August 21, 2014, 06:58:37 AM

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 - Orangutan

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 42
16
Business of Photography/Videography / Re: Who owns the photo?
« on: August 11, 2014, 05:10:30 PM »
Your understanding is wrong. Every one of your scenarios, where you are a second shooter, where your assistants shoot for you, artists assistants etc all sign away any rights they might be granted under the law when they work under contract to the employer.

So take these scenarios, your camera is stolen but it is found a month later, some funny guy took it on holiday with him and took photos of a garden ornament all over the world, do you own the copyright? Of course not.

You leave your camera as a remote camera in the woods with a trigger, somebody moves it and takes a different shot to the one you had set up, do you own the copyright? No, you do not.

You leave your camera in the woods by accident, a branch falls on it and just presses the shutter button, do you own the copyright? No, you do not.

You leave your camera in the woods with the intention of wireless remote shooting, a child comes along and moves your camera and in the process pushes the shutter button, do you own the copyright? No you do not.

Take the last scenario and exchange a child for a monkey, you still don't own the copyright, you did not frame or take the photo.

Somebody does not have to own the copyright, an image can be copyright free, that is what Wikipedia are asserting, the image does not have copyright on it so they are free to reproduce it without restrictions.


   THIS   ^^^^^^^   +10


If you don't frame the shot, then you don't own the copyright.  Personally, I think the macaque should own copyright, but then I'm biased in favor non-human primates.   8)

17
I'm not aware of any, but there are other options.  What is the specific need for EXE?

Other options:

* export as a Flash presentation and show it in a browser
* export it as a movie file
* see if there's a way to get OpenOffice/LibreOffice to run from a USB stick (i.e. without install)
* compose it as a series of HTML pages stored locally and chain them using JavaScript


18
EOS Bodies / Re: Exciting Tech
« on: August 11, 2014, 09:33:52 AM »
What do you think this would add to either still photography or video photography?

I don't know about this particular product, but many of the features would be useful for improved LiveView and EVF.

19
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon to Make a Big Splash at Photokina? [CR2]
« on: August 11, 2014, 12:12:04 AM »
Umm...toothpaste? That's where this conversation went? Seriously....?  :o

Is there some variant of Godwin's Law that applies to toothpaste?   8)

20
EOS Bodies / Re: No weekend rumors ever??
« on: August 10, 2014, 09:51:00 PM »
I was just noticing that it seemed like no major rumors had been getting posted on Saturday or Sunday for a long time and that seemed, potentially odd, why should someone with good info never pass it along on a weekend

It could be as simple as marketing -- if site traffic is low on weekends then a weekend-posted items (rumor, news, notice, etc) might not generate the same kind of traffic.  The same reason why companies and politicians release bad news at 5:30 on Fridays.

21
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Another Nikon full-frame
« on: August 10, 2014, 12:03:16 AM »
My guess is a D620.  It'll be what the D610 would have been if the D610 hadn't been what the D600 should have been.   ;D   I.e., they'll give something like the D810 treatment to the D610.

22
Site Information / Re: Small or Large Thumbnails - Poll
« on: August 09, 2014, 09:34:38 AM »
I used to have much slower Internet (1.5Mb/s down), and when I viewed a gallery I knew it would be slow -- that's just the nature of a gallery.  The benefit of having a gallery is much diminished if it's all tiny thumbnails.

I think it would be a courteous thing to remove images from replies, in the image galleries. It causes unnecessary repetition and wastes screen real estate.

+1

If possible, it might be helpful to limit the number of displayed posts per page on gallery threads so that each page loads faster.

23
Business of Photography/Videography / Re: Who owns the photo?
« on: August 07, 2014, 11:28:33 PM »
Now I thought I understood the basics of photography copyright (cos it's useful for us snappers!), and that was that copyright does not need to be applied for. The creator of the work (let's ignore for now this case, and cases where you do a job for someone else, contracts etc) owns the copyright. I take a photo, its copyright belongs to me. I can release my claim to it, but doing nothing means I own the rights to it. I don't have to file paperwork. If down the line someone uses it without my permission, all I need to do is demonstrate it was me who took it, say by providing the raw image, or proving I was there and the other person wasn't.

Well, I did a little reading up, to see if my memory served me correctly. It does seem some things have changed a bit since I was in school and generally things are now more favorable toward the creator of a work.

From what I can tell, the key distinction is that while the copyright does not have to be applied for, as you state,  it may be difficult to enforce the copyright if you do absolutely nothing. At a minimum, it seems a good idea to use your software's ability to embed the copyright in the electronic file and to display a copyright symbol when practical.

I guess I would err on the side of caution and at least include a copyright claim in the electronic file. A simple and automated step that could help prevent confusion down the road.

