February 01, 2015, 12:52:00 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 ... 12 13 [14] 15 16 ... 55
196
Business of Photography/Videography / Re: Who owns the photo?
« on: August 12, 2014, 01:25:01 PM »
In the absence of an actual photographer, copyright should belong to the person who owns the equipment.

It is the same principle as a remote camera. There is no physical human operator directing or framing footage, but the footage still belongs to the person who owned the camera.

It is not rocket science. This guy has been ripped off shamelessly, and people are trying to hide behind what they see as a loophole in the law.

Imagine that, instead of macaques, it's members of an isolated Amazonian tribe who have no experience with technology.  Now who owns the "selfie" and why?

197
Business of Photography/Videography / Re: Who owns the photo?
« on: August 12, 2014, 12:42:11 PM »
If it is a tripwire shot, then how can the photographer own the copyright if the composition included material that wasn't there when the photographer framed it?

This goes back to an another post where an instructor tells everyone how to frame a subject in order to take a photograph. In that instance you would be arguing that the instructor owns the copyright because the instructor decided what the composition was which is clearly incorrect.

If a random stroke of lightning automatically sets off the camera to take a picture that happens to include lightning that wasn't there when the image was framed then how can the photographer claim that it was their composition of the lightning that created the image?

This has been addressed elsewhere in the thread, please re-read it. 

198
Business of Photography/Videography / Re: Who owns the photo?
« on: August 12, 2014, 12:37:28 PM »
Quote from: dilbert link=topic=22140.msg423920#msg423920 date

If an apple falls out of the tree and causes your camera to take a photo that is remarkably good, do you own the copyright? Of course if you lie, chances are nobody will know...
One must appreciate the gravity of the situation......

Yes, and reflect on the astronomical importance of this discussion.

199
EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: Dual Pixel Phase Detect AF While in AI Servo
« on: August 12, 2014, 11:55:32 AM »
I'm expecting something like this.  Canon wants to improve the tracking ability of the dual pixel technology to make it suitable for professional level autofocus.  I expect some solution to be in all future CanonDSLR's.

And maybe take one more step toward pro-level mirrorless.

200
Business of Photography/Videography / Re: Who owns the photo?
« on: August 12, 2014, 11:22:21 AM »
These questions are clearly addressed earlier in the thread.
I would beg to disagree with respect to the automatic response.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=22140.msg423788#msg423788

Quote
To my mind, a timed or tripwire shot does belong to to the photographer if the framing of the resulting image is what the photographer specifically set up

There are several more as well.  Search for "trip" or "timed."

201
Business of Photography/Videography / Re: Who owns the photo?
« on: August 12, 2014, 10:07:23 AM »
These questions are clearly addressed earlier in the thread.

Ok.

If you set up the camera to take photographs automatically, do you own the photograph?
Or is it because nobody pressed the shutter button that therefore the picture is unowned?
(Think intervalometer, etc.)

What about when a picture is taken automatically in response to a sound or light?
(Think about devices that people use to take pictures of lightning that are automated.)

If an apple falls out of the tree and causes your camera to take a photo that is remarkably good, do you own the copyright? Of course if you lie, chances are nobody will know...

202
Business of Photography/Videography / Re: Who owns the photo?
« on: August 11, 2014, 10:00:35 PM »

Is that the best you can do?  I read that, but how many photographer's assistants have had "one hand on the tripod" to steady it, and there's no way you'd give them copyright.  That's an absurdly weak claim on an image.  If he had had one hand on the tripod and one on a remote shutter release that would do it.  But the monkeys framed the shot when they "grinned, grimaced and bared teeth at themselves in the reflection of the large glassy lens."  Then "They played with the camera until of course some images were inevitably taken."

Nope, you are still badly mistaken.  Slater doesn't own the shot: it's either nobody, or it's the Indonesian government.


