joelR42: I've thoguht for years that Sony was missing an opportunity by not using this tech in their mirror less cameras. Seems like Fuji beat them to the punch.
Not really. You can use the 135 STF on any Sony mirrorless camera with the Sony LA-EAx adapter.
Looks like the picture effect "toy camera" was turned on.
I told you so...
GeraldW: You guys are all missing something here. The first line in DPREview's blurb says "Cinoflex was recently tasked with rigging up a Sony A7S..." You could read that as it not being Cinoflex's idea, and that someone else, possibly Sony, requested and paid for them to do it. In other words, a promotional stunt by Sony to show off their new camera.
I rather doubt this was Cinoflex's idea, or that they plan to sell or rent these rigs.
BarnET: dude, read the press release carefully on the page you are referring to
Do they explicitly say "pro video" anywhere? No, they avoid this phrase at all cost. Read carefully and you will notice they use phrases like the following:"Pro-Quality Video" (not "pro video")"specialist video functions" (specialist, not pro)"enthusiast photographers and videographers.""into the hands of professional photographers and videographers." (no explicit mention of "professional videographers")"Common to Sony's range of professional video cameras" (= A7S not belonging to that group)
BobYIL: A camera costing only $2.500 has been chosen by some top pros to do the job of an Alexa costing beyond $50.000 and some of us bashing DPR for making it news??
It is the typical fanboy flame war. Sony could introduce a 500 megapixel full-frame camera with clean ISO 1 billlion and 400 lenses to go with it for under $1000 and fanboys would still whine about it.
steelhead3: I can't believe they sullied that rig with that old Nikon lens.
They probably only took that lens because a suitable focus motor exists for it. If it is only about adapting to E-mount, they could have taken a Minolta 600/4 or Sony 500/4 just as well.
Unlikely. Sony is very protective of their pro video business. If anything, they would have prevented this rig. They want to reach consumers or enthusiast, not video pros who stop buying expensive Sony video gear.
Just a Photographer: When will the wooden grip version be available that cost 6x the price of this camera?
Ask not Sony, ask Hasselblad.
historianx: Sony still cameras = glorified GameBoy stations. Pass.
historianx = troll
pew pew: sony put XAVC S codec on the a6000 plz.
Sony almost never adds features with firmware updates. They rarely have to provide updates anyway, since the firmware the camera ships with typically is quite stable.
b craw: Though a unique circumstance, I think the law can be applied here in a pretty clear manner. [I acknowledge that I am not a professional in this field, though]. In absence of the possibility that a work for hire situation can be entered into with an animal (even a fairly intelligent primate), then the burden falls on Mr. Slater to demonstrate that the primary production of the images was done by him. As he has promoted these images as "selfies", then the predominate and definitional activity relating to production lies with the ape; preparation, postprocessing, and distribution not constituting essential production. As an example in contrast, wildlife photo traps are almost completely produced by the photographer. In the case of Mr. Slater, as an animal cannot hold a copyright, no copyright protection can be applied. Mr. Slater can, of course, distribute and profit from the images, as can anyone else. He has no legal basis to demand that Wikimedia take the images down.
Statements like the following have been questioned many times in this thread: "preparation, postprocessing, and distribution not constituting essential production"
Since Mr. Slater has said that he did not prepare a monkey selfie session, but instead just left the camera there, walked away, and when he came back the selfies had been taken, I agree on your overall assessment.
skyfotos: In days of yore - unless commissioned - copyright is vested with the photographer if he/she purchased, and therefor owned, the film on which the image was made. The same should surely apply to the owner of the sensor!
So if you take a passport photo in a photo booth, you would say that you don't own the copyright? Clearly, the sensor in that machine isn't yours.
Anastigmat: If I set a camera trap and the shutter is tripped when someone or some animal interrupts a beam of light, then who owns the copyright to the photo? I would say that I did because I did everything that is needed to create the photograph except tripping the shutter at the moment of exposure. Similarly, if I use trap focus to take the picture, and the shutter is tripped when a bird comes into focus, then the bird is not the copyright holder. I am.
