|
evil_bunnY posted:
You would re-upload 5 years worth of stuff to the same site that just deleted it? What about all of your contacts, favorites, links, sets, collections, tags, emails, groups, etc? Whitezombi fucked around with this message at 19:06 on Feb 3, 2011 |
#
?
Feb 3, 2011 19:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 07:37 |
|
|
I don't think because if you do something silly and trust something you shouldn't, you deserve to lose your life's work of photography. Take the concept one step left, and it's like "bitch be wearin' a short skirt, she want it".
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2011 21:36
|
|
|
Rated PG-34 posted:All those glitter comments will be lost in time, like tears in the rain
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2011 22:24
|
|
|
Whitezombi posted:You would re-upload 5 years worth of stuff to the same site that just deleted it? Helmacron posted:Take the concept one step left, and it's like "bitch be wearin' a short skirt, she want it".
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2011 23:45
|
|
|
I think in Lightroom 3, all the comments and the like from Flickr are downloaded and backed up on your machine. It always seems to be downloading my comments and other things when I upload something new.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2011 00:07
|
|
|
Interesting thing going around about Gap using a modified version of a CC licensed photo from Flickr without permission on t-shirts http://www.flickr.com/photos/cdevers/5402217217/
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2011 00:32
|
|
|
beeker posted:Interesting thing going around about Gap using a modified version of a CC licensed photo from Flickr without permission on t-shirts http://www.flickr.com/photos/cdevers/5402217217/ Smells like an out of court settlement.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2011 00:48
|
|
|
Mannequin posted:Smells like an out of court settlement. Sounds like "oops our bad some intern found the image and we totally thought it was in the clear, so yeah we fired him and we're cool now, okay?"
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2011 01:03
|
|
|
Not to sound like a douchebag, but it's just a snapshot of an old car. If Gap were to really want to use that photo, couldn't they have just found another old e-type and taken a picture of it from the same angle? Especially since they didn't use the background at all- there has to be thousands of pictures of the same model from roughly the same angle floating around the internet. Couldn't they just have used this one?  Click here for the full 640x480 image. Bouillon Rube fucked around with this message at 01:33 on Feb 4, 2011 |
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2011 01:26
|
|
|
Augmented Dickey posted:Not to sound like a douchebag, but it's just a snapshot of an old car. If Gap were to really want to use that photo, couldn't they have just found another old e-type and taken a picture of it from the same angle? Especially since they didn't use the background at all- there has to be thousands of pictures of the same model from roughly the same angle floating around the internet. Little man getting picked on by the big corporation is pretty much the rallying cry of the internet. It's not that stealing the picture is a big deal, it's that someone has the opportunity to embarrass a large corporation.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2011 01:30
|
|
|
Augmented Dickey posted:Not to sound like a douchebag, but it's just a snapshot of an old car. If Gap were to really want to use that photo, couldn't they have just found another old e-type and taken a picture of it from the same angle? Especially since they didn't use the background at all- there has to be thousands of pictures of the same model from roughly the same angle floating around the internet. Yeah they could have, but they didn't, that's the important part. Dumb on their part. Especially since they could have contacted people and I bet someone on flickr would have let them use it for free.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2011 01:33
|
|
|
Ola posted:Anyone else hooked on old lenses? I don't have much money to spend on glass, so the bang/buck ratio of vintage lenses suits me just fine.  Also, 'sup Minolta MD buddy Nice find, especially at that price!I bought a 70-200mm F/3.5 in MD less than a month ago, and got the pictures from the first roll of film that passed behind that glass back from the shop today. Much fun, and new life injected into my X-700.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2011 03:15
|
|
|
Reading the comments has me confused. You don't have to register photos for them to be copyrighted, but you can not sue unless they have been registered? Then what's the point of the default copyright- is it just a moral victory? "Ha! You are infringing my (c).. I just can't do anything about it"
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2011 03:21
|
|
|
The way I understood is that you can still sue, but you're only going to get a smaller amount of money if you win. Once they are properly registered you can get a larger settlement.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2011 03:28
|
|
|
AIIAZNSK8ER posted:The way I understood is that you can still sue, but you're only going to get a smaller amount of money if you win. Once they are properly registered you can get a larger settlement. gently caress that, the most important thing about copyright is that you can bitch on the Internet about someone ganking your poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2011 03:38
|
|
|
According to that page, and I have no idea if this is correct, you can sue for actual damages without a registered copyright - like how much money you would have been making had the theft not occurred. If you register your copyrights, you can sue for punitive damages and go buy an island somewhere. e: ^ yeah, basically what they said. ^
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2011 03:39
|
|
|
Augmented Dickey posted:Not to sound like a douchebag, but it's just a snapshot of an old car. If Gap were to really want to use that photo, couldn't they have just found another old e-type and taken a picture of it from the same angle? Especially since they didn't use the background at all- there has to be thousands of pictures of the same model from roughly the same angle floating around the internet. I am inclined to agree. A generic image of a mass produced vehicle? Who gives a poo poo. Selling photo prints claiming or implying it belongs to them? Bad. Selling a t-shirt with a stylized image using the photo as a source image? Eh. They could very easily say they contracted the design out to an artist and that artist just used the photo as a source to draw his design, which happens all the loving time.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2011 03:49