Quote
However, common sense says if a person set up an equipment in order to get a certain type of results, gets those results, and puts in the efforts to publish those results- they should be the logical recipient of the credits.
In many cases yes; in this case no.  Think about this: imagine it's not a macaque, but a 16-year old child who steps up, plays with the camera and takes some selfies.  Who owns the photos?  I believe (IANAL) that the kid does.  Now make it an 8-year old kid: same thing.  How make it a 1-year old barely learning to walk.  They are still the child's photos because it was the intent of the child that caused specific photos to be taken in specific ways.  Now, an adult macaque has a similar or higher level of mental development than a 1-year old human.  While it's true that the photographer set up a great studio, it was the macaques that chose to approach the camera, chose to handle it, chose to interact with their reflections in the glass and (unintentionally) caused the photos to be captured.  The photographer set it up so that some photos might be captured, but if the monkeys had not chosen to do any of those activities then these particular photos would not have been captured.  As I said above, if he had operated the camera by remote shutter release then he would have claim on the images.  The point you're missing is that it's not about some photos being taken, it's about certain specific photos.  The decision about which specific photos, with which poses, facial expressions, framing was 100% the monkeys.

Your proposition would be valid for somewhat different circumstances, e.g. a motion-sensing camera, or a timer, or something similar where the animal does not purposefully interact with the camera.

Quote
Let's say a primate researcher sets up his equipment in a certain way to perform a certain experiment- let's say macaques shooting themselves with a camera, to study social behavior. The macaques do approach the camera, which has been set up to allow the most likelihood of an acceptable picture being taken (wide angle lens, predictive focus- which I am sure very few wildlife photographers use otherwise), and by random chance some good shots are taken. The scientist duly collects the data and processes the images.
Now, would you say the data and the images are in the public domain so anyone can use the data without citing or permission, or even publish the results in a paper.
Data and images are different things.  I'm not claiming the images are in the public domain -- I don't know.  I believe they are (or should be) not Slater's copyright.  Data is an entirely different beast and I haven't thought about it enough to offer a rational opinion.

Quote
To me, what matters in intent (which the photographer certainly had as he wanted the macaques to trigger their own images as they weren't approaching the camera otherwise
Consider a photography workshop led by a professional guide.  The guide sets up all the stops, times the trip to hit the indigenous ceremonies at the right time, makes sure all the students are standing at the right overlook at the right time of day for perfect light, then steps back and lets the students point-n-click.  By your reasoning, copyright of their photos would belong to the guide, not to the student who took the photo because all they did was play and click.

Quote
The other thing that matters is ethics. This is a guy who earns his bread through this trade.
I agree: a guy who makes a living habituating wild animals in a way that might make them vulnerable to poaching or other human threats is selfish and unethical.  If he were a wildlife biologist (or similar) and had training and experience to do this in a way that contributed to their protection and to our understanding of their lives and habitats, your ethical argument might have merit.

Quote
photographers on this forum are repeating those technical clauses instead of thinking how a fellow tog is losing the money that could have helped him and his family
He could choose another way to make a living.  If you're a scientist there's a good chance you don't make as much money with your brain as you could on Wall Street.  That's your choice -- to do something useful to humanity while making a reasonable living.

I appreciate your thoughtful post, but I vehemently disagree.

203
Business of Photography/Videography / Re: Who owns the photo?
« on: August 11, 2014, 07:37:41 PM »
........
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. …...


For the successful photos in question the camera never left Slater's physical control.



You obviously didn't read it.  It says right in the blog that it absolutely left his control.

 So I put my camera on a tripod with a very wide angle lens, settings configured such as predictive autofocus, motorwind, even a flashgun, to give me a chance of a facial close up if they were to approach again for a play.  I duly moved away and bingo, they moved in, fingering the toy, pressing the buttons and fingering the lens

  • He put it on a tripod
  • He set it to auto
  • He moved away

That's out of his control.

You gonna share the fried crow with PBD? Maybe you prefer yours deep fried.
from
Sulawesi macaques...

"......I wanted to keep my new found friends happy and with me.  I now wanted to get right in their faces with a wide angle lens, but that was proving too difficult as they were nervous of something - I couldn't tell what.  So I put my camera on a tripod with a very wide angle lens, settings configured such as predictive autofocus, motorwind, even a flashgun, to give me a chance of a facial close up if they were to approach again for a play.  I duly moved away and bingo, they moved in, fingering the toy, pressing the buttons and fingering the lens.  I was then to witness one of the funniest things ever as they grinned, grimaced and bared teeth at themselves in the reflection of the large glassy lens. Was this what they where afraid of earlier?  Perhaps also the sight of the shutter planes moving within the lens also amused or scared them?  They played with the camera until of course some images were inevitably taken!  I had one hand on the tripod when this was going on, ..."

