherently valuable beyond the materials used and labour costs.
It can only become potentially valuable over time - with age.

As to art being valuable because of the artist: In reality it is, but for me it does absolutely nothing - either I like it or not.
(For art) I don't care whose name is on it.

DetlevCM wrote in post #17403963
(Say the buyer's house burns down and he wants to replace the image.)

And if its an original painting..can the buyer get that replaced by the original artist...if the artist is dead...no different than destroying the original file..That's what insurance is for...

And as far as

DetlevCM wrote in post #17403963
As to art being valuable because of the artist: In reality it is, but for me it does absolutely nothing - either I like it or not. (For art) I don't care whose name is on it.

You fit right in with ALL buyers of art...you buy it for 1 of 2 reasons....it appeals to you, or, you are buying it as an investment..or, in some cases, both

digirebelva wrote in post #17404092
And if its an original painting..can the buyer get that replaced by the original artist...if the artist is dead...no different than destroying the original file..That's what insurance is for...

And as far as

You fit right in with ALL buyers of art...you buy it for 1 of 2 reasons....it appeals to you, or, you are buying it as an investment..or, in some cases, both

Well, except that I won't ever pay outrageous sums for something - heck, the only art I have been buying so far has been music and if a disk is too expensive I will happily buy an MP3 only (DRM free of course).
Heck, I know I wouldn't buy a photo print - if I want something on the wall I'd look amongst my own photos...

As to investments: Just a friendly word for a gambling.
If you buy something, you buy it to use it (or in the case of art to use it for decoration).
Buying something to lock it away? Daft... (unless you bought it as a replacement for an item that you use which is subject to wear and tear)

Edit: Another item of "art" that I buy every now and then is books. Again - too expensive, I won't buy it without good reason. In fact, I prefer to stick to classical literature because you at least have something to read then. Modern books? Gone in a couple of hours... written to simple...

Well those who buy art at that price are in another tier of society...they have money to burn...they don't ask how much something costs...
And most folks who buy art for investment, aren't putting it in storage..its out on display...as much for others to envy as anything else...

"If you have to ask how much it costs, you can't afford it."

J. P. Morgan

digirebelva wrote in post #17404403
Well those who buy art at that price are in another tier of society...they have money to burn...they don't ask how much something costs...
And most folks who buy art for investment, aren't putting it in storage..its out on display...as much for others to envy as anything else...

"If you have to ask how much it costs, you can't afford it."

J. P. Morgan

Well, I seriously hope I will never have to work with a person who is so stupid to pay such insane amount of money for an image that any semi-competent SLR user can take. (And there is nothing special about that image - just the right place at the right time.)
If the "buyer" had any sense he or she should have gone and funded some education or research - or something else in their community. Heck, start a company employ people - paying a living wage.
There are so many useful things one could do with that amount of money...

But then again, money as well as power lead to contagious moral rot...

DetlevCM wrote in post #17404425
If the "buyer" had any sense he or she should have gone and funded some education or research - or something else in their community. Heck, start a company employ people - paying a living wage.
There are so many useful things one could do with that amount of money.....

Well, without knowing who bought it, you are assuming that they haven't done that...

DetlevCM wrote in post #17404425
Heck, start a company employ people - paying a living wage.

Maybe that's where they got their money...folks spending money, is how every economy moves along...some just have more money to spend than others on what they want to enjoy...

digirebelva wrote in post #17404433
Well, without knowing who bought it, you are assuming that they haven't done that...

Maybe that's where they got their money...folks spending money, is how every economy moves along...some just have more money to spend than others on what they want to enjoy...

If they got their money through honest means (which is true for only a minority of people with such sums at their disposals - tax evaders are thieves!), they would still do more good for society by investing it back more directly.
If they like art, fund an art school - a local gallery. Fund those who need extra income, not those who are (relative to what they output in terms of quality) overpaid already.

The "big names" get paid obscene amounts for trivial images - yet for every one they shoot, hundreds of amateurs produce equal or better work and do not get paid at all. At the same time, the "big names" started small too - and with better photos.

This is actually a nice case in point from someone who got the message (and stands at the other end):
https://www.ted.com …the_pitchforks_​are_coming

And note, throwing obscene amounts of money after a single individual does absolutely nothing for society.

