Originally posted by Tokina I don't care what people copy/print privately, it's none of my business. As for softwares, many corporations are switching to open source products where they don't need any license
but you're missing out on the point. the point is, if you pirate software, you're taking money from the developer, right? if you want to let people print your photos freely, slap a Creative Commons license on them, which dictates what they can and can't do, which is the photographic equivalent of open source. certain versions of *nix are not for commercial use. you can have an image that can be reproduced all you want for non-commercial use, but you can't sell it, or call it your own. there's other freeware that's free to disburse ad nauseum, so long as you credit the creator -- same goes for the CC licensing. BUT, if your SOLE income depends on someone paying for a license of a product you developed.. wouldn't you be miffed if it just started getting passed around for free?
photographers need to make money on prints, because that's what the market dictates. if you're charging a MUCH higher rate than other equal quality photogs, with the stipulation being that you provide X many prints, and they're free to copy them, you're not going to get the same business as someone who's charging way less than you, but won't allow you to reproduce them yourself. why? because people will take advantage of the lower cost photog, since most people can't afford 20% markup on a 1500 dollar fee, just to allow you to print your own pictures.