Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Fair use and Jay Maisel  (Read 9296 times)
stsk
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6


« Reply #20 on: June 24, 2011, 06:08:54 PM »
ReplyReply

Michael, thanks for suggesting that people at least educate themselves a little bit. Most of the opinions have been knee-jerks. The environment is changing rapidly and it bears examination in a bit more depth, I think.

Here are a couple of additional opinions:

http://duncandavidson.com/blog/2011/06/maisel_vs_baio

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2011/06/kind-of-screwed.html
Logged
ckimmerle
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 442



WWW
« Reply #21 on: June 24, 2011, 09:55:38 PM »
ReplyReply

Most of the opinions have been knee-jerks.

That's not true. There were a couple of uneducated, emotional overreactions, but certainly not by "most".
Logged

"The real voyage of discovery consists not in seeing new landscapes, but in having new eyes." Marcel Proust

Chuck Kimmerle
WWW.CHUCKKIMMERLE.COM
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12215


« Reply #22 on: June 25, 2011, 05:00:35 AM »
ReplyReply

But Chuck, how else to be but emotional if it's your stuff, or it could be your stuff that's getting used without permission?

As for educational use, well, they used to produce actual books when I was in school and pupils got to see art and a lot more through that route; probably why no-one in an art class ever needed what's now referred to as (and has become) obligatory sex education.  The stuff used in books wasn't pirated, I would suggest, because whatever was used was there, in print, forever, for any legal action based on the copyright rights extant at the time. Good for the authors and better still for the students.

But today's world is impermanent; values fluctuate as wildly as, apparently, do rights. I still believe that the golden rule should always be: nothing published without written permission unless for very strict reference purposes only. That would cover legitimate reviews of works such as books, plays, movies, music and permit such things as visual references to something or another to be made. The underlying feature, it seems to me, is that no commercial gain be made form the actual work being shown, i.e. no form of copying and subsequent monkeying about to disguise but use, or even blatantly incorporate the original work in some way. Plagiarism is another matter.

Rob C

Logged

RFPhotography
Guest
« Reply #23 on: June 25, 2011, 07:43:35 AM »
ReplyReply

Michael, I think most of the commenters in this discussion have an understanding of Fair Use.  What is at issue for some is that they don't agree with the Fair Use exemptions. 
Logged
michael
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4783



« Reply #24 on: June 25, 2011, 08:42:02 AM »
ReplyReply

Bob,

Yes, some, but not all.

More to the point is that disagreeing with Fair Use is tilting at windmills. It is well established in law and legislation in the US as well as most other advanced countries.

I don't really know of any creative person who has lost control of their art or revenue due to Fair Use. I do know many (myself included) who have been harmed by those that think that other people's property is theirs to do with as they wish, especially for commercial gain.

Michael
Logged
RFPhotography
Guest
« Reply #25 on: June 25, 2011, 09:31:38 PM »
ReplyReply

Absolutely no argument on either of those, Michael.
Logged
PhillyPhotographer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 334


« Reply #26 on: June 25, 2011, 11:45:20 PM »
ReplyReply

As some one that gets an image stolen about once a month it becomes infuriating. Good for Jay for taking action and hopefully make people think twice before using someones image without permission.
« Last Edit: June 26, 2011, 09:03:17 PM by PhillyPhotographer » Logged

RSL
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 6074



WWW
« Reply #27 on: June 26, 2011, 10:11:58 AM »
ReplyReply

Michael, It's off-subject I know, but here's applause for "Umbrella and Yellow Wall." At least I assume it's yours. I'm sure Alvarez-Bravo would join me in applauding.
Logged

Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12215


« Reply #28 on: June 26, 2011, 12:32:01 PM »
ReplyReply

Michael, It's off-subject I know, but here's applause for "Umbrella and Yellow Wall." At least I assume it's yours. I'm sure Alvarez-Bravo would join me in applauding.


Russ, you could send a duplicate of your post across the road to About This Site where my remark (and lonely post under Brolly) to the same effect not only shows we share a lot of opinion, but also that though we obviously disagree about the similarity/difference between pj and street, we still know what we like when we see it!

