>>> It's not like you trained week after week after week to enter a dance
>>> competition, right? I mean, who would do that for fun? ;)
>>
>> I spent a whole year learning diabolo. Hint: doing that doesn't cost any
>> money. I would think there can't be too many people who can just afford
>> to blow $8,000 on buying some images just to enter a competition.
>
> Someone who sees it as an investment to pad his or her portfolio and
> resume, in order to get more web design clients?

$8,000 is more money than I have ever owned at any time in my entire 
life. (I just changed the exchange rate. On 8 Nov 2007, that would have 
been £3795.07 - and that's the lowest it's been in the last 10 years.)

Would you seriously take out a 5-year loan just to afford some pictures 
to put together a website that *might* get you a few more orders?

>>> Alternately, you can browser image hosting sites and look for images
>>> which have licencing terms that meet your needs.
>>
>> What makes you think there will be anything with acceptable licensing
>> terms?
>
> Because I've used some. There's lots of stuff on Flickr with Creative
> Commons licences, you just have to look for it.

In my limited experience, the stuff on Flickr is no better than the 
rubbish I could shoot myself.

>>> Or browse through your
>>> "My Pictures" folder. Most people will have something interesting in
>>> there.
>>
>> It's empty?
>
> You don't own a digital camera?

No, I just don't put the pictures in the My Little Pony folder. But 
regardless, no photo I have ever taken is even remotely good enough to 
be used in an art project.

>> Well /obviously/ people can make money out of it, given that very few
>> people are good at it. That's not really relevant to my point - a
>> typical person wanting to put a website [or other publication] together
>> can't access beautiful calligraphy. :-P
>
> Sure they can. If they are unable to write it themselves, there's bound
> to be someone in their immediate surroundings who is.

Given that calligraphy is a rare skill, the idea that there's "bound to 
be" someone "in their immediate surroundings" seems rather questionable...

Post a reply to this message