A photography copyright should not extend to the "idea" of the shot. If he wanted protection for that, he should have trademarked the image concept.
samfan: Seems like a solid case. Photographer creates an image (not just pushes the button, but directs the action).
Nike likes the image, licenses it, then makes pretty much the same photo with the same player. I don't think the intend was to rip off the photog, they probably wanted to enhance the image for the logo. But still, it's "we want the same just a tad better".
Question is, why wait 30 years, with Nike of all things. Was the photog in a coma? Unless he couldn't afford to pay the copyright or court fees (which may be prohibitive, admittedly), he had no reason to 3 decades. Business probably isn't going well.
Tungsten Nordstein: Nike's is a logo. They're not using a reshot photo, they're using a b&w drawn logo. They may have been inspired by the original photo and produced an intermediate photo in the process, but it's no longer a photo. Much as I personally dislike Nike, the copyright claim seems a bit thin.
So, if they could find any instance of another shot, similar in content, predating this image in any art form, they could claim that his content was not original and therefore not copyrightable? Say, something like this: http://cdn.graphicsfactory.com/clip-art/image_files/image/9/763269-dancer4.gif, but obviously predating the original it would be okay? At what point is the photograph always a pose and a concept which is give patent- or trademark-like protections without legal backing just be cause the courts feel sorry for some guy?
Anastigmat: If I were the judge, I would dismiss the lawsuit because Nike did not use the original photo without paying the photographer. They shot a similar photo. Does that mean that a similar photo shot by anyone, if it resembles an earlier photo, would be guilty of copyright infringement? Let's say, if a director shoots a scene similar to that of Marilyn Monroe having her skirt being blown up by wind, would that violate the copyright of the original movie? What if no one had any idea a similar but earlier photo existed. What if, for example, I shoot a particular photo of a famous bridge like the Brooklyn Bridge or Golden Gate, and it resembles, by chance, someone else's photo of the same bridge? Then am I guilty of copyright infringement even if I have never seen the other photo and were not attempting to imitate it?
I think there's a danger in here. Copyright is generally strict in it's language. You don't need to know you're violating, or even intend to infringe, a copyright to be guilty of copyright infringment. However, this gets into "intent" - a photo of a bridge in the same location and light only infringes if there was intent to reproduce another's work. It definitely gets slippery.
Amnon G: More of the same, with the smell of segmentation all over (hey, it's what customers buy so I can't fault them). It's time for new technologies to show up in the rugged world. folded lenses and tiny crappy sensors can only go so far.NFC/Wifi/etc. is nice, but having a rugged camera is still a big compromise in picture quality which is a shame.
AW1? Really? At 3X the price, weighing twice and much (with the smallest kit zoom) and being larger *without the lens*, without 1080/60p, and with a lens which I would be quite afraid to drop 6.5' onto concrete.
The TS-6 is not what I'll be replacing my older model with (sadly), but the AW1 is nowhere near what this camera is in terms of durability, size/pocketability, and price.
Flashback: A wooden grip? Hmm...
Any of you guys remember the days, when a decent Hi-Fi unit, had to have wooden side cheeks!
We were wondering how Pentax could produce a similar camera with such a lower price. As anyone with a Hassy knows, that wooden grip is dear indeed.
Menneisyys: Anyone that would like to try FV-5 on the pre-Lollipop Samsung Note 4: don't do it.
While the best third-party apps like Snap Camera HDR support shutter speeds of as low as 1/8s, the minimal speed of the FV-5 is 1/30s, losing two entire EV's. In addition, the in-app JPEG sharpness setting doesn't seem to do anything: the exported JPEG's are equally sharpened, independent on this setting.
I've posted a lot of test images demonstrating this to http://forum.xda-developers.com/showpost.php?p=57169980&postcount=2353
Don't bother on an LG G3 either. The native camera app - for all it's limitations - is very fast. FV-5 is like walking through cold syrup. Unless you think the 2-3 second shutter lag is a feature. I'd guess it's the QHD display that FV-5 isn't really coded to deal with.
"Here's your campus map, and your official BU rape whistle! Don't blow it unless it's actually happening!"
Astound: Hmmmm. A few thoughts.
I only shoot wide and normal lenses, so image stablisation is not an issue. Faster focussing? Sure, that's always good, but I didn't buy this for dSLR performance, so not critical. I've yet to have focussing issues.
From what I can find out, the A7II is heavier than the A7 - 556g vs 416g. Not a huge amount on its own, but I'd rather have the lighter weight for a day's street photography.
The ergonomics look interesting (although it looks a bit bulkier as a result) the shutter button isn't in the most natural place on the A7.
I think for me to upgrade there would need to be uncompressed RAW files, no low-pass filter option and something along the lines of improved sensor/dynamic range (without having to go up to 36mp) .
Waaaaaaait: you need uncompressed RAW files? Why would you want slower per-frame card writes and higher total card (and server) storage requirements. Or is Sony really stupid enough to store RAW files compressed with lossy compression?
atamola: - do you hear that?- ...nope.- don't you hear that?- No, I don't. What?- That silence. That deep silence at Canikon HQs.
All I hear is an echo. The echoing of a room filled with nothing but the smallest handful full frame E mount lenses.
And what is the echo? It's the echo of laughter of the Canikon lens catalog, thick and glossy with nearly every imaginable focal length and aperture option.
The most amazing brain in the world has been born without eyes.
Everlast66: There is something fundamentally wrong with the DPReview categories!
