photography documentaries
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: Tim Conway on 23 Jun 2010 08:55 "sobriquet" <dohduhdah(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:88615a68-5ef9-4477-8761-507099246983(a)d37g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... On 23 jun, 08:22, rfisc...(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote: > sobriquet <dohduh...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >On 21 jun, 17:31, "whisky-dave" <whisky-d...(a)final.front.ear> wrote: > >> "sobriquet" <dohduh...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > >>news:eeb20c84-5ae8-4015-a2c8-f473a0239d4c(a)x21g2000yqa.googlegroups.com... > > >> >I never take anything as my own. I just share information with others > >> >as I see fit and engaging in this activity is simply a matter of > >> >exercising a basic human right. > > >> Why is it you never share information that you have created, and what > >> if > >> someone else puts up your information without your permission ? > >> Do you think it's still yours or does it belong to everyone ? > > >You should learn to quote properly. I regularly share information I > >have created and > >if someone else shares my information with other people who collect > >information, that's > >just fine because it's a human right to share and exchange > >information. > > Is that why this is under photoos you claim are yours? > > "Some rights reserved" > > -- > Ray Fischer > rfisc...(a)sonic.net >Well that could mean anything, like perhaps I don't want others to >share my pictures and >claim they are their own pictures. I don't share photography >documentaries from others claiming I've made them myself. Isn't that what we've been saying all along? I don't want anyone taking my photos without my permission. Nor do I yours.
From: sobriquet on 23 Jun 2010 10:36 On 23 jun, 14:55, "Tim Conway" <tconway_...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > "sobriquet" <dohduh...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > > news:88615a68-5ef9-4477-8761-507099246983(a)d37g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... > On 23 jun, 08:22, rfisc...(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote: > > > > > > > sobriquet <dohduh...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > >On 21 jun, 17:31, "whisky-dave" <whisky-d...(a)final.front.ear> wrote: > > >> "sobriquet" <dohduh...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > > >>news:eeb20c84-5ae8-4015-a2c8-f473a0239d4c(a)x21g2000yqa.googlegroups.com... > > > >> >I never take anything as my own. I just share information with others > > >> >as I see fit and engaging in this activity is simply a matter of > > >> >exercising a basic human right. > > > >> Why is it you never share information that you have created, and what > > >> if > > >> someone else puts up your information without your permission ? > > >> Do you think it's still yours or does it belong to everyone ? > > > >You should learn to quote properly. I regularly share information I > > >have created and > > >if someone else shares my information with other people who collect > > >information, that's > > >just fine because it's a human right to share and exchange > > >information. > > > Is that why this is under photoos you claim are yours? > > > "Some rights reserved" > > > -- > > Ray Fischer > > rfisc...(a)sonic.net > >Well that could mean anything, like perhaps I don't want others to > >share my pictures and > >claim they are their own pictures. I don't share photography > >documentaries from others claiming I've made them myself. > > Isn't that what we've been saying all along? I don't want anyone taking my > photos without my permission. Nor do I yours. Then you have to keep your photos of the internet. If you scatter your valuable possessions out on the streets wherever you go, you can't expect the police to help protect your possessions. Same goes for photos. If you don't want anyone taking your photos without your permission then you shouldn't allow them to end up in the hands of others. If you simply keep your photos to yourself, nobody will break into your house to obtain a copy of your photos to share with others.
