Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 8360004" data-attributes="member: 22779">So much point being missed.Imagine that a restaurant had a contest that patrons clean the restaurant.&nbsp; The patron that cleans the best gets a free meal.&nbsp; Or, heck, free meals for a year.&nbsp; They run that contest for six months.So, for six months, the restaurant is cleaned, for free, daily.&nbsp; At the end of six months, they reward the winner.&nbsp; Fair contest or not?&nbsp; After all, cleaning a restaurant is work and work, by law, requires paying minimum wage.&nbsp; But, they got the restaurant cleaned daily for free.&nbsp; Totally fair right?&nbsp; After all, you didn't have to enter.&nbsp; The fact that the restaurant got free labour for several months is perfectly fine?Because that's EXACTLY what you are saying here.&nbsp; It's perfectly acceptable to accept ownership over people's work for free just because you are going to award one person?&nbsp; Work deserves to be paid.&nbsp; Full stop.&nbsp; That's the end of the argument.&nbsp; Anything else is just exploitation.&nbsp; The company can exploit it's market presence to steal the labor (and yes, taking labor from someone without paying is stealing by definition) from people and it's perfectly acceptable?&nbsp; Seriously?&nbsp; I have zero idea how much a company would have to pay an artist to create a token frame.&nbsp; Call is 20 bucks.&nbsp; I don't know, I'm picking a random number.&nbsp; Say they get 1000 entries - probably not an unreasonable number.&nbsp; That means they got 20000 dollars worth of labor for 400 bucks.&nbsp; Hell of a deal for the company.Sorry, but, if you want 20000 dollars (and it's probably a HELL of a lot more) worth of labor, you have to pay for it.&nbsp; Anything else is exploitation.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 8360004, member: 22779"] So much point being missed. Imagine that a restaurant had a contest that patrons clean the restaurant. The patron that cleans the best gets a free meal. Or, heck, free meals for a year. They run that contest for six months. So, for six months, the restaurant is cleaned, for free, daily. At the end of six months, they reward the winner. Fair contest or not? After all, cleaning a restaurant is work and work, by law, requires paying minimum wage. But, they got the restaurant cleaned daily for free. Totally fair right? After all, you didn't have to enter. The fact that the restaurant got free labour for several months is perfectly fine? Because that's EXACTLY what you are saying here. It's perfectly acceptable to accept ownership over people's work for free just because you are going to award one person? Work deserves to be paid. Full stop. That's the end of the argument. Anything else is just exploitation. The company can exploit it's market presence to steal the labor (and yes, taking labor from someone without paying is stealing by definition) from people and it's perfectly acceptable? Seriously? I have zero idea how much a company would have to pay an artist to create a token frame. Call is 20 bucks. I don't know, I'm picking a random number. Say they get 1000 entries - probably not an unreasonable number. That means they got 20000 dollars worth of labor for 400 bucks. Hell of a deal for the company. Sorry, but, if you want 20000 dollars (and it's probably a HELL of a lot more) worth of labor, you have to pay for it. Anything else is exploitation. [/QUOTE]

Verification