Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Petronas Twin Towers  (Read 19181 times)
howiesmith
Guest
« Reply #40 on: May 15, 2007, 10:12:09 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
... if you make an unjustified comment on any of my works, I'll let you know, okay?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=117693\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Sure, but I won't make any comments.

But how can you say my opinion is unjustified, unless I say something like the sky is too dark, and there is no sky.  Otherwise, aren't you saying your opinion is somehow better than mine?

+++++++++++++++

I suppose I may miss some "symbolism" you think is there.  Like the Towers.  It is my opinion photos should stand on there own.  No explanations.  Afterall, you may not always be there to straighten out the viewer or the viewer may not read a caption.
« Last Edit: May 15, 2007, 11:03:56 AM by howiesmith » Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8854


« Reply #41 on: May 15, 2007, 07:36:09 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
But how can you say my opinion is unjustified, unless I say something like the sky is too dark, and there is no sky.  Otherwise, aren't you saying your opinion is somehow better than mine?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=117698\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Maybe I am... at least better for me in the circumstances where my opinion is different. Are you advocating a position where all opinions are equal?
Logged
James Godman
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 126


WWW
« Reply #42 on: May 15, 2007, 08:28:35 PM »
ReplyReply

Hello everyone-

If this was a site full of doctors giving medical advice, wouldn't it be expected that some credentials be presented?  At least something?  What I love about this site is the free exchange of information.  I feel this would be an even higher quality exchange if the anonymity were removed.

Also, I'm sure I could have brought this up in a much better way, but I was a bit tired of reading posts that seemed rude, and I fell victim to a quick and not very thought out post.  It was not solely about the one dark corner comment.  

Further, I don't think the photographer intended for the image to be only a record of a building.  Maybe if he was hired to shoot the towers for an encyclopedia, his point of view, time of day etc., would have been different.

Legal issues came up somewhere along the way.  If a particular poster is versed in legal issues of Kuala Lumpur, it would be nice if that was reinforced by nowing where the person lives, profession, and past experience.

Is this unreasonable?
Logged

BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7778



WWW
« Reply #43 on: May 15, 2007, 09:43:47 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
If this was a site full of doctors giving medical advice, wouldn't it be expected that some credentials be presented? At least something? What I love about this site is the free exchange of information. I feel this would be an even higher quality exchange if the anonymity were removed.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=117794\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I fully agree with you. Avatars are one of the plague of web forums.

As far as critiquing goes, there are 2 different things here:

1. Try to help someone improve. Providing critiques on someone else's work is a very difficult task to handle. The key is probably not to try to make somebody else's work match our own, but to provide advice that can let a person grow along the path he/she has chosen.

2. Sharing one's own feelinga about an image. That is also useful as it gives some visibility about how other perceive an image. This can help assessing the potential for sales for instance.

It is totally obvious to me though that an artist can produce high quality work even if it pleases very few viewers. In other words, even if a piece doesn't sell, it doesn't mean that it is not a valid artistic statment within the path chosen by a given artist.

Regards,
Bernard
« Last Edit: May 15, 2007, 10:55:23 PM by BernardLanguillier » Logged

A few images online here!
howiesmith
Guest
« Reply #44 on: May 15, 2007, 11:37:49 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
If this was a site full of doctors giving medical advice, wouldn't it be expected that some credentials be presented? At least something? What I love about this site is the free exchange of information. I feel this would be an even higher quality exchange if the anonymity were removed.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=117794\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Last time I checked, this is not a website for doctors offering medical advice, nor did I give anyone any medical advice.  I said I thought the corners were too dark, not take a few deep breaths and I will remove your tonsels.  I didn't even offer instructions for the DIYer on how to remove their appendix with a bottle of Scotch and a razor blade.

Most websites do not require any type of credibilty to offer advice.  You get what you get and you, the read, can do whatever you want to do with it.  What are the necessary and minimum creds for offering the corners are too dark?

I have never posted an anonymous post.  My name is Howard Smith, not all that hard to figure out from my login name of howiesmith.  But then you have no idea if that is my name or not, do you.  Any more than I know if your name really is James Godman.  No need to prove it because I have long ago stopped caring, if I ever did.  And I am not about to post a copy of my passport.