It's my understanding that in the U.S. you gain copyright protection automatically; however, if you don't register a particular photo you can only recover "actual damages" -- i.e. what you could have charged for the photo in that situation.  If you do register you can also collect "statutory damages," which amounts to a much larger, punitive claim.

CAUTION: Never take legal advice from some random guy on the Internet!!


24
Business of Photography/Videography / Re: Who owns the photo?
« on: August 07, 2014, 05:33:28 PM »
You're making a lot of assumptions.

nor it can legally hold copyright
The owner of the macaque can own copyright.  In this case, they probably do.

Quote
the creative action of setting up the environment makes the copyright belong to the photographer.
But he didn't: he set up the camera, not the creative environment.  If the camera had been fixed with a tripwire of some kind, then the photographer could claim ownership.  As soon as the macaque takes physical control of framing the shot, it's no longer the photographer's.

Quote
If the button was triggered by a motion sensor, I'd say that both author and copyright holder are the photographer (as the motion sensor is inanimate).
Correct result, wrong reason.  The reason is that your setup of the motion sensor is deterministic: it's known, with a very high degree of certainty, what the framing of the shot will be.  The fact that you determined the framing (even if that's in advance) is what makes you the creative force of the photo.

Quote
the customer pays a fee to the machine, to hold the copyright of the result
You're assuming an implicit contract, which would require explicit statutory language, or a long history of common law.  I wouldn't accept that assertion from anyone short of an IP lawyer.


25
Business of Photography/Videography / Re: Who owns the photo?
« on: August 07, 2014, 05:26:52 PM »
The one pressing the shutter button owns the photo, it is their creative property.

So if you set up a shot on tripod, and your assistant does nothing more than press the button on a wireless shutter release (and doesn't even look through the viewfinder) then the assistant owns the shot?  I find that very hard to believe.

You have an assistant for pressing the button on a wireless release? wow you must be a busy photog. :-D

 :D

26
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DXO uh-oh?
« on: August 07, 2014, 05:06:41 PM »
Почему вы ложью, видео точно показывает, почему датчик от Sony лучше, чем Canon.
И почему эти продажи передать все это время? Это не имеет ничего общего с измерениями ДХО, результаты и видео я имею в виду.
Yuriy, no offense but can you translate your native language in Google translation and then post it? Thanks!

I believe "Yuriy's" native language is actually Swedish.  For example, he might say:

Jag gillar att ta dåligt exponerade bilder av grillar, bodar och markiser.
He must be from that Russian side of Stockholm or something as my Swedish friends don't use the Cyrillic alphabet...

I'd respond with the following (forgive the Google translation):
Дорогой друг, это форум Canon и все мы говорим на одном языке, что практически не что DxO не следует доверять и DR может быть хорошо на бумаге, но это не делает все другие камеры устарели. Кроме того, сколько людей на самом деле стрелять в темноте?

If so, props to Миша for the creativity.

27
Business of Photography/Videography / Re: Who owns the photo?
« on: August 07, 2014, 04:58:46 PM »
The one pressing the shutter button owns the photo, it is their creative property.

So if you set up a shot on tripod, and your assistant does nothing more than press the button on a wireless shutter release (and doesn't even look through the viewfinder) then the assistant owns the shot?  I find that very hard to believe.

28
Business of Photography/Videography / Re: Who owns the photo?
« on: August 07, 2014, 03:41:14 PM »
Slater's version does not sound at all like MSN's “commandeered”, nor wikimedia's “ unattended”.
Depending on Indonesian law, that may be irrelevant.  Even if it was intentional, the critter framed and clicked.   For example, consider a "free" photo booth.  You set it up and people go inside and take photos of themselves.  Does the owner of the photo booth own those?  Not likely.  Setting up the gear may be irrelevant; it's probably a question of who frames the shot.  In this case, it was the critter.
 
Quote
... macaque's owners....
The macaque is wild, owns its own self.
In those cases, animals are generally presumed to be owned by the sovereign government, so Indonesia likely owns the photos.  In the absence of an international treaty, it seems likely they'll win the case in an Indonesian court.

29
Business of Photography/Videography / Re: Who owns the photo?
« on: August 07, 2014, 03:10:54 PM »
<IANAL>
If you give paints, paintbrush and canvas to an elephant do you own the resulting painting or does the elephant's owner own the painting?  It was the macaque's use of the camera that was transformative.  Since animals are generally considered property, it seems likely the macaque's owners own the photos.
</IANAL>

30
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DXO uh-oh?
« on: August 05, 2014, 06:48:03 PM »
So now it certainly IS competition for the 5d3 in more types of shooting.

Competition is good for the customers.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 42