SterlingBjorndahl

SterlingBjorndahl

Lives in Canada Regina / SK, Canada
Joined on Sep 10, 2006
About me:

I like to shoot medium format film on occasion, usually with a Pentax 67 and sometimes with a Graflex Century Graphic.

Comments

Total: 15, showing: 1 – 15
On Olympus OM-D E-M10 First Impressions Review preview (622 comments in total)

Maybe it's just me, but this reminds me of a Dalek. :)

Direct link | Posted on Jan 30, 2014 at 02:33 UTC as 78th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

peevee1: People deciding US prices for Panasonic lenses are simply incompetent. 45/2.8 macro for $900, 12-35/2.8 for $1,300, 35-100/2.8 for $1,500, now this one for $1,600? They are simply counting up, expecting higher profits with higher prices, like there is no competition out there?
Somebody, please teach them about price-demand curves.

@BarnET: 50mm on full frame is not a portrait lens. Compare this Leica to a FF 85mm.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 6, 2014 at 22:35 UTC
In reply to:

DaSigmaGuy: This is a total miscarriage of justice in my book because the Copyright of a work belongs solely to the Photographer, in this case John Alli, and no one else. A photographer can licence his work out for a fee but as the creator of the work he will always retain his original Copyright rights. If he dies the Copyright dies with him and subsequently anyone will have right to use his work for whatever use. If anyone should be paid for the infringement then it is John Alli, unless of course he is dead, in which case Gaylord should get nothing at all.

@Lin: Copyrights expire after a certain time.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 1, 2013 at 00:31 UTC
In reply to:

DaSigmaGuy: This is a total miscarriage of justice in my book because the Copyright of a work belongs solely to the Photographer, in this case John Alli, and no one else. A photographer can licence his work out for a fee but as the creator of the work he will always retain his original Copyright rights. If he dies the Copyright dies with him and subsequently anyone will have right to use his work for whatever use. If anyone should be paid for the infringement then it is John Alli, unless of course he is dead, in which case Gaylord should get nothing at all.

Great! Can I take some photographs of your photographs and sell them? I would be, after all, the Photographer, in your definition.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 30, 2013 at 03:24 UTC
In reply to:

dblues: So if I shoot an image of Mount Rushmore and sell thousands of copies, who do I have to pay???

@dblues - if you're the one buying the photo for commercial purposes, it's your responsibility to find that out. Not the photographer's.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 30, 2013 at 02:13 UTC
In reply to:

nelsonal: I have a real issue with government sponsored monuments not being owned by the people from the date of commission.

All you need to do, then, is convince your government(s) to write that language into each and every commission, or convince them to pass a law to that effect. As things stand, though, creators retain rights for a period of time unless otherwise agreed. That protects you as a photographer from being exploited by some other artist.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 29, 2013 at 17:29 UTC
In reply to:

DenWil: I agree with the outcome 100%.

Photographers generating commercial work - even if only few pieces here and there- need to get it through their thick skulls that their quest for an image does not supersede everyone else's rights.

Some of the shooters publishing images in the forums on DPR that prominently feature other artists' work would be well advised to consider other subject matter for their published works . In the US they could be sued for copyright infringement and they would lose. Just a matter of time.

@John Koch: The copyright will eventually expire and it will become fully public. In the meantime, the creator has a right to be compensated for his (considerable) effort. If you're a photographer, you should appreciate that right yourself.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 29, 2013 at 17:26 UTC
In reply to:

egrivel: It seems that the decision mostly hinged on the first of four points mentioned (the purpose and character of the use, i.e. selling stamps to collectors). What about the fourth point (the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work)? That effect is just about zero. The artist did not lose anything by the USPS creating the stamps, so what, exactly, is he getting reimbursed for? It seems to me this shows there is something seriously wrong with copyright law as it is written.

So what happens when somebody has a travel blog, visited DC, and posted a his picture of any of the monuments? Can they be sued by the artists? What if he uses Google ads on his blog and makes a few bucks off of it?

