|
My buddy at some photography magazine said it was only a problem because he didn't want to pay for the image he wanted (and probably didn't want to have to swallow his pride and approach the guy who he had previous beef with in court) and then set out to replicate it. Or something?
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2012 22:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 00:16 |
|
|
Obviously the idea is the same, but the image itself (composition, etc) is pretty different. If he specifically saw the original and set out to copy it then I can see where the judge ruled in favor of the original, but if its just a coincidence that's pretty lovely. Basically if you blindly showed me those two images I wouldn't think that either was copying the other aside from the selective color.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2012 22:46
|
|
|
Beastruction posted:Does that actually set precedent outside of commercial use? It seems like more of a trademark thing, "the brand with the red double decker bus crossing the bridge away from big ben and the background is black and white" being specific enough that you might reasonably get the two confused (if they had similar products). The problem with London is that almost every point is so well photographed both commercially and by tourists/hobbyists. Like you can buy a postcard of almost literally every view in London. So the crazy thing is that this seems to be giving unprecedented copyright for companies that can afford legal council. Is merely taking a photo of a view that has been captured hundreds of thousands of times and applying an effect that this thread has shown to be repeated dozens of times enough for copyright? I'm all for protecting an artist's rights but there has to be a point where we can say. "Hey, we just happened to stand in the same place and apply the same lovely effect" instead of gibbering plagiarism.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2012 22:55
|
|
|
It's basically saying the concept for a piece of art is as protected as the art itself, which is completely ridiculous and runs contrary to established norms for every creative endeavor undertaken in the history of man. Taken to an absurd conclusion, it means they have to tear down Big Ben because it employs a neo-gothic architecture, which originated in France some 200 years before the tower was built.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2012 23:11
|
|
|
Every time my mom gets randomly checked at airports her 35-year-old Nikkormat comes up as being radioactive. They always just go "oh well" and let her go through anyways.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2012 23:47
|
|
|
Norrskensren posted:At Berlin Tegel I got pulled into a side room and had my camera, lenses and laptop swabbed for explosives. The security guys assured me it had nothing to do with the fact that I was carrying a lot of electronics, "just a random check". Airport security (at least the TSA) often choose people for 'random' checks based on how likely they believe the subject will comply, i.e. elderly and meek looking people are more likely to be checked.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2012 23:47
|
|
|
Rated PG-34 posted:Airport security (at least the TSA) often choose people for 'random' checks based on how likely they believe the subject will comply, i.e. elderly and meek looking people are more likely to be checked. In Zurich the security person removed the camera body and all the lenses from my camera bag and put them on the x-ray tray so they could be scanned separately. I don't know if it's standard or not, but the TSA certainly didn't do that when I departed from the US.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2012 00:08
|
|
|
HookShot posted:Every time my mom gets randomly checked at airports her 35-year-old Nikkormat comes up as being radioactive. That makes sense considering the age it's quite possible the lens she has for it has radioactive glass elements.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2012 00:11
|
|
|
One airport had me open my bag and show them all the camera equipment after I sent it through the x-ray machine. The guy said that I should always pull my camera and lenses out and put them in a separate tray like I would with a laptop. On the return flight, I asked the screener if he wanted me to do that, and he basically replied with 'What the hell for?'
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2012 00:18
|
|
|
William T. Hornaday posted:On the return flight, I asked the screener if he wanted me to do that, and he basically replied with 'What the hell for?' I think the worst part of travel is the inconsistency in the application of the rules. When I was coming home this winter, some horrible bitch in Philly gave me a lecture and made it a point to talk down to me when I questioned why she had to charge me separately for each of my bags when I've never had to do that before. I don't care if you've been doing it for 3 years, I've been flying with these particular bags for 12 years and no one has ever made me pay two separate luggage bills for them. And then God forbid you respond to them being assholes to you, you're liable to get kicked out of the airport and put on a no-fly list. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2012 01:18
|
|
|
Regarding the London copyright-bus thing, isn't the whole city basically filled with CCTV cameras? How many of those are pointed vaguely in the direction of that bridge? The next time I'm in the UK (could be years from now, but still...) I'm going to photograph the poo poo out of that bridge and every goddam bus on it, then fill my Flickr account with 1000 boring images.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2012 01:25
|
|
|
Hey guys, I've just sold a photography back pack on eBay and I'd like some help in getting the thing delivered. Can I just wrap it in brown paper and write on it with a sharpie the delivery address? (UK)
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2012 01:59
|
|
|
l33tc4k30fd00m posted:That makes sense considering the age it's quite possible the lens she has for it has radioactive glass elements. Ah ok, I figured it must have been something like that. I tell her eventually it'll get so old there'll only be half of it left then she'll HAVE to get a digital camera. Funnily enough, the worst experience she had with it was the first time it ever happened, at our local tiny regional airport which at the time only basically flew to three nearby cities. The guy spend about five minutes hmmmmm-hawwwwwing about how he didn't know what to do and eventually let her through. She was like "what, I'm going to blow up a plane that has like 50 people on it between two minor Canadian cities with my radioactive camera?" I'm also pretty sure it was in 2000, so there wasn't even the 9/11 panic.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2012 03:44
|
|
|
On the surface, that copyright case in England looks absurd, but I read the judges remarks and I can see why he made the ruling. First off, as mentioned, the photographer being sued explicitly set out to make his own picture that used as many elements from the original image as possible. While the images don't share they same composition, they share the same elements and the same post-processing e.g. the selective color on the double decker bus, the sky being removed, etc. The photographer being sued attempted to use it for commercial gain. I'm not up on British law, but I can't see how this would apply to hobby photography. I can see it applying to commercial photography if your intent is to avoid paying someone else while having a very similarly constructed image. Though, who's confident that once precedent has been set, it won't be abused by litigious fucks?
