karlbaba wrote:Kinda like if I wandered into the camp nextdoor and said "I'm going on an ice run, anybody who wants ice, give me what it costs."
Your analogy is flawed. It's like if one camp gives away ice so you take it then put it up for sale at the cost of moving it from their camp to yours.
What I'm getting at is that the images you captured are valuable explicitly because they capture the free presentation of someone else's idea. That is, you have taken pictures of other people's work. If it were not for
their works,
your works would not have value.
Here ... look ... here's an image of mine (in thumbnail):
It is for sale, but I don't care if people buy it here -- I'm just using it as an example. See, it's a picture of walk-signs. They offer no artistic merit unto themselves, so, as a photographer/artist, I have bracketed them in a context for which they have value. All your images are more like this:
which is another image I took that, well, captures exactly what the artist (the maker of the horse with Native American aphorisms about peace) had in mind when they placed it next to the eagle at our local War Memorial. I don't believe in selling
that because of its reliance on someone else's
art.
If I may be so bold, I think this is the line you have crossed (along with many other Burning Man photographers who sell their images). Despite the effort you have made to create the images, they explicitly rely on other people's art for their power. Unless you have made a commercial agreement with the original artist, it's my opinion that your artwork should never be sold -- be it for your profit or for any money whatsoever.
The gray middle-ground is for images like those on Flickr which are offered up for free yet capture another person's work. What's the intent of the original artist (something for Burners to enjoy or something for
everyone to enjoy)? and is it okay with the original artist that images of their work are shown (i.e.: is it important that the work was
exclusively experienced at Burning Man?)
