Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 31st Jan 2011 15:32 UTC
Permalink for comment 460352
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 22:33 UTC
Linked by Anonymous on 06/18/13 22:26 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 22:25 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:32 UTC, submitted by poundsmack
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:58 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 21:03 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 20:46 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 17:32 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-07-06
Are you saying you think there should be no copyright at all, or just that 75 years is too long?
She can't charge any more then she does for originals.
Unless you are very well know people just don't pay that much for art. Getting $5 dollars a print is what makes it worth it.
Per Thom's example, prints to a painter are like concerts to a music artist. It is not like my mom can repaint her paintings on stage for money.
I'm sure the same goes for a photographer. How much do you think most people can sell a photograph for, but if they are diligent, they can make enough money off the reprints to make it worth it.
Time invested per painting: 2 hours (savant...)
Cost to reproduce a quality print in quantity: Maybe $10 US
The prints were being sold for $2000 US.
That's reprehensible. (Though, since the paintings weren't that great, imo, 'I suppose there's one born every minute' applies)
I'm no Christian, but I've read the book. I recall something about camels and needles...
It is hard to argue with extreme examples, it is too bad you think they apply to everyone.