They should just hang large and ugly copyright banners on those buildings, and nobody will ever photograph them. Copyright problem solved.
ConanFujiX: One day someone will copyright the air that we need to breathe.
@guyrawkes. Not really, that's a tax for storing your car's waste.
Atomez: Leica camera bodies, mechanics and lenses are made in Vila Nova de Famalicão by Leica Portugal. Then they are expedited to Germany where the electronics from Japan are added, as well as the Leica logo and "Made in Germany"...
My mistake, sorry. Still, if you wanted to point out an error you could have been a bit more constructive about it. For instance, you could have simply included a reference like this:
Aberaeron, it must be really nice to be smug about how fluent you are in your own native language, isn't it?
This is the weirdest justification for snobbery I've ever read.
Just face it: if there really is a practical value to this type of camera, the market will request it, and other companies will start make it in volumes so that in two years such tools will be sold at affordable prices. But I'm afraid this is not about practical value, and this kind of tool is not really needed by photographers or artists. This is only a collector piece, it's about snobbery, and about throwing away money just to get a fabricated feeling of being special and unique. They might as well have printed a limited edition stamp with "Monochrom" written in gold letters on its face, and the effect would have been the same.
When you go to an art gallery, you don't care what brand of paint has the artist used. You just look at the painting and value its message.
princewolf: Yet another 1/2.3'' tiny sensor camera...
The answer is: why not?
justmeMN: I can see why a startup would want to enter the thriving and growing camera industry - oh wait. :-)
They hope to be bought by some rich company that may consider taking something like this to the market. You won't find many current startups with a business plan other than being bought by the billionaires.
plantdoc: Does this mean that Sony will disappear from AV receivers, headphones, movie disk players etc? More of a concern to me than cameras because I don't own any Sony cameras and probably won't buy any at retail price. Do they still make TVs? Another market they were going to abandon. Greg
Have you ever tried a current Philips TV? They are awful: slow interface, limited options, behave like second grade Chinese gadgets. Hope that Sony will not destroy their brand as Philips did. Because nowadays, as a consumer brand, Philips doesn't differentiate much from the cheap generic brands out there.
I doubt there are many fields where the phrase "too much storage" does apply :)
Excellent review, thanks al lot dpr! Fine device, although the price is a bit too high.
DaveE1: I understand that the monkey is filing a "Forget Me" takedown request following the new European Court ruling. Get your comments in quickly. This article may not be here for long.
I thought this type of photographers were already EU citizens, and MEPs, but they are better known by their political orientation (I didn't quite get it -- is it far right, or far rage or something?)
D1N0: Monkey's cannot own copyright, the photographer dit not intend de monkey to make pictures when it grabbed it's camera. So no copyright laws apply. The photographer should have given a different spin to his story. He gave the camera the the monkey in order for it to make selfies for the photographer.
@vfunct: Well, let's apply your logic. A photog. wants to shoot monkeys. You happen to be around his location and take a picture. He owns it, because "he intended to take it". Right?
Now, indeed, the monkey isn't human. What is a monkey, then? It's a force of nature, so it has no rights. Does the force of nature own the photo? No. Does the photog.? No, because the photo "owes its form to a force of nature". Conclusion: public domain.
Sorry, but that monkey is not an EU citizen.
Stu 5: This could open up a can of worms. The BBC and National Geographic use motion triggers all the time for their wildlife work. Does that mean because the animal triggered the camera that the photos or footage is therefore in the public domain? How many wildlife photographers will use a motion triggered set up where they do not actually take the photo but the animal does?
The internet is not made only of photography sites. And the photog specifically targeted wider popularity with this stunt, and has received what he actually deserved. Internet fame is a double-edged sword, and serious artists should know better than relying on these kinds of shortcuts. Real fame is painstakingly built, it doesn't come automatically from Facebook likes.
But really, which "serious photography sites" do you refer to?
dccdp: "Dear Photographer,
A monkey you were photographing stole your camera and hit me in the head with it, causing me injury.
I demand immediate compensation, as you are definitely liable, per your own logic."
Using the photographer's arguments works both ways, eh?
I'm only saying that the photographer isn't the author of the action, therefore is neither liable, nor has any rights about it.
And, as stated in the article, copyright law specifically covers works "owing [their] form to the forces of nature and lacking human authorship". If a monkey grabbing a camera without provocation or set-up isn't a force of nature, what is?
Come on, the monkey grabbed a camera, and pressed the shutter button! It is far from being the same case as using motion triggers, the camera wasn't set up to shoot that way.
There's no can of worms here. It's only a photographer that doesn't want to accept that he can't take credit for something that he didn't do. And he's angry because he became the laughing object of the entire internet, as "his" most popular photo was actually taken by an ape. :)
Funduro: IMHO the real monkey is the author, so Wiki is correct. My 0.02 cents.
The funny thing is Wikimedia is correct precisely because the monkey isn't (and never can be) the copyright owner.
Nigel Wilkins: "Copyright law states that works not originated by a human author can't support a copyright claim, and that 'a work owing its form to the forces of nature and lacking human authorship is not registrable."
Does this include remote triggering devices like lightning detectors? By originated, presumably setting up the shot is enough. Giving a monkey your camera could be considered as setting up the shot, by using the monkey as a random triggering device, although apparently unintentional in this case.
Common sense should prevail IMO. The nearest thing the photo has to an owner is the owner of the camera.
@samfran: But then the picture wouldn't have become such a popular thing on the net! THE MONKEY SELFIE! ENTER AND BE AMAZED! ;)
William Faulkner: Did the Photographer give the Monkey any food? If so maybe he can claim that the monkey was in fact acting as his employee since he "paid" it.
Work For Hire rules would then kick in.
Can you hire animals according to those rules?
This is becoming very interesting :)
neil holmes: Well the Monkey took the camera without permission....charge him!
The photographer owns the camera, the card....the monkey could be regarded as the employee.
In any event the photos exist only because the photographer was responsible for ALL but pushing the button.
The Photographer owns the copyright in my opinion.
Employees have contracts. At best, the monkey is a slave, and the photographer is to be punished!