93henfan wrote:I was wondering if they could dig a small pit at the 50, under the grizzly bear logo at Wa-Griz, glass it over, and then someone get a shot looking up at a play? I really need a new angle of Wa-Griz that I haven't seen before.
AZGrizFan wrote:
I'd enjoy them more if I could right-click on the one I like and make it my computer background.
You could always BUY a copy... novel idea.
SE, I don't want a hard copy. I only wanted to use it for my wallpaper. When I went onto his website, it appeared to ME that all that were offered were 4x6, 5x7, 8x10, glossies, etc.
"Ah fuck. You are right." KYJelly, 11/6/12
"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam." Barack Obama, 9/25/12
Willie wrote:Kinda like all the FCS graphics I've done for people to use?
Exactly.
weberwildcat wrote:
Screamin_Eagle174 wrote:
You could always BUY a copy... novel idea.
Willie is still waiting for his check from you for using his graphics. When will you send it off to him?
There's a big difference between listing prices for your work (and the photog disabling right-click on his website because he isn't offering his work for free), and doing work for a large community to use, then asking for donations. Similarly, I've offered my graphic design services in the Graphics forum and created backgrounds at no charge. If I were in a financial situation where I could donate, I would because I appreciate the graphics that Willie has done, and know the effort that goes into creating them.
Hypocritcal yes, but the vast majority of photographers aren't making millions/billions, unlike the majority of recording artists. Quite the contrary, most photogs are struggling to make ends meet.
Not to mention it's a super dick move to pretty much say 'hey, I like that image but I don't want to pay for it, so I'm going to steal it' right to the photographer who makes his living by selling his services/talents, especially after that photog posts a gallery for fans to see.
If the premise of your argument is that stealing is wrong no matter what then I totally agree with ya.
If you want to say that stealing is a dick move and since I have stolen I am a dick and if you steal you are a dick too, then I agree with you.
That splitting hairs because someone may have made a more popular piece of art than someone else or it affects you or your industry is fucking complete horseshit and you may want to split that hair, but it does nothing for your integrity at all.
Screamin_Eagle174 wrote:
Hypocritcal yes, but the vast majority of photographers aren't making millions/billions, unlike the majority of recording artists. Quite the contrary, most photogs are struggling to make ends meet.
Not to mention it's a super dick move to pretty much say 'hey, I like that image but I don't want to pay for it, so I'm going to steal it' right to the photographer who makes his living by selling his services/talents, especially after that photog posts a gallery for fans to see.
If the premise of your argument is that stealing is wrong no matter what then I totally agree with ya.
If you want to say that stealing is a dick move and since I have stolen I am a dick and if you steal you are a dick too, then I agree with you.
That splitting hairs because someone may have made a more popular piece of art than someone else or it affects you or your industry is fucking complete horseshit and you may want to split that hair, but it does nothing for your integrity at all.
It's not complete horseshit because your typical recording artist on iTunes has a broad, national/international market of potential customers, whereas your typical photographer has a small content-specific, regional market of potential customers. Obviously both artists rely on the sale of their work to make a living. Yes, all theft is wrong, but stealing from the one who has a small, regional pool of potential clients is going to affect his business a lot more than from the artist with huge market of clients, a sizable portion of which are large corporations that account for the majority of their income.
My main contention I addressed in the post before yours. It's as if some of you believe that because I or anyone has stolen anything -- ever, which 99.99 percent of people have, that it makes it okay for others to do it in the present.
Stealing from "rich" people is okay, but not from photographers.
No, I'm saying stealing is wrong, period. But stealing from the rich has less affect than stealing from the poor.
So, let's say a couple million people take that attitude (not an unheard of number of people). They all decide, well these artists and record lables make enough anyway, them not getting my .99 cents or $1.29 won't affect them at all.
Do the math on that. Are you going to tell me, at 1 million people taking that attitude with just one of the artists songs, that they don't need/deserve that $1.29 million dollars or so?
as indicated by the self incriminating posts listed above, you're all a bunch of fricking internet thieves. the rest of us can be classified as internet borrowers!
