While he won't reveal how much he was paid for the photograph, a stock image library item at the time, he said had it been licensed to earn even just a fraction of a cent per copy of Windows XP sold he would've earned much more than he did under the deal he struck.
You know I get it. Who doesn't want more money? I'm going to keep digging, but somewhere online there was an article a few years ago where folks were whining about the poor artists and digital photography, the creative commons, freely available photographs and how "the creatives" were losing money. Well, I had the nerve to ask that if anyone can do it, is it still considered creative?
I don't want to come across as saying the photo used for the default background on XP's desktop isn't beautiful -- it absolutely is, but it could have easily have been replaced. Someone could have easily have taken a very similar photo or have picked something entirely different.
There is a fairly well known art school in my neighborhood, and I'm of the opinion that 90-some percent of it's students are nothing more than piles of shit. I've seen some of their work and often think I should pull out some of the stuff my mother saved from my elementary school art classes and put them to shame. My landlord had one student who was behind on rent and had them make a signNow, I'm not putting O'Rear in the same category as those students, but still, it's a photograph of a hillside and some clouds. Honestly, get over yourself.
