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

copyright nonsense



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #32  
Old August 23rd 14, 12:23 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
pensive hamster
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 37
Default 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  
Old August 23rd 14, 12:25 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,611
Default 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  
Old August 23rd 14, 12:41 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
pensive hamster
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 37
Default 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  
Old August 23rd 14, 01:51 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
PeterN[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 741
Default 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  
Old August 23rd 14, 02:12 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
sobriquet
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 398
Default 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  
Old August 23rd 14, 02:14 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
PeterN[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 741
Default 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  
Old August 23rd 14, 02:27 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,611
Default 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  
Old August 23rd 14, 02:38 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,487
Default 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

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
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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:26 PM.


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.