Screamin_Eagle174 wrote:
No, I'm saying stealing is wrong, period. But stealing from the rich has less affect than stealing from the poor.
How very "Robin Hood" of you....
With the only exception being that RH stole from the rich to give to the poor. Not so he could have something for himself that was by no means necessary in any lifetime.
With the only exception being that RH stole from the rich to give to the poor. Not so he could have something for himself that was by no means necessary in any lifetime.
Oh, yeah. Except for that it was a great analogy.
"Ah fuck. You are right." KYJelly, 11/6/12
"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam." Barack Obama, 9/25/12
Stealing from "rich" people is okay, but not from photographers.
No, I'm saying stealing is wrong, period. But stealing from the rich has less affect than stealing from the poor.
I agree with ya on the first sentence. If you hop on the box for though I think it's a bit iffy when a fella that has done so tells others he has a moral code that they should follow.
Stealing from the little guy is less damaging because it hits just that little guy right? Stealing from the bigger guy in much larger amounts affects not only one little guy but it affects industries, many, many individuals, and also the tax base which lessens the overall society doesn't it?
Seems like stealing from the rich may have a much more far reaching effect.
Ursus A. Horribilis wrote:
With the only exception being that RH stole from the rich to give to the poor. Not so he could have something for himself that was by no means necessary in any lifetime.
Screamin_Eagle174 wrote:
No, I'm saying stealing is wrong, period. But stealing from the rich has less affect than stealing from the poor.
I agree with ya on the first sentence. If you hop on the box for though I think it's a bit iffy when a fella that has done so tells others he has a moral code that they should follow.
So you're saying that one, maybe two people in this world can tell people not to steal? People that have done wrong can never start a path or try to do right? Guess the world's fucked then. Maybe you're right.
Hey everyone. I've stolen in my past. So that makes it okay. Go ahead, steal this photographers images.
I'm not trying to be a bitch here but here's my 2 cents on it.
I can't ask people to donate for the userbars or buttons I've made. They are copyrighted images that I'm simply putting different use to for people's enjoyment. Same goes for the photographer in a way. He isn't the first to shoot Washington Grizzly from the aerial perspective so how can he claim it as originality? He can't, and I don't think he is. He's showing us his bitchin' photos and hoping we enjoy them.
Courage is being scared to death, but saddling up anyway. - John Wayne
Ursus A. Horribilis wrote:
I agree with ya on the first sentence. If you hop on the box for though I think it's a bit iffy when a fella that has done so tells others he has a moral code that they should follow.
So you're saying that one, maybe two people in this world can tell people not to steal? People that have done wrong can never start a path or try to do right? Guess the world's fucked then. Maybe you're right.
Hey everyone. I've stolen in my past. So that makes it okay. Go ahead, steal this photographers images.
I was saying you shouldn't preach just because it affects your line or work while doing the same to another. I'm gonna buy the guys work though. I think it's cool and I'd like to perpetuate what he's doing.
Willie wrote:I'm not trying to be a bitch here but here's my 2 cents on it.
I can't ask people to donate for the userbars or buttons I've made. They are copyrighted images that I'm simply putting different use to for people's enjoyment. Same goes for the photographer in a way. He isn't the first to shoot Washington Grizzly from the aerial perspective so how can he claim it as originality? He can't, and I don't think he is. He's showing us his bitchin' photos and hoping we enjoy them.
Wrong. The photos a photographer takes are his copyrighted images. He's not claiming that Wa-Griz stadium is his creation, but his photographic perception/capture of it, from that exact spot, time, light/exposure, aperture, and shutter speed, is his, and his only. By your standards, nobody who ever takes a picture of anything can own copyright to it because the person didn't physically create what he/she took a picture of. You didn't create the color red, or maroon, or lines, or squares, yet you use all those to create an image that is your own. It's the same way with photography.
