Цитата:
Сообщение от Tjutchev
I'm also not clear as to maintain ownership of works of art created using video, photo, computer technology.
|
My friend photographer explains it simply, they have all the legal issues have long been resolved. For sale original (film, slides or digital image format RAW). All the pros shoot only in RAW. JPG distorts and degrades the quality. For domestic use is not important, but for professional work - the main requirement. Of course, someone could shoot around their photos on a bar of soap and print for your home. But to use it in a professional deyatelnoosti not get - these are the technical requirements and standards. This is especially important for large format printing.
The cost of rights to professional photo averaging 300-500 dollars. Rarely 1000. I am writing about the western prices. This may be the photo, the photographer himself has spent much more - climbed into the mountains, descended into the water, rented a balloon ... Another thing is that he has done some good photos (several hundred), which can be sold or exhibited at the exhibition. Sale of rights needed for the following customers: magazines and newspapers, printing companies, etc. You can sell just printed pictures at prices ranging from 50-100 ye to the same without the thousands of property rights. But it is for buyers of amateurs who are not oriented in the market. In addition, he receives little photographer - the basic eats the seller. I think mainly in retail trade is firm-holders, as the photographer would not bother with retail. A sort of photo gallery.
Large and the mass market, because prices are quite real. The so-called "computer art" is not designed for a normal market - an "abnormal" the buyer can feed the whole year.
I believe that the phrase "computer art" artificially invented themselves computer "artists" to somehow distinguish themselves from the photo-artists. Otherwise, have a reasonable vporos - but why so expensive? In fact, to use the word "painting" to their works can not.
Reference to the fact that the "painters" picture is processed on a computer that is not relevant. Now all professional photographers use Photoshop. But not for the abrupt change in the frame, and for cleaning of unnecessary debris (wire, extra people to remove /add a cloud or the moon for the desired artistic effect) and for proper framing. But they considered to be bad, if computer processing is visible on the result. It is for them - an indicator of low level. They work fine.