January 28, 2015, 01:33:49 PM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - gbchriste

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 14
1
Post Processing / Re: Assembling Portraits
« on: Today at 07:53:28 AM »
Very rarely and only when absolutely necessary. I can count on 1 hand the number of times in the last 3 years or so and only in group situations.

The way I optimize a group shot so as to avoid closed eyes, goofy expressions, etc, is I have everyone train their eyes right on my lens and then tell them close their eyes and think of something pleasant.  After a second or two everyone's gaze will relax and take on a natural, relaxed expression.  I then tell them I'm going to count "one, two, three, open" and without moving or changing anything they are to open their eyes on the "open" command.  I count it down and hit the shutter a beat after I command "open".  I get about a 99% success rate with this technique.  I'll shoot 2, maybe three frames just for insurance but can pretty much guarantee that I got a workable shot that won't require compositing to fix.

2
Landscape / Re: Seashore, Beaches and Harbours
« on: January 07, 2015, 09:12:51 PM »
Very nice shot gbchriste.

Thank you!

5
Landscape / Re: Seashore, Beaches and Harbours
« on: January 07, 2015, 07:50:00 AM »

6
Portrait / Re: Post your best portraits(street, studio, candid etc...).
« on: January 05, 2015, 11:54:15 PM »

What a fantastic photo of a gorgeous model. Well done!

Thanks!  This is a young lady who I've been photographing a couple times a year since she was 14.  She's now a high school senior and this was a shot from the senior portfolio we're working on.

7
Portrait / Re: Post your best portraits(street, studio, candid etc...).
« on: January 04, 2015, 11:19:45 PM »

8
Landscape / Re: Seashore, Beaches and Harbours
« on: January 03, 2015, 05:02:00 PM »
Beautiful shots, gbchriste.   8)


Absolutely agree!
Well done

Thanks much!

9
Landscape / Re: Seashore, Beaches and Harbours
« on: January 03, 2015, 05:01:37 PM »
Beautiful photos! I especially like the one with the fence.  :)

Thank you!

10
Landscape / Re: Seashore, Beaches and Harbours
« on: January 03, 2015, 05:00:16 PM »
Beautiful shots, gbchriste.   8)

Thanks!

11
Landscape / Re: Seashore, Beaches and Harbours
« on: January 03, 2015, 01:10:43 PM »



















12
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: New Firmware Coming for EOS 5D Mark III
« on: January 03, 2015, 01:03:14 PM »
My philosophy on firmware for anything - computers, cameras, et al - is don't upgrade unless you have a specific reason to.  I bought my 5DIII right after it was released and only applied my first firmware update a few weeks ago.  My reason for updating was I wanted to use an EyeFi Mobi card and needed a more current firmware version on the camera.

Firmware updates for any electronic device can often come with undetected bugs and induce undesired behaviors.  So if your device is operating as intended for you - you're not experiencing any faulty behaviors and you don't need the features included in a firmware update - leave it alone.

13
Portrait / Re: Post photos of other photographers in action
« on: January 03, 2015, 10:31:07 AM »
My son took this cell phone pic of me in the water during a portrait session.  I'm dragging the step stool so I can get up high enough to not be shooting at an up angle on the subjects.

14
Some people think that if they don't make any money redistributing/copying another's work that that is OK.  Wrong.  Whether the copyright violator receives any profit is irrelevant.  The driving factor is that the copyright owner owns the work and enjoys the right to control how/when their work is distributed and to be compensated anytime their work is distributed.

While you provide a very good overview, the above statement is not entirely true. Whether the copyright violator receives any profit is in fact very relevant in the analysis of whether the use constitutes a 'fair use'. Section 107 of the Copyright Act enumerates four factors to be weighed in making that determination. They are:

Quote
1. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes
2. The nature of the copyrighted work
3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
4. The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work

So, I'm not saying the original poster's use of the copyrighted work would fall within the Fair Use exception or not. Even if he's not charging for access to his video because it's freely available on the internet, his use still may be deemed commercial in nature if he received compensation for producing it.

I am aware of the elements that are taken in to consideration in a Fair Use determination. The point I was making and probably didn't express clearly was that profit - or the lack thereof - does not establish a prima fascia defense of Fair Use.  It is only one element in that determination. And that is where so many people go so wrong.  The prevailing attitude seems to be, "I'm not making any money by copying and distributing this, therefore it is OK."  However the conclusion drawn does not automatically follow from the proposition offered.

In fact, there are many, many instances of huge copyright fines and penalties being levied when the profit garnered from the violation was in all respects - legally and technically - zero.  Churches, which by definition do not make any profits because they are non-profit organizations, are among the worst offenders and also among the favorite targets of copyright police.