This article should also act as a bit of an eye opener:
http://www.theguardian​.com …alth-credit-suisse-report

This is delving into "I don't think folks need that much money" discussion....
I for one do not fault those who have made their money from starting a business...
They are free to spend their money as they please...they do not and should not have to answer to you or me in that regards..Just like we don't need their approval to spend our money the way we want.
And Art is in the eye of the beholder....always has been...always will...
IF Peter actually did get that much for an image, more power to him...you may not like it, but like I said before...he worked his but off (self promotion) to make a name for himself...and you want to complain because someone MAY have paid him that much money for a print YOU don't think is worth it...

What is stopping you from making a name for yourself and doing the same thing...?

digirebelva wrote in post #17404631
This is delving into "I don't think folks need that much money" discussion....
I for one do not fault those who have made their money from starting a business...
They are free to spend their money as they please...they do not and should not have to answer to you or me in that regards..Just like we don't need their approval to spend our money the way we want.
And Art is in the eye of the beholder....always has been...always will...
IF Peter actually did get that much for an image, more power to him...you may not like it, but like I said before...he worked his but off (self promotion) to make a name for himself...and you want to complain because someone MAY have paid him that much money for a print YOU don't think is worth it...

What is stopping you from making a name for yourself and doing the same thing...?

And here is the simple reality - they biggest lie that everybody is told in the "western world" (and maybe in the rest too, but I can only speak for Europe):
"If you work hard you can earn a lot of money" - nope. In the past (century only) if you worked hard you could possibly live, but it still matters who you know... which school you went to.
It isn't about quality....
I have seen research papers which are worthless - still published...
If you look at many politicians and especially their public appearance/statements you wonder whether they ever obtained any education...
(Very interesting to see that students from state schools do better than privately educated ones: http://www.theguardian​.com …-school-pupils-university , http://www.theguardian​.com …niversity-private-schools )

It isn't about quality of work (or art) - it is about making the most noise, bragging and lying.
Neither of which are positive qualities in any way.

Incidentally, if you have listened to Nick Hanauer's TED talk, you may have noticed that the admitted that his wealth was down to luck - and that is all there was to it. Luck. And this is true for most - a bit of luck at the start, then once they have amassed some initial wealth comes the tax evasion and other anti-social means by which they avoid contributing.
Those same people also do their best to pay wages so low that people need top ups from social benefits to even survive.
(And no, I don't want to hear that idiotic statement of "get another job" because there just isn't enough work for everybody - communism tried no unemployment and paid people to do nothing because there wasn't enough work - we need to have a good discussion what a suitable solution is and a social state is so far the best we have, though that is disintegrating...)

But coming back to your key statement of earning money:
Many do not earn their income through honest means.
I don't mind the Lufthansa pilot earning 100.000€+ per year - given he has a job with a lot of responsibility.
But what does the investment banker do? Well, he robs society for the benefit of a few "clients" creating absolutely no value (his money doesn't correspond to anything but numbers on a screen...) while he walks around with an attitude that everybody should bow down to him.
It just makes you wish for a "modern days French Revolution"...

In contrast, many small and medium sized companies that produce real wealth and benefits in the form of tangible products and services struggle to survive in a race to the bottom of lower prices.
Look at the small independent café vs. a large multinational café chain... (if you find a good independent café you start to appreciate what good coffee really is.)
At the same time, these small companies don't pay their managers insane amounts of money - nor is their management detached from staff.

And one can go on and on...

Incidentally, if you look at society as a whole, you find that higher equality leads to a better life for all:
https://www.ted.com …ard_wilkinson?l​anguage=en
(Yes, a millionaire in the UK lives worse than a "poor" person in Norway or Denmark)

Incidentally, the most unequal countries are those that perpetuate the lie and myth of "tickle down economics" - I refer you to Nick Hanauer's talk again as the best evidence why the idea behind it is stupid.
But even if one were naive enough to think it could work - well, it has been tried and it failed over and over again...

digirebelva wrote in post #17404631
This is delving into "I don't think folks need that much money" discussion....
I for one do not fault those who have made their money from starting a business...
They are free to spend their money as they please...they do not and should not have to answer to you or me in that regards..Just like we don't need their approval to spend our money the way we want.
And Art is in the eye of the beholder....always has been...always will...
IF Peter actually did get that much for an image, more power to him...you may not like it, but like I said before...he worked his but off (self promotion) to make a name for himself...and you want to complain because someone MAY have paid him that much money for a print YOU don't think is worth it...

What is stopping you from making a name for yourself and doing the same thing...?

And just to look at the number:
With the same amount of money, 65 (!!!!) photographers could be paid 100.000 - which would still be an extremely high price for a photo but at least not as obscene.
(And 100.000 is more than most people - in the "western world" - eine per year - even before we talk about general income inequality.)