I'm not a pro, but they make sense to me.
If I choose a photo that I want people to connect specifically with my business I don't want it showing up on my competetors' products, but if it's a more generic shot simply for graphics it won't matter as much.
For example;
A travel company might choose something like this for brochures. It's a common enough type of shot that it wouldn't stick in people's minds if they see it somewhere else, yet it perfectly illustrates what they want. There's no need for an rights-protected licence.
But suppose Canon decided they wanted to do a campaign around this guy. They want you to see that shot and immediately think of Canon. Well, they wouldn't want it on the next billboard over, advertising something else, would they?
(Yeah, I know, not examples that are ever gonna get used for anything, but it still gives the idea :) )
And, as far as I can see, it doesn't harm the photographer at all, as he has control over how he chooses to license.
Message edited by author 2008-09-24 14:31:18. |