The difference is: you designed the setup specifically to take images. Taking this kind of image was your goal.
Mr. Slater has said: I left the camera on the tripod, then walked away, and when I came back the monkey had taken images.
It was not his intent to get the monkey selfies. Major difference.
hc44: "'a work owing its form to the forces of nature and lacking human authorship is not registrable.' "
A hypothetical contraption: A random number generator uses the current wind speed as a seed (random 'shuffle') and produces random numbers once per time interval (say 1 minute). The number is between 1 and 100; every time a 1 is generated a photo is taken.
Does the creator and initiator of this contraption have copyright ownership of the photos taken?
@hc44: it was his full intent to take pictures
Imagine if he did not have the random generator but everything else is equal. The machine takes 1 image per minute. He'd have roughly 100 times more images and own copyright for all of them without a doubt.
Due to the way the machine was designed, he only got roughly 1 out of 100 images. But, this is a subset of all the images he'd have copyright for if he omitted the PNRG.
I don't see how that makes a difference - he just got fewer images.
mick232: Gentlemen - several pro laywers, including IP laywers, have been discussing this topic since 2011, applying US, UK, Indonesian and international copyright law.
They have not come to a clear conclusion.
So, with all due respect, no matter how well-substantiated your comment here is, it is nothing more than your opinion. This takes careful legal analysis and knowledge of all facts, evidence and also Slater's statements (which seem to change over time) and I doubt anybody posting a comment here has access to that.
Well, that is how it is. As a citizen, you are required to follow the law, even if you, your laywer and even a court can't determine if what you are trying to do is legal or not.
If the highest court says it is illegal, then bad luck, even if everybody before told you it isn't.
Gentlemen - several pro laywers, including IP laywers, have been discussing this topic since 2011, applying US, UK, Indonesian and international copyright law.
Branko Collin: If I've learned anything from some of the arm-chair lawyers in this thread, it's that Lensrentals.com must be filthy rich by now because of all the copyrights that automatically devolve to them every time someone takes a photo with rented gear.
That is a simplistic statement. Even pro laywers have been discussing this topic for years (see linked articles above) and have not come to a unique conclusion.
But Mr Collin, who calls others armchair lawyers, obviously has figured it out...
stevens37y: Actually Slater simply could have said that he made the photos.
But then nobody would be interested in the photos. They'd just be ordinary photos.
VadymA: 202.02(b) Human author.The term "authorship" implies that, for a work to be copyrightable, it must owe its origin to a human being. Materials produced solely by nature, by plants, or by animals are not copyrightable.
How hard it is to trace the origin of the monkey's pictures to a human being after all that work the photographer has done to make it happen (planning and making a trip, living with the tribe, gaining their trust, letting them play with equipment, bringing the pictures back, processing them)? Who if not Mr. Slater is the author of those highly original pictures?How can someone claim that they were produced SOLELY BY NATUTE, BY PLANTS, or BY ANIMALS?
That is indeed a good point. If Mr. Slater would defend himself in a reasonable manner, he may be able to sue successfully.
I read, however, that he prefers to make ridiculous accusations such as:
"It's potentially being run by people with political agendas," Slater said of Wikipedia. "The people who are editing it could be a new Adolf Hitler or a new Stalin ... They're using whatever suits their agenda."
Klarno: How about a thought experiment:
Let's say you have an art installation in a museum or gallery. In the installation, you have set up a camera, and direct people visiting the installation to take a selfie with that camera. The camera is connected to a computer running a script which automatically uploads and posts each photo to a thread on Reddit. The Reddit thread is displayed on a nearby computer screen. For the record, I've seen stranger art installations.
Who, then, does the copyright of the photograph then belong to? The person who thought up and set up the installation, the gallery's curator, or the person taking the selfie?
I think intent has to be considered in copyright.
I am not sure I get your main point.
Who had the intent for an individual selfie in this scenario? The creator of the installation or the person who opted to take the selfie? Who should hold copyright?
I also wonder why it is important to route the image through Reddit instead of displaying it directly on the screen locally?