;-)

Rob C
Logged

RSL
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 6074



WWW
« Reply #29 on: June 26, 2011, 04:01:55 PM »
ReplyReply


Russ, you could send a duplicate of your post across the road to About This Site...

Rob, Good idea. Done..
Logged

stsk
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6


« Reply #30 on: June 26, 2011, 08:54:33 PM »
ReplyReply

That's not true. There were a couple of uneducated, emotional overreactions, but certainly not by "most".


Retracted - it was an exaggeration. However, while you're correct about the uneducated, emotional overreactions, what I was hoping for was a more thoughtful look at how the changing landscape affects us as photographers. Because us stamping our feet doesn't really do much. This is an interesting look at an analogous situation:

http://www.princeton.edu/~artspol/studentpap/undergrad%20thesis1%20JLind.pdf
Logged
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12215


« Reply #31 on: June 27, 2011, 03:31:40 AM »
ReplyReply


Retracted - it was an exaggeration. However, while you're correct about the uneducated, emotional overreactions, what I was hoping for was a more thoughtful look at how the changing landscape affects us as photographers. Because us stamping our feet doesn't really do much. This is an interesting look at an analogous situation:

http://www.princeton.edu/~artspol/studentpap/undergrad%20thesis1%20JLind.pdf



Tell that to somebody with poor circulation, such as myself. In winter, it's the only way I can continue the obligatory hour's walk by investing part of my time in frequent stops for exactly that process of stamping and driving the blood back into the feet and the pain back out. Maybe stamper could be similarly afflicted? I often wondered about the reason behind that nom de plume; on the other hand, it may simply be a fond reference to a childhood habit...

With reference to the link: I started to read the intro but gave up when the overarching sense of left-wing that I felt lay therein blew me away.

Rob C
Logged

feppe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2909

Oh this shows up in here!


WWW
« Reply #32 on: June 27, 2011, 04:09:19 AM »
ReplyReply


Retracted - it was an exaggeration. However, while you're correct about the uneducated, emotional overreactions, what I was hoping for was a more thoughtful look at how the changing landscape affects us as photographers. Because us stamping our feet doesn't really do much. This is an interesting look at an analogous situation:

http://www.princeton.edu/~artspol/studentpap/undergrad%20thesis1%20JLind.pdf

We've had several discussions about the state of copyright, its length, fair use and Creative Commons, and I've started many of them. I would say more than half of the posts in the "discussions" are more about drowning the debate in noise or putting one's head in the sand, rather than genuine attempts to consolidate the divergent needs of content providers and consumers, promoting creation of new and/or derivative works rather than stifling creativity, ease of copying in the digital age, and perceived small value of much of photography.

Unfortunately raising copyright reform on a pro photography forum is akin to raising gun control on a hunting forum, and has thus far had the same results.

Music sampling (in your link) is a good alternative view, as is this TED talk about lessons from (lack of) copyright in the fashion industry which promotes creativity - Cliff's Notes starts at around 10:30, and there is a damning graph at 12:20.
« Last Edit: June 27, 2011, 04:21:06 AM by feppe » Logged

stsk
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6


« Reply #33 on: June 27, 2011, 12:17:38 PM »
ReplyReply


Unfortunately raising copyright reform on a pro photography forum is akin to raising gun control on a hunting forum, and has thus far had the same results.


One thing that's interesting per the above comment is just how incredibly disparate the views of photographers and the tech world are on this issue. One could say "Quelle surprise!", but we need to understand that our perspective isn't necessarily shared. The response, quoted in the initial post, ("What a dick!) is pretty much universal outside the photography tent.