So we have "Enthusiast Large Sensor Compact Camera" category here and the LX100 gets 85%, but the Sony RX1 also falls in this category with several times larger sensor and gets only 79%. Surely the sensor (even with an excellent Zeiss lens) can not alone make any camera a winner, but the designers of the two cameras had clearly different criteria when designing the two cameras and the way they are categorized in the reviews affects the results.
Then Panasonic have two cameras in this category, LX100 and FZ1000, and they both get the highest scores (85 and 82) compared to all other cameras in the category, Canon, Nikon, Sony and Fuji ones that are mostly marked in the order of 77-79%. Either Panasonic have been insanely spot-on with their latest cameras, a DPReviewer is a big fan of Panasonic, or the categorization system is not quite right!
When looking at the list of Cons, the Panasonic appears to have a pretty minor list. Consider the cons from the RX1:
Autofocus speed not fast enough for moving subjectsAutofocus struggles in low lightSignificant vignetting... 'baked into' Raw filesMultiple button presses required to move AF pointNo built-in viewfinder (and accessory options rather expensive)No focus guides for video shootersDisappointing video quality even when in focus
Those are pretty damning for a camera in this "class", regardless of sensor size. And one of the top cons for the Panasonic was "limited zoom range", which looks like a plus compared to a fixed focal length RX1.
Canon and Nikon mostly write off this segment is favor of throw away consumer stuff and high end DSLRs.
The categories certainly aren't perfect, but just having a big sensor doesn't make for an ideal camera, or allow it to best other gear which offers more usefulness or responsiveness.
cheetah43: Thanks for the review.The camera may be a very good one for most, but in the evaluation bar chart the items focus accuracy, image quality, ISO performance, optics, and performance do not impress [leaving aside the subjective value bar]. In the 'Cons' list, aren't the first four items [noise reduction and sharpening, lens range, 12MP, manual AF positioning] rather serious shortcomings? It seems that the industry is still quite a long distance away from a 95% mark unless the experts will claim that such a mark is unreachable, at least not at a tolerable price. Regards.
The first four items are trivial at worst.
NR and Sharpening are completely eliminated when shooting RAW, and if you are going to be picky about your final shots, you'll want to shoot raw anyway. 12MP = no digital zoom. That's about it, because 12MP is an 11x14 300dpi print, and larger than any consumer monitor being produced today. Manual AF positioning only matters if you're too young to use focus/recompose efficiently. No doubt - it' be nice to have a touchscreen-focus-shutter (my phone does) - but as an enthusiast product it's not really something a dedicated photog is going to *need* (want, perhaps)
Boss of Sony: I thought this was the ideal camera until I realized it was the same size as the A6000 with one of its small lenses on it. A6000 has twice the sensor size, twice the megapixels, and the option of changing lenses, plus it's cheaper.
At which point does the Sony, with a lens which covers the range and aperture of this camera, become both smaller and cheaper?
The A6000 is a great camera, but the smallest, cheapest camera in the world that gets mounted to a large, expensive lens (or, worse, several) ceases to be compact and economical.
TORN: Taking a snapshot wih this camera at Photokina felt like:
- switch on and wait for the camera to boot and then for the complex lens design to unfold and automatically zoom to a focal length which you most probably want to change
- use motorzoom to get the right zoom
- fiddle around with setting the right focus point
This process can easily take up to 5 seconds. At least this is something a buyer should be aware of. When using a zoom I much prefer a lens I do not have to wait for when switching the camera on and a second time when zooming.
And how is this markedly different than any other compact zoom on the planet. They all boot, they all extend the lens, they all choose a default zoom (which usually isn't the one you need that time).
Fiddle with the focus point? What are you, an 11 year old girl? Center focus, recompose, shoot. We've been doing this for decades and it takes very little time. Unless you have a combo focuspoint/shutter (like my phone) or a still-life that gives you time to focus then shoot, the choose your focus often seems like a gimmick.
So does this mean that everyone can have their combination of viewfinder, flash, control knobs, hotshoe, and fixed/tilting/articulating screen? Because dP commenters should be all over this as the idea camera.
Well, at least unless the total cost with all the selected components comes in over the $250 somebody paid for their Panasonic/Olympus/Fuji (two years after it's initial release) which has all the parts *they* need.
Oops - just read the diagram. Only optical and electronics options. Oh well, maybe next time.
wilsonlaidlaw: I hope the idiot who came up with the ridiculous idea of tarting up mid range cameras and selling them at premium plus prices, is now looking for fresh employment. Leica's reworking of Panasonics and selling them at a 50 % mark up is one thing but trying to sell a Sony at 400% of its original price is ludicrous and was never going to fly. This sort of madcap scheme, can endanger the original company.
He's already collected his 7 figure bonus and has moved on to revolutionize another industry leader, I have no doubt.
Philip Lanoue: Charges via USB. How long does that take?
1500maH with one cell (at presumably 4.2V with conversion from 5V at 1:1 ma input/output ratio) would mean a little over an hour and a half at 900ma standard charging, and 45 minutes if they support high rate (2/2.1A) charging.
Nobody tell these guys about the LG G3. If they know you could put over 6 million pixels in a 3.2" touch screen it would totally deflate them. That's 914 ppi the way they are calculating it (as separate r, g, and b pixels), and 538 ppi if you count r,g, and b as a single pixel the way the rest of the world (outside of camera viewfinders) does.
Now, if LG's 31" IPS panel makes it way into sub $500 monitors...I'm interested!
Is is bad that I though "yeah, these will probably sell pretty well in the UAE" ?
Joseph Black: Dammit! Click bait! Click bait!
"...or who is in the pictures they took. #8 will blow you away!"