The owner of the photo CAN'T sue. Whoever shot this put it up for sale on a stock photography website, with very little control in terms of how the image is used once it is bought by an individual or company. The owner probably thinks it's funny shit, if he ever bothers to read any articles about it. I mean, what does he care? His name isn't in the credits anywhere.
It's harder than to pay someone $12 who already took a photo. The owner of the photo got paid when they ordered the royalty-free image, genius.
And what's also hard is to be in a creative department at a company and tell your bosses that they need to pay for a photo shoot vs paying for a cheap royalty-free photo.
Wow, you really think professional photography is that simple?
yeah, i do think it's that simple -- what you described doesn't even make photography seem that hard. it just made the whole job seem trivial. it's 12 darn bucks out of a company's pocket. if a company can't afford to take a photo for an ad campaign, that's really sad.
The X-Fi3 keeps with the company's commitment to audio fidelity, thanks to the apt-X codec, which supposedly offers audio quality similar to a wired connection when streaming. On that front, the device also handles FLAC files.
The most commented posts on Engadget over the past 24 hours.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
What a bunch of idiots.
I wish I was the owner of that photo so I can sue their asses for a huge sum of money.
How hard is it to just hire someone to make a pose, put your product beside it, then click the camera ?
The owner of the photo CAN'T sue. Whoever shot this put it up for sale on a stock photography website, with very little control in terms of how the image is used once it is bought by an individual or company. The owner probably thinks it's funny shit, if he ever bothers to read any articles about it. I mean, what does he care? His name isn't in the credits anywhere.
Not if it's licensed appropriately as a stock photo...
It's harder than to pay someone $12 who already took a photo. The owner of the photo got paid when they ordered the royalty-free image, genius.
And what's also hard is to be in a creative department at a company and tell your bosses that they need to pay for a photo shoot vs paying for a cheap royalty-free photo.
Wow, you really think professional photography is that simple?
@Player1
yeah, i do think it's that simple -- what you described doesn't even make photography seem that hard. it just made the whole job seem trivial. it's 12 darn bucks out of a company's pocket. if a company can't afford to take a photo for an ad campaign, that's really sad.
Notice on the bottom photo, the screen appears to be pasted to the notebook from another application. No logo, dissimilar color.
@bootareen
Buying a stock photo for cheap and having a designer you already have on-staff edit it for a couple hours is cheaper than a photo shoot. It's a fact.
I do this crap for a living, I assure you clients rarely want to pay more for something they can get for super cheap. It's not hard to understand.