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2012 07:09
|
|
|
squidflakes posted:On the surface, that copyright case in England looks absurd, but I read the judges remarks and I can see why he made the ruling. I am not sure about this, so someone please correct me here, but isn't the rule generally that as long as you steal and idea and credit the original person it is ok? See: one band covering another bands song, or an art student imitating another painters work. The issue here may be that he did not state that it was intended as imitation.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2012 07:48
|
|
|
Evilkiksass posted:I am not sure about this, so someone please correct me here, but isn't the rule generally that as long as you steal and idea and credit the original person it is ok? Not at all. Copyright has always mandated asking permission before duplicating anything.. simply giving credit isn't enough. There are fair use provisions that allow excerpts, but you can never copy an entire piece. quote:See: one band covering another bands song, or an art student imitating another painters work. The issue here may be that he did not state that it was intended as imitation. It's certainly not okay to cover songs. There's actually a licensing body that charges bars so that cover bands can play there. And you can be assured that any cover song you can buy on a CD has been cleared by the lawyers. The boundaries are a little more grey with painting, if you get too close to forgeries you will be in a world of hurt.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2012 07:56
|
|
|
squidflakes posted:
Yeah but duplicating things happens all the time in commercial photography. If a company "owns" the idea of using a close up of lips to advertise a beauty product this case would have major implications for a lot of "standard" commercial photography. Almost everything has been shot before and it's very conceivable that it's possible to recreate a photograph without knowledge of similar images - so now with this case you have to be extremely careful and research whatever you photograph extensively because not only is reputation for originality on the line but you are legally vulnerable too. The copyright being based on a publicly accessible view makes it even more spurious.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2012 08:21
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:Yeah but duplicating things happens all the time in commercial photography. If a company "owns" the idea of using a close up of lips to advertise a beauty product this case would have major implications for a lot of "standard" commercial photography. Almost everything has been shot before and it's very conceivable that it's possible to recreate a photograph without knowledge of similar images - so now with this case you have to be extremely careful and research whatever you photograph extensively because not only is reputation for originality on the line but you are legally vulnerable too. I am with you in this. I think the decision was based on this specific case: that the company ripped-off the original photographer's idea of the selectively-coloured bus in front of parliment because they didn't want to pay him. A genuine case of stealing his idea. Unfortunately, the potential ramifications are quite wide. It's not an exact duplicate of the original shot and the effect used is a common one (hell, my P&S even has a mode to do it). If he were the only photographer who used selective colour, then I can agree with the decision more. In this case, potentially anyone who takes a photo of Tower Bridge in HDR is liable.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2012 11:41
|
|
|
Was there even a malicious intent requirement in the court decision? If no the decision is retarded, if yes it's practically irrelevant (because good loving lucking proving intent).
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2012 14:47
|
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:Last time I went through O'hare there was someone waiting to question me about my bag. I had to think of Bill Bailey's experience in Schiphol https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_uTDzsTZNFY guidoanselmi posted:35' large format camera for portraits across the country: I really want to like this project, but so far the two videos I've seen have had this boring corporate feeling to them. I know it's aimed at attracting sponsors but it just feels so passionless. A modern-day In The American West will be pretty cool though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2012 18:06
|
|
|
I think a part of it is literally in the format. It's a loving portrait camera on wheels. It really doesn't give you that much control over what you can really do with it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2012 19:46
|
|
|
HookShot posted:Ah ok, I figured it must have been something like that. I tell her eventually it'll get so old there'll only be half of it left then she'll HAVE to get a digital camera. I'm actually kind of surprised that she's only had that fairly minor a reaction to it, I could easily expect airport staff not in the know to totally freak out, especially considering the air travel horror stories I've heard.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2012 23:30
|
|
|
l33tc4k30fd00m posted:I'm actually kind of surprised that she's only had that fairly minor a reaction to it, I could easily expect airport staff not in the know to totally freak out, especially considering the air travel horror stories I've heard. Yeah, definitely. She's never gone to the States with it, so that probably helps. Mostly just Canada and Europe.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2012 00:24
|
|
|
Did anyone else get that terrible email from PPA about how we should support SOPA?
