A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Super Bokeh with Yongnuo!



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old May 24th 18, 12:05 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
David B.[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 195
Default Super Bokeh with Yongnuo!

On 24-May-18 10:25 AM, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 23 May 2018 18:40:04 UTC+1, David B. wrote:
On 23-May-18 12:48 AM, Savageduck wrote:
Dropbox is on a server. However, with macOS at least, one also has a local
Dropbox folder, and that folder, along with all the sub-folders, and files
are visible in the Finder.


Are you sure that is supposed to happen? Who puts that local Dropbox
folder onto your Mac?


I have, I didn't want to, but just tried it out.


Thanks for letting me know.

Did you grant permission for that?


Most people do have permissions to do things on their own computer.


Of course! :-D

--
D.

  #32  
Old May 24th 18, 01:15 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
android
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,854
Default Super Bokeh with Yongnuo!

On 2018-05-24 11:05:33 +0000, David B. said:

On 24-May-18 10:25 AM, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 23 May 2018 18:40:04 UTC+1, David B. wrote:
On 23-May-18 12:48 AM, Savageduck wrote:
Dropbox is on a server. However, with macOS at least, one also has a local
Dropbox folder, and that folder, along with all the sub-folders, and files
are visible in the Finder.

Are you sure that is supposed to happen? Who puts that local Dropbox
folder onto your Mac?


I have, I didn't want to, but just tried it out.


Thanks for letting me know.

Did you grant permission for that?


Most people do have permissions to do things on their own computer.


Of course! :-D


And you're a superuser admin, right?
--
teleportation kills

  #33  
Old May 24th 18, 02:27 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default Super Bokeh with Yongnuo!

In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote:

Nicely done image. The green reflections in the grill add a mysterious
and abstract look. I hope you are still doing that kind of work.


But according to nospam (not that you should always listen to hine ;-) )
savageduck is guilty of theft because he has uploaded an image to a server
that he doesn't own. Although I doubt savageduck cares much he he is more
likely to understand the law more than most on here especially nospam appears to.


he took the photo, so he *does* own it and can do whatever he wants
with it.
  #34  
Old May 24th 18, 04:17 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default Super Bokeh with Yongnuo!

In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote:

Nicely done image. The green reflections in the grill add a mysterious
and abstract look. I hope you are still doing that kind of work.

But according to nospam (not that you should always listen to hine ;-) )
savageduck is guilty of theft because he has uploaded an image to a server
that he doesn't own. Although I doubt savageduck cares much he he is more
likely to understand the law more than most on here especially nospam
appears to.


he took the photo, so he *does* own it and can do whatever he wants
with it.


He can do whatever he wants with it but you're claim is that adobe can't have
backup software that copies this file to their servers because copying is
theft and illegal. I don't know if SD uses any other backup service that bakc
up to an online system that he doesn't own.


his agreeing to adobe's terms of service grants them a non-exclusive
license to make copies because that is going to happen between their
own servers. it's not so that adobe can repost photos elsewhere without
permission.

The other instresting thing about nicknames is does savageduck own it, I
assume the copyright info is in his own name.


it is.

As I was explaing to DB savageducks copyright on that image is for fair use,
just because he copies it, that in itself is NOT an illegal act, what SD
could do is claim copyright infringment in that DB has uploaded it to a
public server FB without SD's permission, but I don't think SD could use the
charge of theft and that is the point.


it's his image and he gets to decide how it can be distributed and what
remedies he wants to pursue should anyone infringe upon it.
  #35  
Old May 24th 18, 04:37 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
android
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,854
Default Super Bokeh with Yongnuo!

On 2018-05-24 15:32:00 +0000, Whisky-dave said:

Yes I know that what I was saying, it;s notn the copying that is illegal.
As you say it's the reposting of something without permission that
would break the law, and if adobe should do that without permission
they would NOT be charged with theft but something to do with
copyright. There's a differnce.


https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...13210998.shtml

In Dowling v. US, where Justice Blackmun makes it clear that
infringement and theft are two different things.


In local terminology but not in practice...
--
teleportation kills

  #36  
Old May 24th 18, 05:08 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default Super Bokeh with Yongnuo!

In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote:

he took the photo, so he *does* own it and can do whatever he wants
with it.

He can do whatever he wants with it but you're claim is that adobe can't
have
backup software that copies this file to their servers because copying is
theft and illegal. I don't know if SD uses any other backup service that
bakc
up to an online system that he doesn't own.


his agreeing to adobe's terms of service grants them a non-exclusive
license to make copies because that is going to happen between their
own servers. it's not so that adobe can repost photos elsewhere without
permission.


Yes I know that what I was saying, it;s notn the copying that is illegal.
As you say it's the reposting of something without permission that would
break the law, and if adobe should do that without permission they would NOT
be charged with theft but something to do with copyright. There's a
differnce.


not one that matters.

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...13210998.shtml

In Dowling v. US, where Justice Blackmun makes it clear that infringement and
theft are two different things.


theft of physical property and theft of intellectual property are
different, but again, it isn't anything that matters in this context.
  #37  
Old May 24th 18, 09:36 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,611
Default Super Bokeh with Yongnuo!

