akshayjamwal

The advantage to having round heads is that you’ll get circular diffusion. Practically this means you have more manageable hotspots. For shoot-through softboxes, umbrellas etc. this does make lighting a bit easier.

It also means much better control for illuminating a background.

Likely not. But also, maybe?
Reproducing owned intellectual property is always copyright vs. trademarks vs. usage / sales can of worms, in that the devil is in the details.
The Nike name, swoosh logo and the "Just do it" slogan are all trademarked. Meaning they've gone to the trouble of protecting those intellectual properties so that other people can't use (read: profit off or counterfeit) them.

Regardless of that fact, if you take a photo of , well, anything, *you* are the intellectual owner of the photo, i.e. you own the copyright to every work you produce.

The problem however has to do with *how* you're selling the art. The circumstances.

If you're selling it purely as a work of art, the law is probably on your side. Take that with a pinch of salt: I'm a fairly experienced photographer, but I'm not a lawyer.

Case in point, since someone else mentioned Campbell / Warhol: one of the reasons they never took any legal action is because it would be hard to prove that Warhol was somehow misrepresenting their trademark. Nobody viewing or purchasing his art could conceivably confuse it for a can of soup.

If it even seemed like you were somehow representing Nike itself, or selling on Nike's behalf, they have legal precedent to send you a cease and desist (or worse).

All of that being said, nothing prevents a company from *pursuing* legal action against you.

The “top” is a managerial job. There are only so many to go around and many lower-level jobs.

Also, what guarantee do you have that a) the company will continue to grow and b) your career will grow with the company? I’ve always had my own business, mostly catering to B2B businesses. A commonality amongst all of them was that the manager liaising with me would be a decades-old employee for that company. I wouldn’t describe a single one of them as rich. Comfortable or well off? Sure. Rich? No.

And if you’re wondering how I can confidently say that, you can surmise that across several conversations at lunch, dinner, after work etc. Most folks are just happy that they have enough money to provide their kids with a decent education.

Betting on yourself and your own ideas is riskier but also entails better rewards in that same timeframe.

I had a Nikon D90 that I used as a product photography camera at my studio from 2009-2015.

In those 6 years the shutter count hit something like 700k. I then sold it to a guy who is still using it.

A basic website is fairly inexpensive and will do much more for your business than other marketing channels. A simple well-written one-pager / landing page will surely do the job to start with.

I’m always a little taken aback when business owners say that they don’t have a website. Your website is your online real estate. You control what’s on it, the layout, the design, the copy, the lack of ads, etc. Moreover, if you keep adding quality content, you can build your brand and your authority in your niche or sector. You’re also not subject to changes in social media algorithms messing about with your visibility.

Yes, most likely a scam. Galleries do not charge you, they typically get commissions on any sales.

Also, why would you pay for putting up photos on a “digital display”? That’s literally what Instagram already is.

There are dozens of websites that sell artwork. Deviant Art, Artstation, Fine Art America etc.

None of them ask you for money to *display * your work.