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2012 01:55
|
|
|
Anti_Social posted:Did anyone else get that terrible email from PPA about how we should support SOPA? Trey "Patient Zero of HDR" Ratcliff has a nice response.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2012 06:25
|
|
|
I'm in a Facebook group with a bunch of local photographers that suffers from the same thing every other forum outside of SA suffers from, that being a total lack of constructive criticism. Someone posted a lovely newborn shot of a baby suspended in the air, someone said it looked like a "ghost baby" and people LOST THEIR poo poo. Folks were jumping over each other to defend this poor photographer and her awful picture. I'll never understand why people take criticism of their pictures as a personal attack. Isn't there some psychological principal that says you can only advance in a field if you recognize your own shortcomings?DJExile posted:I know this is a bit late, but did you know that guy is the trainer in Rocky? Blew my mind when I watched the New Years Twilight Zone Marathon.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2012 06:50
|
|
|
Gibertjim posted:Isn't there some psychological principal that says you can only advance in a field if you recognize your own shortcomings? I think the opposite is true, if you have time to recognize your shortcomings you're not spending enough time networking, and will be that much worse at it because you lack the confidence to talk yourself up.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2012 17:40
|
|
|
Gibertjim posted:I know this is a bit late, but did you know that guy is the trainer in Rocky? Blew my mind when I watched the New Years Twilight Zone Marathon. Holy poo poo it is 
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2012 18:55
|
|
|
Beastruction posted:I think the opposite is true, if you have time to recognize your shortcomings you're not spending enough time networking, and will be that much worse at it because you lack the confidence to talk yourself up.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2012 19:27
|
|
|
Gibertjim posted:I'm in a Facebook group with a bunch of local photographers that suffers from the same thing every other forum outside of SA suffers from, that being a total lack of constructive criticism. Someone posted a lovely newborn shot of a baby suspended in the air, someone said it looked like a "ghost baby" and people LOST THEIR poo poo. Folks were jumping over each other to defend this poor photographer and her awful picture. I'll never understand why people take criticism of their pictures as a personal attack. Isn't there some psychological principal that says you can only advance in a field if you recognize your own shortcomings? "The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which unskilled suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly rating their ability much higher than average, while the highly skilled underrate their own abilities. This bias is attributed to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their mistakes."
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2012 19:42
|
|
|
Dongsmith posted:I'm assuming you're being facetious, but if a photographer thinks that every lovely baby pic they take is pure gold and no one disabuses them of the notion, they're unlikely ever to improve. Oops, I was thinking "advance in a field" as in professionally, for actually becoming better at doing something it would be the other way around.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2012 19:46
|
|
|
Beastruction posted:Oops, I was thinking "advance in a field" as in professionally
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2012 21:33
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:"The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which unskilled suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly rating their ability much higher than average, while the highly skilled underrate their own abilities. This bias is attributed to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their mistakes." This. This is exactly what I was thinking of. I forgot the name.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2012 22:52
|
|
|
While I couldn't completely fix the pentax ME Super that I bought from Nannypea (noteably, while taking it apart to figure out how it worked I discovered the fact that while the shutter system is really robust, the film counter is not so easy to work with, and I'm still not sure what I did to the light sensor), it did make me realize that trying to fix old cameras is pretty fun. 20 bucks later and I've got 3 more ME Supers and a Spotmatic to try and fix (and a pentax MG with a 300mm lens included for another 30 just for kicks). I think the buyer was going to throw in an Excel camera that I haven't been able to find anything about, but is probably a toy camera of some kind. The sad thing is that all this cost the same as buying a single belt clip for my ME.  On top of that, my tuition payments got cut in half this semester from what I thought they'd be, and my tax return is going to going to be pretty awesome too, so I'll be able to have money to get a good compact camera to carry around while still having enough cash for everything else. This is a pretty good weekend so far. e. This is when I realize that I don't have any m42 lenses to put on the spotmatic if I get it working. Guess I have an excuse to get one of those industar pancake lenses now. Dr. Despair fucked around with this message at 23:14 on Jan 28, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2012 23:12
|
|
|
Suicide Watch posted:In Zurich the security person removed the camera body and all the lenses from my camera bag and put them on the x-ray tray so they could be scanned separately. I don't know if it's standard or not, but the TSA certainly didn't do that when I departed from the US. They did the same thing for me in Zurich. If all your electronic stuff is layered together it's kind of difficult to determine weither your stuff is safe or not.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2012 23:32
|
|
|
Steven Siegel is a fairly eloquent person, and chronicled NYC in the 80s as a street photog. Who knew? http://gothamist.com/2012/01/30/steven_siegel_tells_us_about_his_19.php
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2012 21:52
|
|
|
Awkward Davies posted:Steven Siegel is a fairly eloquent person, and chronicled NYC in the 80s as a street photog. Who knew? Those are actually really cool.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2012 21:57
|
|
|
Awkward Davies posted:Steven Siegel is a fairly eloquent person, and chronicled NYC in the 80s as a street photog. Who knew? Aw man, I was expecting ponytails and rear end kicking. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2012 21:57
|
|
|
HPL posted:Aw man, I was expecting ponytails and rear end kicking. Oh, thank god I am not the only philistine here.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2012 22:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 00:16 |
|
|
Siegel is not Seagal.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2012 12:27
|
|