|
|
|
Ola posted:Anyone else hooked on old lenses? I don't have much money to spend on glass, so the bang/buck ratio of vintage lenses suits me just fine. I really have to start checking film inidcators, though, I've had two cameras with fully shot rolls of film that I exposed by opening the backs that I could have wound and had developed. Probably nothing groundbreaking since they were both Kodak Gold, but I'm sure one of the lost photos sites would have posted them or maybe I could have identified people and given them their late grandpa's pictures. I almost picked up the super 8 camera toda with a roll of Kodachrome 40 in it for $7 to develop it in B&W, but the battery was popped and the camera ruined. edit: There'a also a 2x MC teleconverter for $7.50. I'm going to pick it up on Saturday, not sure why I passed on it today. GWBBQ fucked around with this message at 04:03 on Feb 4, 2011 |
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2011 04:00
|
|
|
Buy a Sony NEX and you can use those things on a modern digital with extremely little fuss.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2011 04:05
|
|
|
mr. mephistopheles posted:I am inclined to agree. A generic image of a mass produced vehicle? Who gives a poo poo. No one, except it happens to be a photo he took. It's his. And Gap stole it. Obviously, there are issues with that regardless of how ordinary the photo looks.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2011 04:42
|
|
|
Yeah you guys are right. Who gives a poo poo. It's just a photo of a car. I'm sure everyone of you wouldn't give a poo poo if it was your image.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2011 04:49
|
|
|
Whitezombi posted:Yeah you guys are right. Who gives a poo poo. It's just a photo of a car. I'm sure everyone of you wouldn't give a poo poo if it was your image. If anyone should be upset, it's Jaguar. The print shows nothing of the photo's original artistic merit. I understand copyright, but poo poo. This is another matter entirely.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2011 05:13
|
|
|
Mannequin posted:No one, except it happens to be a photo he took. It's his. And Gap stole it. Obviously, there are issues with that regardless of how ordinary the photo looks. "Stole" implies motive. You have no evidence of this. Like I said, they could have easily contracted out to a designer who used the photo as source image and had no idea it was taken without permission. Or the CEO of Gap could have saved the photo off Flickr and photoshopped it himself. You don't know, but to accuse them of stealing just because it's a big corporation is unfair. How would they check to make sure it wasn't stolen? "Oh, let me just look for frontal images of Jaguars on the Internet and make sure it doesn't match any of them." Whitezombi posted:Yeah you guys are right. Who gives a poo poo. It's just a photo of a car. I'm sure everyone of you wouldn't give a poo poo if it was your image. Speaking in hypotheticals on an Internet forum is completely meaningless, but I honestly would not care. I'd probably post "holy poo poo gap used my photo for a shirt" on my facebook and buy one and wear it for a while and then not care. But then I'm not a professional photographer and this isn't my livelihood so it's irrelevant. I think it would have been nice if they asked permission, but seriously, artists use source photos for their art all the time. Some cite the source, but a lot don't, and it probably only gets noticed a fraction of the time especially if they alter it in some way. For example, if the artist had repositioned the window glare, then nothing would separate his frontal shot of the Jaguar with anyone else's. Then nobody could claim anything was copied, even though it totally was. quote:This is another matter entirely. Now this is hosed up. mr. mephistopheles fucked around with this message at 05:42 on Feb 4, 2011 |
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2011 05:36
|
|
|
mr. mephistopheles posted:"Stole" implies motive. You have no evidence of this. My evidence is the t-shirt itself. You can't just say that looks like any generic E-type Jag. It's the same photo. They used it without permission. That's called theft. Now whether or not they can get away with it legally because of 'artistic interpretation' or whatever, I don't know. But it doesn't make it right. mr. mephistopheles posted:Speaking in hypotheticals on an Internet forum is completely meaningless, but I honestly would not care. I'd probably post "holy poo poo gap used my photo for a shirt" on my facebook and buy one and wear it for a while and then not care. I seriously doubt that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2011 06:22
|
|
|
mr. mephistopheles posted:How would they check to make sure it wasn't stolen? By using an image they do have the rights to exploit commercially, and not one their lazy designers googled? It doesn't matter if you think it's a generic image, clearly if Gap is willing to put it on a t-shirt it has value.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2011 08:16
|
|
|
brad industry posted:By using an image they do have the rights to exploit commercially, and not one their lazy designers googled? This, working as a designer with my previous company, we refused to work with clients that either didn't us give access to their stock photo library, or at least allocated some budget for us to purchase some. Most of our larger clients actually had huge libraries of stock photos, though. The progress of getting the actual hi-res photo out of them is head-ache inducing, but not really part of this discussion. So, I must say I'm surprised GAP doesn't seem to have such a library at ready.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2011 08:37
|
|
|
AIIAZNSK8ER posted:The way I understood is that you can still sue, but you're only going to get a smaller amount of money if you win. Once they are properly registered you can get a larger settlement. Unregistered = sue for actual damages (economic loss) Registered = sue for actual damages and statutory damages. Statutory is similar to punitive, in that it's there to punish, but it's more fixed. http://www.photoattorney.com/
