On this photographer, if the photo is trivial the user of it should have no problem taking their own or paying the (presumably trivial) market rate to license a photo someone else took, no?
Some classes of objects are not under copyright protection because they are ubiquitous or utilitarian. For example the design of clothes can not be copyrighted. You are paying for the material and the production costs, but not for the design, and any competitor can take the same colored cloth and sewing pattern and produce and legally market an exact copy of your clothes.
Skyline fotos, unless being really unique or special, for my understanding fall into the same category. Of course you ought to be paying for material and transportation, which is close to zero for a digital photo.
Copyright is out of whack. The general idea might well be okay and sane, but the implementation has been distorted into something grotesque.
Photographers are having a hard time, since the picture quality of comodity cameras, like the ones built into higher end phones, is really high and the cost for one picture is near zero, resulting in a maelstroem of really nice photos produced by a plethora of clicking monkeys.
Professional photography is being pushed into a niche profession.
Skyline fotos, unless being really unique or special, for my understanding fall into the same category. Of course you ought to be paying for material and transportation, which is close to zero for a digital photo.
Copyright is out of whack. The general idea might well be okay and sane, but the implementation has been distorted into something grotesque.
Photographers are having a hard time, since the picture quality of comodity cameras, like the ones built into higher end phones, is really high and the cost for one picture is near zero, resulting in a maelstroem of really nice photos produced by a plethora of clicking monkeys.
Professional photography is being pushed into a niche profession.