A favorite practice in churches now is to display the lyrics of songs on projector screens for the congregation to see.  That practice is not legal without permission by the copyright owner of those lyrics.  Sometimes those lyrics are overlaid on moving videos - which requires a completely different license.  As a former church choir director, I frequently entered church music libraries to find literally hundreds, if not thousands of photocopied music pieces - all created on the mistaken notion that because a church is non-profit it can copy at will.

Church Copyright Licensing International (CCLI) is a company that was founded in 1988 to provide licensing and copyrights management services specifically to churches because the rate of copyright violations within the church community was rampant.  And most violations were committed on the simple mistaken belief that because the church was not making money or charging for its services, it was OK.

As an IT consultant, I've also worked with churches where every piece of software in the church office was a pirated copy provided by some well-meaning church member who brought their own media in from home and provided it to the secretary.  Each of those violations is potentially a $100,000 fine per pop.  In fact the software piracy police have always made churches one of their favorite targets because the incidences of piracy are so high.  And again, a church is by law and in-fact a non-profit organization therefore no profit can be legally ascribed to the use of these materials.

If I were to make a video of my grandson's birthday party, overlay a copyright song on it, and post it on YouTube, that clearly wouldn't come under any of the Fair Use provisions for scholarly research, news reporting, public commentary, etc.  But if I were to be sued by the copyright owner, a court might conclude that while the use was technically not permitted, the fact that there was no profit and distribution had zero impact on the market value of the work in question, that I was OK.

However, if United Way - a legally not-for-profit organization - were to use that same song to back a commercial in their national advertising campaign and broadcast that commercial on national TV, distribute it via their web site, run it on YouTube, etc, and didn't first get the required licenses and permissions, I would imagine they would end up writing a fairly large check to the copyright owner at the end of the legal dispute.

And as an advanced amateur photographer, I can assure you there are untold myriads of non-Fair Use copyright violations that occur everyday when someone takes a copyrighted photograph from one site and posts it on their own without permission, even though no money ever changes hands.  I have one professional photographer friend who has to employ a full time assistant who does nothing but patrol the web for unlicensed uses of her images and sends out take down notices to the offenders and their respective web hosts.

15
Every nation's copyright laws are different.  As to which apply, where you are doesn't matter.  It is where the copyrighted content is displayed that matters.  If you are in Singapore and put something on your website that violates U.S. Copyright Law, and that web site is accessible in the U.S., then then the U.S. based copyright holder could come after you.

I have no familiarity with Singapore copyright law so can't be specific to that situation.  But I have worked with U.S. Copyrights regarding music quite a bit.  There are actually several different kinds of music copyright permissions that you might have to deal with.

A mechanical license is what you obtain when you just want to release your own recording of someone elses song - you've got your own garage band that just recorded an album of Beetles classics and you want to sell it on CD.  In that case you request and pay for a mechanical license.

Then there is a public performance license.  This is what you request and pay for when you want to perform someone elses music in public.  If your band is performing those Beetles classics in a night club, either you or the club owner has to pay a public performance fee.  A public performance license is also required if you are playing pre-recorded music in a public venue.  So if a restaurant has a CD player that they pop a Beetles CD in to to provide background music for their customers, they need a public performance license.

Probably what you are interested in is what is called a video synchronization license.  This is the license you require when you want to take someone elses music and use it as background music in an audio-visual presentation, film, etc.

There is much confusion and misperception regarding the use of music on the Internet but in a nut shell, you always need permissions and to pay and required licensing fees to reuse and redistribute any copyrighted music, no matter the form or forum.

U.S. law provides an exemption to this requirement through what is called the Fair Use Doctrine.  Fair use allows someone to reuse or redistribute copyrighted works without a license or fee but what comes under fair use is fairly limited - uses such as academic/scholarly work (e.g. quote song lyrics in an academic journal), news (e.g. report on concert attendance), public commentary (e.g. critical review of a performance), etc.

Some people think that if they don't make any money redistributing/copying another's work that that is OK.  Wrong.  Whether the copyright violator receives any profit is irrelevant.  The driving factor is that the copyright owner owns the work and enjoys the right to control how/when their work is distributed and to be compensated anytime their work is distributed.

The sad truth is that copyright violations are now so rampant on the Internet that the publishers and copyright owners can't keep up with it so the chances of a small time operator like a local photographer or videographer being caught and fined are small.  However, that shouldn't dissuade you from doing the right thing.  So do some research in to the copyright laws and licensing requirements that might affect your work and abide by them.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 14