You ask: "So what happens when somebody has a travel blog, visited DC, and posted a his picture of any of the monuments? Can they be sued by the artists?" The answer: The copyright has expired on those monuments. Copyright doesn't last forever.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 29, 2013 at 16:44 UTC
In reply to:

John Koch: The stamp publicizes the monument, just as hundreds of other stamps have done over the years. Any photograph or graphic adaptation of any object can be alleged to be "transformative." People who side with Gaylord need to be very careful. The only difference between what the USPS did, on the one hand, and what millions of other do, is that the USPS is a fatter target for lawsuits. The monument was purchased with public dollars and stands on public lands.

Next the Ross family could file a mega compensation claim on behalf their deceased ancestor, Betsy, credited with designing the flag. The plaintiffs will demand billions from the Treasury and every car dealer across the country who uses the flag.

I believe the copyright on the flag is long expired. The copyright on this sculpture will eventually expire too, and then you can steal the image as much as you want. Until then, though, you have to pay for commercial use.

Rule 101 of commercial photography: Get a signed release form, whether for a model or for property.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 29, 2013 at 16:43 UTC
In reply to:

chekist: Clearly USPS was not trying to sell either Ali's or Gaylord's work - they were trying to remember the Koran War casualties.

Gaylord should feel lucky that he was hired to create the monument, and stop trying to make money off the dead solders.

According to the article, the USPS made hundreds of thousands of dollars of profit on these stamps sold to collectors - i.e., stamps that will never to be used to mail anything. I think it's naïve to claim they were just trying to remember the Korean War veterans. They were in it for the money.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 29, 2013 at 16:36 UTC
In reply to:

dblues: So if I shoot an image of Mount Rushmore and sell thousands of copies, who do I have to pay???

You have to pay the copyright holder, of course.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 29, 2013 at 16:27 UTC
On Ethics of prize-winning photo debated news story (151 comments in total)

It doesn't BEG the question, it RAISES the question. To BEG a question means you are using "circular reasoning", not simply "moving along to the next interesting point".

English speakers should train themselves to use the phrase "That raises the question ..." and forget all about begging.

Latin speakers, on the other hand, can continue to use the phrase "petitio principii", http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

Direct link | Posted on Feb 27, 2013 at 03:47 UTC as 43rd comment | 1 reply
On Japanese news service lends support Olympus OM rumors news story (314 comments in total)
In reply to:

Simon97: I was wondering if anyone was ever going to put a sensor in a manual style SLR body. Sounds interesting if not a niche product.

Panasonic's DMC-L1 DSLR had a shutter speed dial instead of a PASM dial, and several lenses with aperture rings. If it hadn't been ridiculously overprised and released a year late ("only" 7.5 MP at the time), it might have really taken off. The viewfinder was small and dark, but the body was magnesium alloy - it's built like a tank and handles like an SLR of yesteryear. I still take mine out and shoot with it once in a while.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 24, 2012 at 16:00 UTC
On Landscape Photography Primer article (96 comments in total)

> recreate a three-dimensional world without borders inside a one-dimensional rectangular frame

That's poetic but inaccurate. A rectangle is two-dimensional, not one-dimensional.

Great article, though.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 20, 2012 at 16:00 UTC as 43rd comment | 2 replies

> 4.Improved in the speed of consecutive shooting when shot with auto bracket.

Ooooh yeah. I've been wanting that in Panasonic cameras since my L1. I could never understand why auto bracket was so slow compared to the competition.

> 5.Increased number of recordable images in consecutive shooting.

I thought that was a function of buffer size, so how does that work? The too-small RAW buffer has always bothered me in the GH2; is that improved? I won't be able to test it myself for a couple of days. :(

Direct link | Posted on Dec 8, 2011 at 01:46 UTC as 13th comment
Total: 15, showing: 1 – 15