I have never even hinted that I am a legal expert.  In fact, if you took time to read this thread, you would see that I have provided a disclamer to being a patent/copyright lawyer.  I am fluent in English, can't prove that, do I can read.  I do not have an MFA from a prestegius university.  Never claimed I do, so I can't, of course, prove I don't.  That you will just have to take on faith.

OK. I give up.  The corners are perfect.  The white halo is perfect.  The lens flair is perfect.  Except the copyright might not be located properly or might not be big enough.  If I wanted to steal this image, I might just crop it out.  No. I think it is both attractive and perfect.  A nice effort.
« Last Edit: May 15, 2007, 11:46:03 PM by howiesmith » Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8854


« Reply #45 on: May 16, 2007, 01:54:17 AM »
ReplyReply

Howard,
I've just gone back to the beginning of the thread to see what all the fuss is about.

This is what you wrote.

Quote
Technically, it looks OK.

The upper corners are too dark. There is a white halo around parts of the building. There is some flair in the upper center that doesn't seem to add value.

The copyright and name don't add anything to the image. There are plenty of images of this building. It may be that your image isn't significantly different enough from some of those to earn a copyright. MAybe you don't own a coyright. While the image could get stolen, would you really be harmrf?

The first paragraph is a reasonable comment. The corners probably are a little too dark. There is a halo along the left tower. These are technical details that could be fixed, although these comments from you look a little odd in relation to your opening sentence, 'Technically, it looks okay', so one might wonder, if it looks okay technically, why have you made some technical criticisms.

But your second paragraph is just mean spirited. You are effectively trashing the guy's image. You are implying that it might be so common place it's not worth copyrighting.

I find the image is powerful and taken from an interesting perspective.
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8854


« Reply #46 on: May 16, 2007, 02:03:02 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
If this was a site full of doctors giving medical advice, wouldn't it be expected that some credentials be presented?  At least something?  What I love about this site is the free exchange of information.  I feel this would be an even higher quality exchange if the anonymity were removed.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=117794\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

James,
I agree with Howard on this issue. Art is in a different category to life threatening situations where the utmost competence is required.

This is entertainment, isn't it?
Logged
James Godman
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 126


WWW
« Reply #47 on: May 16, 2007, 02:33:12 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
James,
I agree with Howard on this issue. Art is in a different category to life threatening situations where the utmost competence is required.

This is entertainment, isn't it?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=117815\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That's cool Ray, and thanks for pointing out and clarifying why I initially got a bit pissed off.

Oh, and you mean this thread is entertainment, right?  Absolutely!  If you mean photography in general, then yes, but I also make a living at it.  I'm very lucky to be doing so.
Logged

James Godman
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 126


WWW
« Reply #48 on: May 16, 2007, 02:35:50 AM »
ReplyReply

...and please don't tell my clients that the utmost competence is not required.  Okay?
Logged

howiesmith
Guest
« Reply #49 on: May 16, 2007, 09:03:33 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The copyright and name don't add anything to the image. There are plenty of images of this building. It may be that your image isn't significantly different enough from some of those to earn a copyright. MAybe you don't own a coyright. While the image could get stolen, would you really be harmrf?

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=116191\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Ray, I think I said the image may not be original enough to be copyrighted and that maybe someone else already owns the copyright.

I did NOT say the image isn't worth a copyright.

+++++++++++++++

Some additional info.   U.S. copyright law is explicit about making what is called a derivative work -- a work based or derived from another already copyrighted work -- is the exclusive province of the owner of the original copyright. This is true even though the new work is a highly creative work.  So this image of the Petronas Towers may, may violate copyright law.  Did I say may violate?
« Last Edit: May 16, 2007, 03:27:49 PM by howiesmith » Logged
couleur
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 30



WWW
« Reply #50 on: May 20, 2007, 10:29:28 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Ray, I think I said the image may not be original enough to be copyrighted and that maybe someone else already owns the copyright.

I did NOT say the image isn't worth a copyright.

+++++++++++++++

Some additional info.   U.S. copyright law is explicit about making what is called a derivative work -- a work based or derived from another already copyrighted work -- is the exclusive province of the owner of the original copyright. This is true even though the new work is a highly creative work.  So this image of the Petronas Towers may, may violate copyright law.  Did I say may violate?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=117878\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

So when I use a digital camera to shoot Ferrari's in a motor show and display them online with my copyright imprint on it. Ferrari has the right to sue me for it?
« Last Edit: May 20, 2007, 11:01:27 AM by couleur » Logged

[span style='color:green']here[/span]
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8854


« Reply #51 on: May 20, 2007, 05:58:40 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
So when I use a digital camera to shoot Ferrari's in a motor show and display them online with my copyright imprint on it. Ferrari has the right to sue me for it?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=118690\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I imagine that copyright laws will vary significantly from country to country. I find it difficult to believe that it would ever be the case that a scene of a much photographed subject cannot be copyrighted simply because someone before you has taken a similar shot. There are always going to be some differences in every shot of the same scene.

Whilst it's likely that other people before you have taken a similar shot of the Petronus Twin Towers showing a similar perspective, it's virtually impossible that features such as the sky would be identical and perhaps unlikely that the image would be as dark and contrasty as yours.

However, who knows what's likely in the US.  America is probably the most litigious country in the world. I imagine if anyone in America had taken a shot similar to yours, in respect of dramatic perspective, threatening sky and sombre mood, and had copyrighted it first, he/she might well take you to court, and if you were both wealthy enough, you could spend millions of dollars on lawyers fees slugging it out. The prosecution would claim that you had seen the plaintiff's work first and deliberately tried to model your shot on it, in as much detail as possible. You as defendant would claim that you had drawn inspiration for your shot from a multitude of earlier works from famous photographers and painters, examples of which would be exhibited in the court as evidence, and that any similarity (with regard to artisitc intent) between the plaintiff's work and yours was pure coincidence.

Photographing a Ferrari, or any branded product, might be a completely different situation, if the branded product is the main subject and the brand name is clearly visible. Did Andy Warhol have copyright on his almost photographic paintings of Cambell's tins of soup?
Logged
howiesmith
Guest
« Reply #52 on: May 22, 2007, 01:05:27 PM »
ReplyReply

I cut/pasted this from a website for a service that registers copyrights for you for a fee.

"The United States has copyright treaties with most countries throughout the world, and as a result of these agreements, each country respects the copyrights of the others. Currently, a U.S. copyright is honoured in 190 countries around the world."

I have no idea about which these 190 countries are or whether they honor copyrights between themselves.

+++++++++++++++++++

A resonable estimate is there are 194 countries in the world today.
« Last Edit: May 22, 2007, 01:33:55 PM by howiesmith » Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8854


« Reply #53 on: May 22, 2007, 10:23:40 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I cut/pasted this from a website for a service that registers copyrights for you for a fee.

"The United States has copyright treaties with most countries throughout the world, and as a result of these agreements, each country respects the copyrights of the others. Currently, a U.S. copyright is honoured in 190 countries around the world."

I have no idea about which these 190 countries are or whether they honor copyrights between themselves.

+++++++++++++++++++

A resonable estimate is there are 194 countries in the world today.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=119026\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Howard,
You're kidding me. Right? The agreements might be in place, but the reality is quite different. The governments of underdeveloped countries are not motivated towards prosecuting their own impoverished citizens in order to help fill the pockets of people in the West who are perceived as being already considerably more wealthy.

But we are getting off the track. Do most photographers actually register the copyright of their photos? This might be an important point I have overlooked. Are you saying, I do not have a copyright on any of my images unless I have gone to the trouble and expense of registering such a copyright?

Incidentally, when I recently visited the 'Project Gutenberg' site where huge amounts of out-of-copyright literature is available for free download, there's always a warning to the effect that, whilst the material might be out of copyright in the US, it may not be so in your own country.
Logged
howiesmith
Guest
« Reply #54 on: May 23, 2007, 09:17:34 AM »
ReplyReply

It is my understamding, and you need to verify this for yourself, that I do not need to register a copyright on my photographs.  A copyright happens when the photograph is taken.

My only point, and you need to verify this for yourself, is I cannot copyright something that is already copyrighted.

