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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
copyright nonsense
|
#32
|
|||
|
|||
copyright nonsense
On Friday, 22 August 2014 23:05:59 UTC+1, nospam wrote:
if the photographer set up the camera and let the monkey take the photo, then the photographer did most of the work. in this case, the monkey took the camera away from the photographer, composed the photo and took the photo. the monkey had full control of the camera. anything the photographer did made no difference. According to: http://www.theguardian.com/technolog...-say-us-and-uk http://preview.tinyurl.com/mejlkcu 'Slater has argued that he owns the copyright to the photo because although the female macaque in the picture stole the camera and took the selfie, he set up a camera on a tripod in the Indonesian forest with the correct lighting before letting the monkeys press the buttons on it after three days with them.' So if Slater set the correct lighting and set the camera on a tripod*, then that is possibly the hardest part. Merely pressing the button is easy, and doesn't really amount to a creative act by itself. Going into the jungle, spending time with the monkeys and getting them to trust you, setting up the camera and then not chasing them away when they start playing with it, presumably imitating what they have seen you do with it, seems like a good 90% of the creative activity necessary for the given picture to result. * one of the uncropped pictures in the video on the above Guardian website shows the monkey's outstretched arm reaching towards the camera, suggesting the camera was on a tripod at the time, not being held freehand by the monkey. |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
copyright nonsense
On Fri, 22 Aug 2014 15:04:38 -0700 (PDT), sobriquet
wrote: On Friday, August 22, 2014 11:21:08 PM UTC+2, PeterN wrote: On 8/22/2014 5:00 PM, sobriquet wrote: On Friday, August 22, 2014 10:44:07 PM UTC+2, PeterN wrote: IMHO each of the individual images are in the public domain. However, the collection as a whole, and deriviations thereof are not. The concept is a bit esoteric. The alphabet is in the public domain. An original arraingment of the letters of the alphabet is not. -- PeterN Copyright is also a bit illogical and untenable.. unless you'd like to see the vast majority of the population in jail for such trivial activities as filesharing. Tell me, at what point does a bitstring start to qualify as an original arrangement of bits? 010101101011101110101000001010101010000011111111 Is that creative? Or is it only creative if the bitstring is the result of pressing the shutterbutton on a digital camera? You are trying to justify stealing and are a leach. Filesharing and photoshop compositing have nothing to do with stealing. Does that look like theft to you? http://i.imgur.com/QfsFRVa.jpg It looks more like murder. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
copyright nonsense
On Saturday, 23 August 2014 00:23:58 UTC+1, pensive hamster wrote:
[...] * one of the uncropped pictures in the video on the above Guardian website shows the monkey's outstretched arm reaching towards the camera, suggesting the camera was on a tripod at the time, not being held freehand by the monkey. This is possibly a better webpage to look at: http://petapixel.com/2014/08/08/phot...monkey-selfie/ In the video, Slater says he set the camera up on a tripod with a remote (cable?) shutter release for the monkeys to use. Just below the video, there is a pair of monkey photos. The RH uncropped one is the one I had in mind in my previous post, with the monkey's outstretched arm reaching towards the camera. This looks entirely consistent with the camera being on a tripod and being operated by the monkey with a cable release. |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
copyright nonsense
On 8/22/2014 6:04 PM, sobriquet wrote:
On Friday, August 22, 2014 11:21:08 PM UTC+2, PeterN wrote: On 8/22/2014 5:00 PM, sobriquet wrote: On Friday, August 22, 2014 10:44:07 PM UTC+2, PeterN wrote: IMHO each of the individual images are in the public domain. However, the collection as a whole, and deriviations thereof are not. The concept is a bit esoteric. The alphabet is in the public domain. An original arraingment of the letters of the alphabet is not. -- PeterN Copyright is also a bit illogical and untenable.. unless you'd like to see the vast majority of the population in jail for such trivial activities as filesharing. Tell me, at what point does a bitstring start to qualify as an original arrangement of bits? 010101101011101110101000001010101010000011111111 Is that creative? Or is it only creative if the bitstring is the result of pressing the shutterbutton on a digital camera? You are trying to justify stealing and are a leach. Filesharing and photoshop compositing have nothing to do with stealing. I have never seen you share your own work. All you do is sponge off th work of others. Does that look like theft to you? http://i.imgur.com/QfsFRVa.jpg -- PeterN |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