Is that the best you can do?  I read that, but how many photographer's assistants have had "one hand on the tripod" to steady it, and there's no way you'd give them copyright.  That's an absurdly weak claim on an image.  If he had had one hand on the tripod and one on a remote shutter release that would do it.  But the monkeys framed the shot when they "grinned, grimaced and bared teeth at themselves in the reflection of the large glassy lens."  Then "They played with the camera until of course some images were inevitably taken."

Nope, you are still badly mistaken.  Slater doesn't own the shot: it's either nobody, or it's the Indonesian government.

204
Business of Photography/Videography / Re: Who owns the photo?
« on: August 11, 2014, 06:58:59 PM »
........
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. …...


For the successful photos in question the camera never left Slater's physical control.



You obviously didn't read it.  It says right in the blog that it absolutely left his control.

 So I put my camera on a tripod with a very wide angle lens, settings configured such as predictive autofocus, motorwind, even a flashgun, to give me a chance of a facial close up if they were to approach again for a play.  I duly moved away and bingo, they moved in, fingering the toy, pressing the buttons and fingering the lens

  • He put it on a tripod
  • He set it to auto
  • He moved away
That's out of his control.

205
Business of Photography/Videography / Re: Who owns the photo?
« on: August 11, 2014, 06:43:05 PM »
Misrepresentation of intellectual property is a real problem, but is a separate question.  Presumably the photographer's integrity comes into play somewhere.   Also, if metadata shows 12mm FL and a simian face fills the screen, with a furry arm reaching toward the camera body...well...um...that might give it away.  You may ask about altering the metadata to show different focal length, and I would ask how that differs from changing the copyright owner in the metadata.
What I am trying to say is that if pressing the shutter, as described above, gives someone the right to a photo, without taking into consideration all the effort the real photographer behind the creation put then our copyright law is all wrong or simply outdated. It's foundation is to promote creation. We are not in the era of point and shoot any longer. Pressing the shutter has no meaning in terms of art creation. Planning, staging, organizing, configuring, posing, human relation, post processing, printing and the rest, do!
As someone stated earlier, money talks (we are leaving in imperialistic countries, or whatever they call us these days) and whoever has the pocket wins. You won in court, doesn't necessary mean you are right.
No matter what you say, you won't convince me that pressing the shutter means much more to you than the money invested in gear, the time invested in training, the hour invested in posing and staging, the effort spending in post-processing, etc.
I am a photographer and not a point and shooter after all!
Just my two cents!


Let me see if I can clarify.  First, it's not pushing the shutter button, it's framing the image that (in my opinion) is the defining act.  To my mind, a timed or tripwire shot does belong to to the photographer if the framing of the resulting image is what the photographer specifically set up.  That's not the case here: the macaque re-framed the shot.

Imagine that a writer (or publisher) gave 10,000 (very durable) computers to 10,000 macaques, and collected everything they typed.  That writer/publisher would have had a great idea for provoking content from the critters, and can be credited for creating the environment.  But that writer/publisher didn't actually set down the words that emerged from the primate fingers.  At most, that writer/publisher could be considered the muse that inspired the creation.

Similarly, the photographer here created a fertile environment, but did NOT create the shots themselves.  He was, at best, the macaque's enabler or inspiration.  The photos were framed and shot by the macaque.  To repeat: it was a creative act to enable the macaque, but that is a separate act of creativity from the photos themselves.

<added as edit>Think of all the photographers who lead workshops to photogenic locations, and set up good material in advance for the students to point-n-click.  Even though the teacher set up everything (location, perspective, time of day, subject material) the photographer is not entitled to copyright for those photos.

206
Business of Photography/Videography / Re: Who owns the photo?
« on: August 11, 2014, 06:07:42 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)

Just out of curiosity, I am not saying who is wrong or right, just curiosity.
How would you prove that they pressed the shutter? On the photo, it is the name of the photographer that appears, he owns the raw file, the lens was rented on his credit card and so on...
What prevents a thief from saying that he pressed the shutter of an award winning photo? Not sure about that law.
I must admit, the example of the branch is funny.

Misrepresentation of intellectual property is a real problem, but is a separate question.  Presumably the photographer's integrity comes into play somewhere.   Also, if metadata shows 12mm FL and a simian face fills the screen, with a furry arm reaching toward the camera body...well...um...that might give it away.  You may ask about altering the metadata to show different focal length, and I would ask how that differs from changing the copyright owner in the metadata.


207
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)

208
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


209
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.

210
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)

Pages: 1 ... 12 13 [14] 15 16 ... 55