People believe lots of different things so ardently that for them it is their reality/truth ... and for those who believe them, it becomes thiers as well.
This isn\'t to say that the course owners don\'t have legal rights regarding photography on their property,etc. (not going there now) ... but here again, they are omitting the valuation on your time, effort, energy, experience, equipment etc. Do you suppose they\'d tell a mechanic or electrician the same thing ... i.e. we\'re letting you work on our property, why should be pay you?
Lots of ways to structure things ... this one strikes me as \'mismatch\' where they have zero concept of usage fees, but might have a clue at hourly rate / work for hire. Understanding the valuation system of others can require some flexibilty in that you either have to get them to think like you, or you think like them in order to achieve an agreement.
If they believe they are doing you a favor by letting you shoot, you are either going to have to go along with that notion, or you\'re going to have to change them ... or you agree to disagree and pass. I shot a band a couple of times in exchange for access to some venues (years ago) and while I did gain some experience from it and it was valuable to me at the time (i.e. they were doing me a favor / fair trade) ... I\'ll take cash or trade, but please don\'t disrespect me so much that you won\'t even acknowledge the cost of gas to get there ... sadly, \"A lie believed becomes truth.\"
Some are worth the effort to try and educate/change ... but that is becoming increasingly more rare.
Hmmm, so who is \"stupider\" ... the guy who has been getting free pics (adequate quality presumed) ... or the people that have been giving them to him for free such that he believes that\'s the way it is supposed to be.
People believe lots of different things so ardently that for them it is their reality/truth ... and for those who believe them, it becomes thiers as well.
This isn\'t to say that the course owners don\'t have legal rights regarding photography on their property,etc. (not going there now) ... but here again, they are omitting the valuation on your time, effort, energy, experience, equipment etc. Do you suppose they\'d tell a mechanic or electrician the same thing ... i.e. we\'re letting you work on our property, why should be pay you?
Lots of ways to structure things ... this one strikes me as \'mismatch\' where they have zero concept of usage fees, but might have a clue at hourly rate / work for hire. Understanding the valuation system of others can require some flexibilty in that you either have to get them to think like you, or you think like them in order to achieve an agreement.
If they believe they are doing you a favor by letting you shoot, you are either going to have to go along with that notion, or you\'re going to have to change them ... or you agree to disagree and pass. I shot a band a couple of times in exchange for access to some venues (years ago) and while I did gain some experience from it and it was valuable to me at the time (i.e. they were doing me a favor / fair trade) ... I\'ll take cash or trade, but please don\'t disrespect me so much that you won\'t even acknowledge the cost of gas to get there ... sadly, \"A lie believed becomes truth.\"
Some are worth the effort to try and educate/change ... but that is becoming increasingly more rare.
Hmmm, so who is \"stupider\" ... the guy who has been getting free pics ... or the people that have been giving them to him for free such that he believes that\'s the way it is supposed to be.
People believe lots of different things so ardently that for them it is their reality/truth ... and for those who believe them, it becomes thiers as well.
This isn\'t to say that the course owners don\'t have legal rights regarding photography on their property,etc. (not going there now) ... but here again, they are omitting the valuation on your time, effort, energy, experience, equipment etc. Do you suppose they\'d tell a mechanic or electrician the same thing ... i.e. we\'re letting you work on our property, why should be pay you?
Lots of ways to structure things ... this one strikes me as \'mismatch\' where they have zero concept of usage fees, but might have a clue at hourly rate / work for hire. Understanding the valuation system of others can require some flexibilty in that you either have to get them to think like you, or you think like them in order to achieve an agreement.
If they believe they are doing you a favor by letting you shoot, you are either going to have to go along with that notion, or you\'re going to have to change them ... or you agree to disagree and pass. I shot a band a couple of times in exchange for access to some venues (years ago) and while I did gain some experience from it and it was valuable to me at the time (i.e. they were doing me a favor / fair trade) ... I\'ll take cash or trade, but please don\'t disrespect me so much that you won\'t even acknowledge the cost of gas to get there ... sadly, \"A lie believed becomes truth.\"
Some are worth the effort to try and educate/change ... but that is becoming increasingly more rare.
People believe lots of different things so ardently that for them it is their reality/truth ... and for those who believe them, it becomes thiers as well.
This isn\'t to say that the course owners don\'t have legal rights regarding photography on their property,etc. (not going there now) ... but here again, they are omitting the valuation on your time, effort, energy, experience, equipment etc. Do you suppose they\'d tell a mechanic or electrician the same thing ... i.e. we\'re letting you work on our property, why should be pay you?
Lots of ways to structure things ... this one strikes me as \'mismatch\' where they have zero concept of usage fees, but might have a clue at hourly rate / work for hire. Understanding the valuation system of others can require some flexibilty in that you either have to get them to think like you, or you think like them in order to achieve an agreement.
If they believe they are doing you a favor by letting you shoot, you are either going to have to go along with that notion, or you\'re going to have to change them ... or you agree to disagree and pass. I shot a band a couple of times in exchange for access to some venues (years ago) and while I did gain some experience from it and it was valuable to me at the time (i.e. they were doing me a favor / fair trade) ... I\'ll take cash or trade, but please don\'t disrespect me so much that you won\'t even acknowledge the cost of gas to get there ... sadly, \"A lie believed becomes truth.\"
People believe lots of different things so ardently that for them it is their reality/truth ... and for those who believe them, it becomes thiers as well.
This isn\'t to say that the course owners don\'t have legal rights regarding photography on their property,etc. (not going there now) ... but here again, they are omitting the valuation on your time, effort, energy, experience, equipment etc. Do you suppose they\'d tell a mechanic or electrician the same thing ... i.e. we\'re letting you work on our property, why should be pay you?
Lots of ways to structure things ... this one strikes me as \'mismatch\' where they have zero concept of usage fees, but might have a clue at hourly rate / work for hire. Understanding the valuation system of others can require some flexibilty in that you either have to get them to think like you, or you think like them in order to achieve an agreement.
You didn\'t say, but did they also want you to take pics for zero compensation ... or was it just the usage aspect that they couldn\'t get their head around.
Jan 26, 2012 at 04:30 PM
Previous versions of RustyBug's message #10283503 « Stupid People are everywhere »