copyright nonsense
On Saturday, August 23, 2014 2:51:10 AM UTC+2, PeterN wrote:
[..] I have never seen you share your own work. All you do is sponge off th work of others. That's a bit like saying to a DJ; I've never heard you create any music. All you do is sponge off the work of others. Or one might claim the same of performing musicians as opposed to composers. If it was up to the intellectual property mafia, people aren't even allowed to do anything with culture except slavishly and passively consume it. It's people like me who object to this one-sided view, claiming the freedom to produce culture in addition to consuming culture, including the freedom to remix, modify and build upon the creations of others. Just like a professional artist like Jeff Koons has the creative freedom to use a picture from someone else without permission and incorporate it into one of his artworks. Which was acknowledged to be an instance of fair use, rather than copyright infringement. Likewise I have the creative freedom to incorporate imagery I encounter in my environment (on- or offline) in photoshop compositions. |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
copyright nonsense
On 8/22/2014 9:12 PM, sobriquet wrote:
On Saturday, August 23, 2014 2:51:10 AM UTC+2, PeterN wrote: [..] I have never seen you share your own work. All you do is sponge off th work of others. That's a bit like saying to a DJ; I've never heard you create any music. All you do is sponge off the work of others. Or one might claim the same of performing musicians as opposed to composers. If it was up to the intellectual property mafia, people aren't even allowed to do anything with culture except slavishly and passively consume it. It's people like me who object to this one-sided view, claiming the freedom to produce culture in addition to consuming culture, including the freedom to remix, modify and build upon the creations of others. Just like a professional artist like Jeff Koons has the creative freedom to use a picture from someone else without permission and incorporate it into one of his artworks. Which was acknowledged to be an instance of fair use, rather than copyright infringement. Likewise I have the creative freedom to incorporate imagery I encounter in my environment (on- or offline) in photoshop compositions. Tell that to a judge. -- PeterN |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
copyright nonsense
On Fri, 22 Aug 2014 18:12:25 -0700 (PDT), sobriquet
wrote: On Saturday, August 23, 2014 2:51:10 AM UTC+2, PeterN wrote: [..] I have never seen you share your own work. All you do is sponge off th work of others. That's a bit like saying to a DJ; I've never heard you create any music. All you do is sponge off the work of others. Or one might claim the same of performing musicians as opposed to composers. If it was up to the intellectual property mafia, people aren't even allowed to do anything with culture except slavishly and passively consume it. Quite the contrary, you are allowed to create it, you are even encouraged to create it: you are given legal control of your rights to use your creation for your own benefit. The only problem is that the world is full of parasites who rip off the cultural creator by using the creation for their own ends and without authority. It's people like me who object to this one-sided view, claiming the freedom to produce culture in addition to consuming culture, including the freedom to remix, modify and build upon the creations of others. Just like a professional artist like Jeff Koons has the creative freedom to use a picture from someone else without permission and incorporate it into one of his artworks. Which was acknowledged to be an instance of fair use, rather than copyright infringement. Likewise I have the creative freedom to incorporate imagery I encounter in my environment (on- or offline) in photoshop compositions. But you are no Jeff Koons. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
copyright nonsense
On 2014-08-23 07:12:02 +0000, Alfred Molon said:
In article , sobriquet says... http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/...copyright.html http://www.burnsautoparts.com/blog/ A sensible discussion. -- Regards, Savageduck |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Youtube copyright infringements are not all bad for the copyright holders? | Colin B | Digital Photography | 191 | January 19th 07 10:00 AM |
HOA nonsense | Tony Rice | Digital Photography | 6 | October 3rd 06 09:04 AM |
nonsense posts | Robert | Digital Photography | 9 | April 26th 06 12:57 AM |
Nonsense Posts? | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 8 | April 16th 06 08:16 AM |
What's this "mint" nonsense? | WinkenBlinken& Nod | 35mm Equipment for Sale | 0 | July 1st 03 07:51 AM |