From: sobriquet on 23 Jun 2010 10:47 On 23 jun, 14:49, "whisky-dave" <whisky-d...(a)final.front.ear> wrote: > "sobriquet" <dohduh...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > > news:52c66482-d7a9-47a1-9282-37e4ef1bc97e(a)u26g2000yqu.googlegroups.com... > > > On 22 jun, 14:22, "whisky-dave" <whisky-d...(a)final.front.ear> wrote: > >> "sobriquet" <dohduh...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > > >>news:92b0cbc2-a741-415d-b101-a6bd5a10e74f(a)q12g2000yqj.googlegroups.com.... > > >> >Kind of ironic to hear a nazi cockroach like you lecturing others on > >> >how to recognize someone with nazi sympathies. > > >> How do you recognise a Nazi cockroach do they have swastikas on their > >> back ? > > > No, you recognize them by the way they advocate human rights > > violations. > > You mean as you see them or as they actually are. > The UDHR is very clear about the right to share and exchange information regardless of any spurious intellectual property claims. > >> How about the human right to keep your information private > > > Well, nobody is arguing that everybody must disclose all their > > information, > > But yuo said all information belongs in the public domain. It does. Just because information belongs to the public domain, that doesn't mean that it can't be private property. You might own a book that has been published so long ago that any copyright claims have long been expired, but that doesn't mean that anyone can break into your house to obtain a copy from that book just because it belongs to the public domain. > > >but once they publish > > their information, > > You 'publish' your information when you use your credit card don't you. I don't have any credit card. > And what if someone else publishes your information without your permission. > But then again only a Nazi cockroach would stop information that's been > published from being shared, would you object to your bank details being > shared ? > Now who's the Nazi cockroach. You're a nazi cockroach. I have never claimed that credit card details don't belong to the public domain, but nobody has ever argued that just because some items of information belong to the public domain implies that you must share them with others. You can always keep information to yourself, even if that information belongs to the public domain. This discussion is only concerned with information that has been published by people who subsequently claim they get to dictate terms and conditions regarding access to that information. > > > An artist can't sell a painting and dictate to the new owner that it's > > not allowed to hang the painting > > in front of a window where people from the outside are able to enjoy > > it as well. > > No one has ever said that That's on par with people who put their pictures on the internet and claim that this doesn't imply that other people are allowed to obtain a copy from those pictures and share it with others as they see fit. > > A strawman is what you're refering to. > > >> how about your right to tell a person a secret but not to have someone > >> else > >> blurt it out to everyone else in the world. > > > That's not a right. It's not like you can tell a secret to random > > people with the remark that they > > are not allowed to share that information with others and expecting > > them not to share that information > > with others. > > Why not ? doctors are suposed to be confidental There is a difference between random people and doctors. Doctors are bound by special constraints given the personal information they exchange with their patients. This discussion is not about confidential information. It's about information shared with others by its creators who subsequently claim they still get to impose their terms and conditions on that information after it has been published. > > > If you share a secret with someone, you can only expect > > them to keep it a secret when > > you know that person to some degree so you can judge whether or not > > they will keep your information > > to themselves or share it with others. So that's confidentiality in > > the context of an interpersonal relationship. > > yep, but what if someone stole that information and then gave it to someone > else. Then it's not necessarily the person who shares it with others that is to blame. The blame lays with the individual who stole the information and it's that person who is accountable for any problems that arise later on as a consequence of that crime. > > > > >> Would you really want your doctor to tell the world of your problem(s).. > >> Some we all know about but what of the others. > > > That would be fine with me. But that's all besides the point. People > > who create stuff usually don't intend > > their creations to remain confidential, they just mistakenly > > presuppose that they get to dictate the terms and conditions under > > which people are allowed to access their creative output. > > Yes and that's why there are laws to protect those people that actually do > soemthing worthwhile unlike some others. Those laws can't be taken serious given the way the government is a mere extension of the intellectual property mafia. Just like the laws in former Nazi Germany couldn't be taken seriously either, given that the government was behaving in a criminal way and violating human rights.
From: Pete on 23 Jun 2010 13:07 On 2010-06-23 15:36:40 +0100, sobriquet said: > <snipped for brevity> > Then you have to keep your photos of the internet. If you scatter your > valuable possessions out on the streets wherever you go, you can't > expect the police to help protect your possessions. Same goes for > photos. If you don't want anyone taking your photos without your > permission then you shouldn't allow them to end up in the hands of > others. If you simply keep your photos to yourself, nobody will break > into your house to obtain a copy of your photos to share with others. Three genuine questions... 1. If I make one of my photos available on a public website (as I would if I wanted a critique of it), have I published it and/or given up some of my rights? The reason I ask is this: if I later wish to submit the photo for publication or make prints available for sale, I expect to be asked "Has this image already been published? Is it available for sale anywhere?" along with other questions to establish my authenticity. 2. If I have one of my photos published in, say, a journal or have sold it via a local gallery/shop or it hangs on the wall of a local coffee shop: would it be unkind/unfair to later put the image on a public website? My gut feeling is that the answer is yes to both questions. I realize the answer may depend on the pixel size of the image I put on a website e.g. a 200x200 pixel image is not capable producing a large print, which leads to: 3. What is the maximum image size to put on a website such that one can still keep "ownership" of the photo? Again, I realize that an image of a sheet of white paper only needs one pixel to make a huge print. Feedback will be greatly appreciated. -- Pete
From: sobriquet on 23 Jun 2010 13:43
On 23 jun, 19:07, Pete <available.on.requ...(a)aserver.invalid> wrote: > On 2010-06-23 15:36:40 +0100, sobriquet said: > > > <snipped for brevity> > > Then you have to keep your photos of the internet. If you scatter your > > valuable possessions out on the streets wherever you go, you can't > > expect the police to help protect your possessions. Same goes for > > photos. If you don't want anyone taking your photos without your > > permission then you shouldn't allow them to end up in the hands of > > others. If you simply keep your photos to yourself, nobody will break > > into your house to obtain a copy of your photos to share with others. > > Three genuine questions... > > 1. If I make one of my photos available on a public website (as I would > if I wanted a critique of it), have I published it and/or given up some > of my rights? That depends on a reasonable interpretation of 'rights'. It doesn't mean you get to impose arbitrary terms and conditions on what people are allowed to do with a picture that they encounter on the internet if you put your own pictures online somewhere. It would be silly to suppose you can dictate that they can't retain a copy of your picture or they can't share such a copy with others. That's equally silly as a painter who sells a painting and expects he has the right to impose arbitrary restrictions on the way the new owner of the painting is allowed to enjoy that work of art, like saying the painting is not allowed to be hung in front of a window where it's visible from the street or that the owner is not allowed to take a picture of the painting or allow anyone to take a picture of the painting. On the other hand, if people try to sell your picture or claim they have made it, or they use your picture in some way to make money without consulting the original photographer in advance about this, I think it becomes a different matter. That's more like a genuine rip- off on the creative efforts of someone else. But if you share their stuff with others via the internet without any commercial interests whatsoever, it's a different issue and you don't really infringe on their right or ability to make a living from their creative skills. A photographer or artist can always decide to show his work in a private venue where he obviously does have the right to prohibit people from taking pictures of his work in order to prevent it from ending up in the hands of others where the original photographer or artist is practically unable to impose controls on how their creative output is used or shared. > > The reason I ask is this: if I later wish to submit the photo for > publication or make prints available for sale, I expect to be asked > "Has this image already been published? Is it available for sale > anywhere?" along with other questions to establish my authenticity. You can say the picture has been available online (perhaps a reduced version, where you retain the original or the raw files in full resolution). Most photographers don't share their raw files online, so they always are able to proof they were the original creators of a picture if someone tries to exploit their work financially without negotiating the terms of such a commercial deal in advance with the original creator of the work (in order to allow them a fair share of the profits). > > 2. If I have one of my photos published in, say, a journal or have sold > it via a local gallery/shop or it hangs on the wall of a local coffee > shop: would it be unkind/unfair to later put the image on a public > website? I don't see how one necessarily detracts from the other. But if you sell pictures it does make sense to tell the new owner about the status of your picture regarding the number of copies that have been sold or might be sold in the future. You might agree to sell pictures exclusively and then it would be fair not to sell the pictures to others or give them away, but you can also sell them to everyone, just like many people can buy and enjoy the same music and it doesn't really detract from the pleasure that a copy of the music is available to many people, so it's not a somewhat more exclusive experience like visiting a live concert of music. Imagine a musician records music and he sells only a limited number of copies, say 100 copies, I don't see how these people are going to enjoy their copy more, knowing that only 100 copies have been sold or whether they would enjoy it to the same degree knowing that 100.000.000 copies have been sold. > > My gut feeling is that the answer is yes to both questions. I realize > the answer may depend on the pixel size of the image I put on a website > e.g. a 200x200 pixel image is not capable producing a large print, > which leads to: > > 3. What is the maximum image size to put on a website such that one can > still keep "ownership" of the photo? Again, I realize that an image of > a sheet of white paper only needs one pixel to make a huge print. That depends on technological developments and the way they (ought to) influence our interpretation of rights associated with the creation of digital content (like the right to be acknowledged for your efforts in case you make significant contributions to the pool of creations in human culture). I would say it's fine if an photographer would take pictures at 12 to 24 megapixel and they share 1 to 5 megapixel versions for people to share online as free publicity which might motivate people to pay for an exhibit of new work that the photographer can later make available online (or at the same time if he expects people to enjoy fine quality prints of his work anyway and can easily make in income that way or by selling signed printed pictures). > > Feedback will be greatly appreciated. > > -- > Pete |