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2011 12:11
|
|
|
kefkafloyd posted:Buy a Sony NEX and you can use those things on a modern digital with extremely little fuss. I bought an adapter for $8 on eBay and use it on my Olympus E-420 with no fuss. Focal range and metering is fine although perhaps not without issues. An MD 50mm 2.0 and an Oly 28mm 2.0 focuses slightly past infinity, the 135mm is fine at infinity but I think it might not focus to its closest distance - I haven't measured, just going by eyeball and the distance markings. They all tend to underexpose a bit at the widest apertures. Either way, it's fun to get very useful, high quality optics for practically no money.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2011 12:23
|
|
|
torgeaux posted:Unregistered = sue for actual damages (economic loss) Actually unregisted you can sue for actual PLUS a punitive punishment. Otherwise they would always just go for it, hoping they don't get caught, if they do, they just pay the amount they'd have to anyway. The punitive amount isn't as much as registered, but it is more than just actual damages. It has a cap I believe. brad industry posted:By using an image they do have the rights to exploit commercially, and not one their lazy designers googled? +1
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2011 12:27
|
|
|
Yeehaw McKickass posted:If anyone should be upset, it's Jaguar. The print shows nothing of the photo's original artistic merit. I understand copyright, but poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2011 16:15
|
|
|
Yeehaw McKickass posted:This is another matter entirely. mr. mephistopheles posted:Now this is hosed up. Why is this different? Whitezombi fucked around with this message at 17:38 on Feb 4, 2011 |
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2011 17:33
|
|
|
Whitezombi posted:Why is this different? It might not be in a legal sense, you're right. But there is an artistic Grand Canyon between the two.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2011 18:03
|
|
|
LOL. What a great description. craigslist ad posted:The scratches and scuffs on the camera are artificial...I deliberately scratched it when traveling overseas to deter theft. It has never been dropped.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2011 21:33
|
|
|
You Goons probably already know about this, but there is a treasure trove of old camera stuff on the Goodwill website. http://www.shopgoodwill.com/listings/listbycat.asp?catid=170 You'll have to wade through poo poo, waist deep, but there are some gems to be had. Before the site got as popular, Nikon prices were flat, three and four dollars for an N8008 with a 50mm f1.8. Now, anything with a Nikon lens is always bid up, but you can still get some great bargains on old glass.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2011 21:43
|
|
|
Just a warning: these links contain images of two kids getting hit by a car. They lived and everything, but it's kind of distressing. This is kind of hosed up. This photo in the Boston Globe Year in Photos: http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2010/12/2010_in_photos_part_3_of_3.html#photo20 is captioned: An Israeli motorist runs down a masked Palestinian youth who was standing among a group of youngsters throwing stones at Israeli cars on October 8, 2010 in the mostly Arab east Jerusalem neighborhood of Silwan. (ILIA YEFIMOVICH/AFP/Getty Images) This is kind of bullshit. If you watch the video of this incident: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvwDt8C4LVU it's pretty clear to see that the motorist was trying to get out of there, and starts driving away, initially swerving out of the way of the people throwing rocks at the car. It swerves back when it's about to hit the curb, and that's when it hits the kids, who are running directly at the car. As a photojournalist, the caption "runs down a masked Palestinian youth who was standing among a group of youngsters" is straight-up lying. I'm not making any statements about the Palestinian - Israeli conflict, but to say a car is running down someone who was "standing among a group" is simply not stating the truth. Maybe the photographer was in shock when they wrote the caption; I know I'd be pretty messed up after witnessing that. But this caption clearly makes the insinuation that the driver purposely ran down this kid, and that kind of statement can't be made in this situation. It's violating journalistic ethics.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2011 01:28
|
|
|
dakana posted:Just a warning: these links contain images of two kids getting hit by a car. They lived and everything, but it's kind of distressing. I saw that and my rage is way up there...at the parents of the kid. Jesus, I'm not sure what the driver is supposed to do under those circumstances. I don't need to know what "side" is what, all I can see is the aggressor was the rock throwing mob.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2011 01:47
|
|
|
dakana posted:Just a warning: these links contain images of two kids getting hit by a car. They lived and everything, but it's kind of distressing. Wow. There just happened to be 5-7 photographers there watching this go down? That caption is BS.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2011 02:22
|
|
|
The car also stops after it hits the kids, and doesn't start moving again until they have started moving. If the driver was just trying to plow through the kids then there was no reason to stop after he/she hit them. E: That photo right below it is really sad.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2011 02:28
|
|
|
The caption is totally wrong, they're just playing popular middle eastern kid's game 'Rock, Speeding Car, White Phosphorus'. It's just like rock paper scissors except the Palestinian side is only allowed to pick rock.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2011 03:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 07:37 |
|
|
In that video, it looks like the kid doesn't want to go into the car. He's holding onto the car door resisting being taken away, at first I thought it was a medical transport, I guess its some kind of police? edit: And whats with so many photographers being there? It's all very suspicious.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2011 03:34
|
|