I cannot speak for anyone else, what may be true in your country, and certainly not what you imagine is true.

As for my last post, I was not kidding.  I actually did cut/paste that item.  The text cut/pasted is not mine, just as I said.  I really do think there are about 194 countries in the world (no kidding).

A copyright in the US may be honored in country A, and I have no opinion or idea whether a copyright in country A will be honored anywhere, even in country A.

+++++++++++++++

It is also my understanding, and you will need to verify this for yourself and the country of your interest, that prosecuting copyright infringement is a civil, not criminal, matter and not prosecuted by the government.  You have to take care of your own copyright and defend yourself.  It is also my opinion, and yours may be different, that the impoverished of third world countries rarely try to make money by stealing copyrighted photos.
« Last Edit: May 23, 2007, 10:40:58 AM by howiesmith » Logged
James Godman
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 126


WWW
« Reply #55 on: May 23, 2007, 03:56:01 PM »
ReplyReply

I'm not a lawyer, but just to clear things up a bit, it is my undertanding that in the United States, the infringed work must be registered in order to bring a case against the offending party.  Further, one's case is strengthened if the work was registered prior to the infringement, and the plaintiff is more likely to be awarded statutory damages.  However, one may also register after an infringement.
Logged

Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8854


« Reply #56 on: May 23, 2007, 04:08:33 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
It is my understamding, and you need to verify this for yourself, that I do not need to register a copyright on my photographs.  A copyright happens when the photograph is taken.

My only point, and you need to verify this for yourself, is I cannot copyright something that is already copyrighted.

What are you trying to say, Howard? I don't need to register a copyright on my photos and I cannot copyright something that is already copyrighted. The two statements might be true but the circumstances are different. I don't see how the second statement could apply to Couleur's photo. He's got a copyright by virtue of the fact he's taken the photo.
Logged
howiesmith
Guest
« Reply #57 on: May 23, 2007, 04:15:17 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
What are you trying to say, Howard? I don't need to register a copyright on my photos and I cannot copyright something that is already copyrighted. The two statements might be true but the circumstances are different. I don't see how the second statement could apply to Couleur's photo. He's got a copyright by virtue of the fact he's taken the photo.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=119258\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I said exactly what I was trying to say.  "... you need to verify this for yourself... "
« Last Edit: May 23, 2007, 04:15:50 PM by howiesmith » Logged
bdkphoto
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 66


WWW
« Reply #58 on: May 23, 2007, 04:54:47 PM »
ReplyReply

If you are actually interested in copyright  (for the US) and how it applies to photography, there are some great resources at www.asmp.org, www.editorialphoto.com and of course the Library of Congress where you actually register the images.  

If you transact business with your photography it is essential to register the images with the LOC to afford yourself the ability to go to court if there is an infringement. See James Godman's post, he is correct.


Registration is simply part of doing business, and is the best way to protect your work if you place any value on it.
Logged

Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8854


« Reply #59 on: May 23, 2007, 05:55:03 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
If you transact business with your photography it is essential to register the images with the LOC to afford yourself the ability to go to court if there is an infringement. See James Godman's post, he is correct.
Registration is simply part of doing business, and is the best way to protect your work if you place any value on it.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=119269\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
 

Okay! Now we're getting somewhere. Regarding Couleur's situation, a professional photographer with business interests to protect might already have registered a copyright on a very similar image of the Petronus Twin Towers.

If Couleur were to also try to register his copyright, the copyright might not be accepted because it is too similar to one already copyrighted. Presumably there are employees in the copyright office who are making some sort of artistic judgement on such issues. Didn't know this sort of thing happened. Seems a very expensive process to me.

I take it that Howard is not saying that anyone who takes a photo and tries to profit from it is putting himself/herself at risk of being sued because it is coincidentally very similar to one which has been registered in the copyrights office.

Are there any precedents for such a situation where a photographer has innocently taken a shot of a well known public attraction, the Grand Canyon, Yosemite, the Eiffel Tower etc, and subsequently been taken to court by another photographer on the grounds that the other photographer took a very similar, almost identical shot from the same position and angle first?

Seems a bit farcical to me.
Logged
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad