On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 00:01:02 +1000, "Here's Johnny" wrote:

Ray Fischer wrote:
Better Info wrote:
On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 16:33:35 +1000, Troy Piggins
wrote:

* Better Info wrote :
On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 01:08:45 -0500, tony cooper
wrote:

Better Info

I have no need to try to pawn off bad photography bounded in an
instructional book to try to make all that wasted time and effort
with a camera worth it. My photography stands on its own merit. I
don't have to trick anyone into buying it.

What if everyone was downloading your photography for free off
binary groups when you were trying to sell it?

Then I stop selling it publicly, just as I have for that very reason.
They're now by private sale only, in limited editions.

Shrug. How hard is it to duplicate "limited" edition photos?

More to the point, if he's earned more than he can use in a lifetime, why
does he give a **** if anyone helps themselves to his stuff? Why go to the
effort of selling privately?

BEEEEEEEEEEYULL****!

More to the point, a limited edition has the photographer's signature and
accompanying notarized documentation, for ownership and establishing future
provenance. Also, the signature cannot be duplicated unless you have access
to a gas-chromatograph and an electron microscope. Even then it would be
extremely difficult due to the minute traces of unique and inert compounds
I add to one or more of the inks used for printing. Each run of prints
having a unique ink-signature as well as another unique ink combination
used for the handwritten-signature. A molecular combination lock if you
will. I know enough about chemistry, technology, and forensics to have
ensured this degree of difficulty to secure the ownership of my works.

The fact that none of you even know how this works (limited editions for
photography, even just by establishing a notarized provenance only) loudly
proclaims your own words as nothing but more newsgroup-trolls'
"BEEEEEEEEEEYULL****!"