Today's shot is in no way artistic, and is unashamedly about the story, not the shot.
Lowes is a menswear chain which is... how can I put this delicately? Somewhat downmarket. It's normally advertised by loud ex-footballers yelling at you, and finishing with the closing tag "Aaaat Lowes!".
If you couldn't give a stuff what you look like, you go to Lowes. If your idea of culture is downing a slab of tinnies* while watching the V8s** before going to play the pokies*** for 4 hours at a far western suburbs RSL****, you go to Lowes for your "formal" wear*****. Granted, they also sell blue collar work clothes and those are about the only thing I'd ever go to Lowes for if I was building or renovating. If you needed that for work or had your livelihood screwed by the New Economic Order, you might go to Lowes. Otherwise you go for the price, not the quality of which there isn't much, in my opinion.
That's not the story. THIS is.
"YOU could call it the quintessential Newcastle summer snapshot: a lone surfer walking across the rocks near Merewether beach in search of a wave.
In fact, it was such a good shot that the photographer, Gateshead's Naomi Frost, believes someone stole the image, printed it on thousands of T-shirts and sold them through menswear giant Lowes."
This is the subject of legal action, so let's not discuss this specific case further. But more generally... when did people start thinking that it was OK? That they should get paid for their own work, but that the work that anyone else does should be free for the pickin'? I'm aware of the school of thought that says that if you don't want your shots nicked, don't put them on the web. But that's really not the point. I'm talking about the relative ease in purloining photography, and more specifically how it seems to be regarded in some quarters as being an input which is "free" as if the photographer's skill and indeed time had no value at all. There was a follow up to this story (link here). The thing that particularly "impressed" me was the statement by one parasite to a photographer that "because his website was free to access, they could do what they wanted with his photograph" which is certainly an interesting interpretation of IP laws. I suppose that anything that is visible from the street at that guy's home is free to be taken as well; his car, anything that he leaves on the balcony, his washing; hey, one law for all, right? Yes, I know the tired old argument that copying the photograph / film whatever doesn't deprive the original owner of it, unlike a physical possession. But it does take their work without paying for it and in doing so, debases its value to the creator to the extent that it could have been sold. Uniqueness, or relative rareness, has a value and the value is diminished by a parasite printing 20,000 T-shirts with the image.
The point is... when did a substantial proportion of society lose sight of the fact that to make a buck, they're expected to pay, and pay decently and fairly, the people who make that happen for them?
In short, where did current society get its moral compass? Just please tell me that it wasn't "Aaaat Lowes!"
------------------------
Translations for Overseas Visitors
*Case of relatively low quality beer.
** Motor vehicle racing consisting for the most part of Fords and Holdens (a division of General Motors). Such vehicles once represented your average family sedan. These days there's about as much similarity to the cars people actually drive as there is between the Terminator and a sewing machine. I really couldn't give a stuff about it; get back to me when Mitsubishi start running Lancer Evolutions in it.
*** Poker machines. Devices consisting of brightly flashing lights which mesmerise people while draining their wages or Centrelink (social security) benefits. At the end of the process you have nothing to show for it, not even memories, just an empty wallet.
**** Ah... er... indescribable. You really just have to see for yourself.
***** Stubbies (shorts) and T-Shirts.
Last Year