For those who believe there's no such thing as fair use, let's take a hypothetical case, putting the shoe on the other foot: Let's suppose your photo of granny has just been printed on the cover of Parade Magazine. Happy day! But you are soon served with a summons for copyright violation by Ansel Adams estate... It seems granny's photo-realistic painting of Moon and Half Dome on black velvet is seen by the Adams estate, to infringe on the Adams version (granny copied it, frankly). The estate is going after both granny and you. (the Half Dome painting was a substantial percentage of the frame - Granny's REALLY proud of the painting...) If there's no such thing as fair use, you're hosed, but, to be frank, you're hosed anyway because the cost of defense against the claim will probably force you to settle out of court for over thirty grand anyway... (Granny holds out and wins in court, but pays over a hundred grand in legal fees...)

This is the way the tech world looks at the Maisel example... granny's working in a different medium but copying the iconic Adams photo. Are they wrong? Certainly not from their perspective.
Logged
feppe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2909

Oh this shows up in here!


WWW
« Reply #34 on: June 27, 2011, 12:38:15 PM »
ReplyReply

This is the way the tech world looks at the Maisel example... granny's working in a different medium but copying the iconic Adams photo. Are they wrong? Certainly not from their perspective.

It's not only "tech world," but a much wider group. We have an entire generation of kids who are so used to file sharing that the entire concept of copyright is antiquated to them. If you don't provide a service which makes giving money for your content extremely streamlined, you can refer to years of Napster and rampant music "sharing" to understand what it leads to.

All photographers should to take this into account when dealing with the public. No, I don't have the answers, but putting one's head in the sand or transferring yet another portion of disposable income to lawyers doesn't benefit anyone. Except lawyers.
Logged

PhillyPhotographer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 334


« Reply #35 on: June 27, 2011, 02:12:46 PM »
ReplyReply

One thing that's interesting per the above comment is just how incredibly disparate the views of photographers and the tech world are on this issue. One could say "Quelle surprise!", but we need to understand that our perspective isn't necessarily shared. The response, quoted in the initial post, ("What a dick!) is pretty much universal outside the photography tent.

For those who believe there's no such thing as fair use, let's take a hypothetical case, putting the shoe on the other foot: Let's suppose your photo of granny has just been printed on the cover of Parade Magazine. Happy day! But you are soon served with a summons for copyright violation by Ansel Adams estate... It seems granny's photo-realistic painting of Moon and Half Dome on black velvet is seen by the Adams estate, to infringe on the Adams version (granny copied it, frankly). The estate is going after both granny and you. (the Half Dome painting was a substantial percentage of the frame - Granny's REALLY proud of the painting...) If there's no such thing as fair use, you're hosed, but, to be frank, you're hosed anyway because the cost of defense against the claim will probably force you to settle out of court for over thirty grand anyway... (Granny holds out and wins in court, but pays over a hundred grand in legal fees...)

This is the way the tech world looks at the Maisel example... granny's working in a different medium but copying the iconic Adams photo. Are they wrong? Certainly not from their perspective.


This makes absolutely no sense.
Logged

Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12215


« Reply #36 on: June 27, 2011, 02:37:47 PM »
ReplyReply

This makes absolutely no sense.




Michael, it's about photography: what the hell did you expect? Another velvet rendition of a saintly cliché?

Rob C
Logged

PhillyPhotographer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 334


« Reply #37 on: June 27, 2011, 02:47:04 PM »
ReplyReply

I hope Jay doesn't sue me because I took a photo of his front door in NYC. LOL

Logged

Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12215


« Reply #38 on: June 27, 2011, 03:31:39 PM »
ReplyReply

I hope Jay doesn't sue me because I took a photo of his front door in NYC. LOL





Madre de Dios! The Gateway to Hell. Do places like that still exist in the United States of America?

;-)

Rob C
Logged

PhillyPhotographer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 334


« Reply #39 on: June 27, 2011, 04:13:56 PM »
ReplyReply

Don't judge a book by it's cover. Inside the place is unbelievable and the story about the property even better.

http://nymag.com/realestate/vu/2008/09/50481/

This is only half of the first floor in his building. One hell of a studio / workshop / gallery space !

« Last Edit: June 27, 2011, 05:26:32 PM by PhillyPhotographer » Logged

Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad