GREEN VIGNETTING Sigma DP-1

On Feb 28, 1:19 am, TRoss wrote:
On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 19:19:06 -0800, "Mr. Strat"

wrote:
In article
,
RichA wrote:

Oh! Sorry, I didn't know it was copyrighted. So if a newspaper comes
out in the evening, and a story was reported in a different paper
earlier that afternoon, that evening paper now has to cite the
afternoon paper? The guy who posted DIDN'T take the images.

Far be it from me to defend RichA, but he didn't say that he took the
pictures...he just posted a link, and commented on how crappy it was.

Rander pretty much lifted his comment from a thread on dpreview. Seehttp://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1000&message=26947193

It's not the first time he's taken something from a DPR forum and
reposted it to Usenet without attribution.

TR

I don't see any copyright on the forum posts so who cares?

In article , nospam
wrote:

for what it's worth, they've fixed the image. that means that not only
did they not look at them before initially posting them, but also that
these samples are *processed* files and not directly from the camera.

Imagine that...

On Feb 28, 9:15 pm, TRoss wrote:
On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 15:59:26 -0800 (PST), RichA
wrote:



On Feb 28, 1:19 am, TRoss wrote:
On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 19:19:06 -0800, "Mr. Strat"

wrote:
In article
,
RichA wrote:

Oh! Sorry, I didn't know it was copyrighted. So if a newspaper comes
out in the evening, and a story was reported in a different paper
earlier that afternoon, that evening paper now has to cite the
afternoon paper? The guy who posted DIDN'T take the images.

Far be it from me to defend RichA, but he didn't say that he took the
pictures...he just posted a link, and commented on how crappy it was.

Rander pretty much lifted his comment from a thread on dpreview. Seehttp://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1000&message=26947193

It's not the first time he's taken something from a DPR forum and
reposted it to Usenet without attribution.

TR

I don't see any copyright on the forum posts so who cares?

You know less about copyright than you do about photography. It's a
common misconception that something must have a copyright notice in
order to be protected by copyright.

Regardless, dpreview specifially stated forum posts are owned by and
the opinion of the poster. I suspect this was done to reduce its
liability than to protect the rights of the forum posters; however, it
explicitly assigns ownership.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/rules.asp?forum=1000

Legal ownership - Each message posted is owned by and the
opinion of the original poster. Neither dpreview.com nor its
owners or webmaster are legally responsible for anything posted
on these forums. The webmaster reserves the right to remove
any or all of your messages at any time and ban you if he sees fit.

Even if copyright didn't apply, you shouldn't repost someone else's
articles in a way that makes it look like your own. It's dishonest,
deceitful, and disingenuous. It reduces your already low credibility,
and calls to question anything you post.

TR

Again, as a side issue, who cares about the supposed "ownership"
conferred by Dpreview? But the only people who could construe that it
was mine are those too STUPID to realize it didn't originate in this
forum from me. You see, this is why they put things like "do not take
internally" on bottles of drain cleaner, because the average adult is
pathetically stupid, lazy and brainless.

In article 906f41f5-aa67-4f6d-899d-603790c02864
@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com, says...
-On Feb 28, 9:15 pm, TRoss wrote:
- On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 15:59:26 -0800 (PST), RichA
- wrote:
-
-
-
- On Feb 28, 1:19 am, TRoss wrote:
- On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 19:19:06 -0800, "Mr. Strat"
-
- wrote:
- In article
- ,
- RichA wrote:
-
- Oh! Sorry, I didn't know it was copyrighted. So if a newspaper comes
- out in the evening, and a story was reported in a different paper
- earlier that afternoon, that evening paper now has to cite the
- afternoon paper? The guy who posted DIDN'T take the images.
-
- Far be it from me to defend RichA, but he didn't say that he took the
- pictures...he just posted a link, and commented on how crappy it was.
-
- Rander pretty much lifted his comment from a thread on dpreview. Seehttp://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1000&message=26947193
-
- It's not the first time he's taken something from a DPR forum and
- reposted it to Usenet without attribution.
-
- TR
-
- I don't see any copyright on the forum posts so who cares?
-
- You know less about copyright than you do about photography. It's a
- common misconception that something must have a copyright notice in
- order to be protected by copyright.
-
- Regardless, dpreview specifially stated forum posts are owned by and
- the opinion of the poster. I suspect this was done to reduce its
- liability than to protect the rights of the forum posters; however, it
- explicitly assigns ownership.
-
- http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/rules.asp?forum=1000
-
- Legal ownership - Each message posted is owned by and the
- opinion of the original poster. Neither dpreview.com nor its
- owners or webmaster are legally responsible for anything posted
- on these forums. The webmaster reserves the right to remove
- any or all of your messages at any time and ban you if he sees fit.
-
- Even if copyright didn't apply, you shouldn't repost someone else's
- articles in a way that makes it look like your own. It's dishonest,
- deceitful, and disingenuous. It reduces your already low credibility,
- and calls to question anything you post.
-
- TR
-
-Again, as a side issue, who cares about the supposed "ownership"
-conferred by Dpreview? But the only people who could construe that it
-was mine are those too STUPID to realize it didn't originate in this
-forum from me.

ReRead the copyright laws.

--
Bob Crownfield

On Feb 29, 12:00 am, crownfield wrote:
In article 906f41f5-aa67-4f6d-899d-603790c02864
@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com, says...
-On Feb 28, 9:15 pm, TRoss wrote:
- On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 15:59:26 -0800 (PST), RichA - wrote:

-
-
-
- On Feb 28, 1:19 am, TRoss wrote:
- On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 19:19:06 -0800, "Mr. Strat"
-- wrote:

- In article
- ,
- RichA wrote:
-
- Oh! Sorry, I didn't know it was copyrighted. So if a newspaper comes
- out in the evening, and a story was reported in a different paper
- earlier that afternoon, that evening paper now has to cite the
- afternoon paper? The guy who posted DIDN'T take the images.
-
- Far be it from me to defend RichA, but he didn't say that he took the
- pictures...he just posted a link, and commented on how crappy it was.
-
- Rander pretty much lifted his comment from a thread on dpreview. Seehttp://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1000&message=26947193
-
- It's not the first time he's taken something from a DPR forum and
- reposted it to Usenet without attribution.
-
- TR
-
- I don't see any copyright on the forum posts so who cares?
-
- You know less about copyright than you do about photography. It's a
- common misconception that something must have a copyright notice in
- order to be protected by copyright.
-
- Regardless, dpreview specifially stated forum posts are owned by and
- the opinion of the poster. I suspect this was done to reduce its
- liability than to protect the rights of the forum posters; however, it
- explicitly assigns ownership.
-
-http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/rules.asp?forum=1000
-
- Legal ownership - Each message posted is owned by and the
- opinion of the original poster. Neither dpreview.com nor its
- owners or webmaster are legally responsible for anything posted
- on these forums. The webmaster reserves the right to remove
- any or all of your messages at any time and ban you if he sees fit.
-
- Even if copyright didn't apply, you shouldn't repost someone else's
- articles in a way that makes it look like your own. It's dishonest,
- deceitful, and disingenuous. It reduces your already low credibility,
- and calls to question anything you post.
-
- TR
-
-Again, as a side issue, who cares about the supposed "ownership"
-conferred by Dpreview? But the only people who could construe that it
-was mine are those too STUPID to realize it didn't originate in this
-forum from me.

ReRead the copyright laws.

--
Bob Crownfield


People often crop out pieces of reviews, etc, from other sites and
post them on dpreview. I never see dpreview censoring those posts
because they aren't copying the entire review, in effect, they are
engaging in "fair use." .

"RichA" wrote in message
...
On Feb 28, 9:15 pm, TRoss wrote:
On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 15:59:26 -0800 (PST), RichA
wrote:



On Feb 28, 1:19 am, TRoss wrote:
On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 19:19:06 -0800, "Mr. Strat"

wrote:
In article
,
RichA wrote:

Oh! Sorry, I didn't know it was copyrighted. So if a newspaper
comes
out in the evening, and a story was reported in a different paper
earlier that afternoon, that evening paper now has to cite the
afternoon paper? The guy who posted DIDN'T take the images.

Far be it from me to defend RichA, but he didn't say that he took the
pictures...he just posted a link, and commented on how crappy it was.

Rander pretty much lifted his comment from a thread on dpreview.
Seehttp://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1000&message=26947193

It's not the first time he's taken something from a DPR forum and
reposted it to Usenet without attribution.

TR

I don't see any copyright on the forum posts so who cares?

You know less about copyright than you do about photography. It's a
common misconception that something must have a copyright notice in
order to be protected by copyright.

Regardless, dpreview specifially stated forum posts are owned by and
the opinion of the poster. I suspect this was done to reduce its
liability than to protect the rights of the forum posters; however, it
explicitly assigns ownership.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/rules.asp?forum=1000

Legal ownership - Each message posted is owned by and the
opinion of the original poster. Neither dpreview.com nor its
owners or webmaster are legally responsible for anything posted
on these forums. The webmaster reserves the right to remove
any or all of your messages at any time and ban you if he sees fit.

Even if copyright didn't apply, you shouldn't repost someone else's
articles in a way that makes it look like your own. It's dishonest,
deceitful, and disingenuous. It reduces your already low credibility,
and calls to question anything you post.

TR

Again, as a side issue, who cares about the supposed "ownership"
conferred by Dpreview? But the only people who could construe that it
was mine are those too STUPID to realize it didn't originate in this
forum from me. You see, this is why they put things like "do not take
internally" on bottles of drain cleaner, because the average adult is
pathetically stupid, lazy and brainless.

Lazy is using someone's dpreview post as your own usenet post.

On Feb 29, 9:15 pm, "Pete Stavrakoglou" wrote:
"RichA" wrote in message

...



On Feb 28, 9:15 pm, TRoss wrote:
On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 15:59:26 -0800 (PST), RichA
wrote:

On Feb 28, 1:19 am, TRoss wrote:
On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 19:19:06 -0800, "Mr. Strat"

wrote:
In article
,
RichA wrote:

Oh! Sorry, I didn't know it was copyrighted. So if a newspaper
comes
out in the evening, and a story was reported in a different paper
earlier that afternoon, that evening paper now has to cite the
afternoon paper? The guy who posted DIDN'T take the images.

Far be it from me to defend RichA, but he didn't say that he took the
pictures...he just posted a link, and commented on how crappy it was.

Rander pretty much lifted his comment from a thread on dpreview.
Seehttp://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1000&message=26947193

It's not the first time he's taken something from a DPR forum and
reposted it to Usenet without attribution.

TR

I don't see any copyright on the forum posts so who cares?

You know less about copyright than you do about photography. It's a
common misconception that something must have a copyright notice in
order to be protected by copyright.

Regardless, dpreview specifially stated forum posts are owned by and
the opinion of the poster. I suspect this was done to reduce its
liability than to protect the rights of the forum posters; however, it
explicitly assigns ownership.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/rules.asp?forum=1000

Legal ownership - Each message posted is owned by and the
opinion of the original poster. Neither dpreview.com nor its
owners or webmaster are legally responsible for anything posted
on these forums. The webmaster reserves the right to remove
any or all of your messages at any time and ban you if he sees fit.

Even if copyright didn't apply, you shouldn't repost someone else's
articles in a way that makes it look like your own. It's dishonest,
deceitful, and disingenuous. It reduces your already low credibility,
and calls to question anything you post.

TR

Again, as a side issue, who cares about the supposed "ownership"
conferred by Dpreview? But the only people who could construe that it
was mine are those too STUPID to realize it didn't originate in this
forum from me. You see, this is why they put things like "do not take
internally" on bottles of drain cleaner, because the average adult is
pathetically stupid, lazy and brainless.

Lazy is using someone's dpreview post as your own usenet post.

The paint-by-number version is being prepared for your kind.