On Thu, 24 May 2018 08:32:00 -0700 (PDT), Whisky-dave
wrote:

On Thursday, 24 May 2018 16:18:04 UTC+1, nospam wrote:
In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote:

Nicely done image. The green reflections in the grill add a mysterious
and abstract look. I hope you are still doing that kind of work.

But according to nospam (not that you should always listen to hine ;-) )
savageduck is guilty of theft because he has uploaded an image to a server
that he doesn't own. Although I doubt savageduck cares much he he is more
likely to understand the law more than most on here especially nospam
appears to.

he took the photo, so he *does* own it and can do whatever he wants
with it.

He can do whatever he wants with it but you're claim is that adobe can't have
backup software that copies this file to their servers because copying is
theft and illegal. I don't know if SD uses any other backup service that bakc
up to an online system that he doesn't own.


his agreeing to adobe's terms of service grants them a non-exclusive
license to make copies because that is going to happen between their
own servers. it's not so that adobe can repost photos elsewhere without
permission.


Yes I know that what I was saying, it;s notn the copying that is illegal.
As you say it's the reposting of something without permission that would break the law, and if adobe should do that without permission they would NOT be charged with theft but something to do with copyright. There's a differnce.


https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...13210998.shtml

In Dowling v. US, where Justice Blackmun makes it clear that infringement and theft are two different things.

"His overall argument, however, is that there's nothing wrong with
calling copyright infringement theft, because beyond the legal
definition, it accurately shows how people feel about having works
infringed, and that's useful to the debate on these issues:"




The other instresting thing about nicknames is does savageduck own it, I
assume the copyright info is in his own name.


it is.

As I was explaing to DB savageducks copyright on that image is for fair use,
just because he copies it, that in itself is NOT an illegal act, what SD
could do is claim copyright infringment in that DB has uploaded it to a
public server FB without SD's permission, but I don't think SD could use the
charge of theft and that is the point.


it's his image and he gets to decide how it can be distributed and what
remedies he wants to pursue should anyone infringe upon it.

--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #38  
Old May 25th 18, 12:13 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
android
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,854
Default Super Bokeh with Yongnuo!

On 2018-05-25 09:51:11 +0000, Dense Dave AKA Whisky-dave said:

On Thursday, 24 May 2018 16:37:31 UTC+1, android wrote:
On 2018-05-24 15:32:00 +0000, Whisky-dave said:

Yes I know that what I was saying, it;s notn the copying that is illegal.
As you say it's the reposting of something without permission that
would break the law, and if adobe should do that without permission
they would NOT be charged with theft but something to do with
copyright. There's a differnce.


https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...13210998.shtml

In Dowling v. US, where Justice Blackmun makes it clear that
infringement and theft are two different things.


In local terminology but not in practice...


and in practice, otherwise they;d be no need for a copyright law just
charge anyone that copies with theft.


Punitive damages sees no difference between theft and "infringement".
You're wrong yet again...
--
teleportation kills

  #39  
Old May 25th 18, 03:16 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default Super Bokeh with Yongnuo!

In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote:

In Dowling v. US, where Justice Blackmun makes it clear that infringement
and
theft are two different things.


theft of physical property and theft of intellectual property are
different, but again, it isn't anything that matters in this context.


The reason you don't think it matter because you don't understand it.


oh yes i do, *far* more than you do.
  #40  
Old May 25th 18, 04:19 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
android
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,854
Default Super Bokeh with Yongnuo!

On 2018-05-25 13:34:29 +0000, Whisky-dave said:

On Friday, 25 May 2018 12:13:08 UTC+1, android wrote:
On 2018-05-25 09:51:11 +0000, Dense Dave AKA Whisky-dave said:

On Thursday, 24 May 2018 16:37:31 UTC+1, android wrote:
On 2018-05-24 15:32:00 +0000, Whisky-dave said:

Yes I know that what I was saying, it;s notn the copying that is illegal.
As you say it's the reposting of something without permission that
would break the law, and if adobe should do that without permission
they would NOT be charged with theft but something to do with
copyright. There's a differnce.


https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...13210998.shtml

In Dowling v. US, where Justice Blackmun makes it clear that
infringement and theft are two different things.

In local terminology but not in practice...

and in practice, otherwise they;d be no need for a copyright law just
charge anyone that copies with theft.


Punitive damages sees no difference between theft and "infringement".
You're wrong yet again...


Irrelivant we had Punitive Damages in the uk about 100 years before the USA.
Long before copyright existed.


You don't undrestand the meaning of punitive obviously...
--
teleportation kills

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Nikon Mount Yongnuo 100/2.0 for Christmas? android Digital Photography 0 June 7th 17 04:58 PM
Yongnuo 100/2.0 for Christmas? android Digital Photography 0 June 7th 17 04:56 PM
Good bokeh? Bad bokeh? Pablo Digital Photography 84 July 15th 12 08:07 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:09 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.