Comments on: What We Traded for, The New World part two http://www.robertwrightphoto.com/writing/photography/what-we-traded-for-the-new-world-part-two/ @ robertwrightphoto.com Sat, 06 Mar 2010 15:36:26 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Robert http://www.robertwrightphoto.com/writing/photography/what-we-traded-for-the-new-world-part-two/comment-page-1/#comment-4313 Robert Mon, 18 Aug 2008 21:48:46 +0000 http://www.robertwrightphoto.com/writing/?p=8#comment-4313 As a practice I refrain as much as humanly possible. You can count on the fingers of one hand the number of times. Whereas Gawker has made an entire industry out of repackaging content bought and paid for elsewhere. Because it can be done. No one really wants to acknowledge the ways in which we are mortgaging our future. There is a difference of course, but the two are connected. it is all related. thanks for digging in the archives tho! :) As a practice I refrain as much as humanly possible. You can count on the fingers of one hand the number of times.

Whereas Gawker has made an entire industry out of repackaging content bought and paid for elsewhere. Because it can be done.

No one really wants to acknowledge the ways in which we are mortgaging our future.

There is a difference of course, but the two are connected.

it is all related.

thanks for digging in the archives tho! :)

]]> By: lisa childs http://www.robertwrightphoto.com/writing/photography/what-we-traded-for-the-new-world-part-two/comment-page-1/#comment-4312 lisa childs Mon, 18 Aug 2008 21:05:58 +0000 http://www.robertwrightphoto.com/writing/?p=8#comment-4312 Ha. You lament the lost currency of images and talk about the trade we make for convenience, and yet you can't help showing the image yourself. Of course you are quoting the image, but you are still showing it. You are also making the trade. Instead of allowing the post to be text only. If the argument is that images are sacrosanct and that their creators should always be paid for them regardless of how they are used then you should have not shown the image. I think it's a fact that the creation of images is no longer sacred. Photography by artists and professionals has been devalued. The creation of music by professionals has been devalued. But in it's place has arisen a world of that in any ways is more interesting than the old one in which information and art were produced by a small circle of experts and which knowledge is essentially free. It will take time for artists to navigate this world and find a way to make money, but it will happen, it always does. Ha. You lament the lost currency of images and talk about the trade we make for convenience, and yet you can’t help showing the image yourself. Of course you are quoting the image, but you are still showing it. You are also making the trade. Instead of allowing the post to be text only. If the argument is that images are sacrosanct and that their creators should always be paid for them regardless of how they are used then you should have not shown the image.

I think it’s a fact that the creation of images is no longer sacred. Photography by artists and professionals has been devalued. The creation of music by professionals has been devalued. But in it’s place has arisen a world of that in any ways is more interesting than the old one in which information and art were produced by a small circle of experts and which knowledge is essentially free. It will take time for artists to navigate this world and find a way to make money, but it will happen, it always does.

]]>