With all due respect, but to me every photo looks like it was taken from a photography text book; which is not a compliment in this case. It's like "Common, I've seen it hundreds times already". It has probably something to do with lack of submissions to this particular contest (3,300 entries is not that much, especially if the number of entries per person is not limited to one). Nice photos overall, but as many other mentioned too predictible, to the poin of looking almost like a cliche.
Bread and Circuses came to my mind after seeing what people vote for.
I can see like this could be a good choice for a Christmas or Father's Day gift among super wealthy clients. Let's face it, unlike most of us, who are not as wealthy, they don't have that many choices when it comes to a descent camera. There is boring same-ol Leica, a couple of Hasselblad rebadged consumer-grade Sony or Panasonics and one too excentric Sigma, and that's about it. I am glad they finally have access to a descent Nikon camera.
"His notes on the sexual behavior of the penguins, which included violent assault, homosexuality and necrophilia, were considered too indecent for the times, and didn’t come to light until published in the journal Polar Record in 2012."
I wonder if such behavior of penguins was confirmed by any other studies. Otherwise it sounds more like carefully camouflaged notes on human behavior, especially during long and isolated expedition like Terra Nova.
Mr Gadget: I was hoping to see some action shots, sports, BIF, dog running toward the camera? Sequences? Low light, high ISO action? This camera is targeted towards that market segment. I have been waiting for a D300 replacement and it looks like Nikon wont be providing one, so I am thinking of moving to a 7DmkII. Your help would be appreciated!
Barney, just put it in your intro statement; it would be very helpful.
VadymA: This interview reminded me of a story about two sales reps from a shoe company that went to study market demand in a remote African country. The first rep reported back to the company: "There is no market here as nobody wears shoes!" The second rep emailed: "Quick! Send as much as you can; there are millions of people without shoes!" Nikon looks like the first rep to me. Some companies wait for demand and some companies create demand. The longer they wait to finally see the writing on the wall, the harder it will be to win this game.
Good point, Maji. If we look at the entire Nikon line-up we can't entirely dismiss their efforts in bringing a variety of choices to their customers. And playing safe during financial turbulence in which Nikon currently is sounds reasonable too. Yes, being sympathetic to Nikon, I wish they were the one setting revolutionary trends in camera industry, but they are the ones who know how much money they have to spend on R&D and I still hope they make the right decisions even if those decisioans are not the most popular among some of their followers.
Maji, of course the story is not real; but it is still a good analogy of how opportunities could be seen differently. Nikon wants to see a demand first before offering something different and in the meantime spending their limited resources on developing very conservative products. Well, most likely the demand will shift to something smaller, lighter, and yet with better image quality. Have you ever seen a movie about the future where people would lug around cameras the size of a blender. When that happens, nikon will realize that whatever they were spending now on old-school cameras WAS a waste of money and with plummeting sales they may never have enough resources to play catch. I like my D300 but I already feel like a dinosaur with it in some public places.
This interview reminded me of a story about two sales reps from a shoe company that went to study market demand in a remote African country. The first rep reported back to the company: "There is no market here as nobody wears shoes!" The second rep emailed: "Quick! Send as much as you can; there are millions of people without shoes!" Nikon looks like the first rep to me. Some companies wait for demand and some companies create demand. The longer they wait to finally see the writing on the wall, the harder it will be to win this game.
Looks like Nikon let go their entire R&D department; all their new models look like rearrangement of the same parts; no innovation, no new ideas, nothing ;(
Suhas Sudhakar Kulkarni: Finally, announced!
But not what was expected :(
JordanAT: If I stole your camera and took several hundred photos* and I was then captured by police and the stolen camera was returned to you - who owns the copyright to the images I took?
* for arguments sake, we might assume I know nothing about cameras and I took the photos in auto mode without changing the settings on the camera
508.01 Registration requirements.To be entitled to copyright registration, a photograph, holo gram, or slide must contain at least a certain minimum amount of original expression.Under your "assumptions", it is unlikely that the photos will contain sufficient amount of original expression to pass the examination test.
Biological_Viewfinder: If you are on vacation and want a photograph of your family with you in it; you may seek the help of someone else.
So then, a random stranger is given your camera. He takes the photograph.
But who would ever argue that it was not your photograph?????
Also remember that not every snapshot is eligible for copyright protection. In your example, even if the "authorship" can be traced to you as the one making desicion to take a picture, providing a camera and directing the setting and composition, the picture may be lacking the required degree of "creative expression" making it ineligible for copyright protection.
olsenn: If you dg deeply enough, absolutely anything can be traced to a human. For instace, photos cannot exist without cameras, and the camera is a man-made invention. Therefore, by that line of reasoning, no photos are ever produced "solely" by nature.
I agree. I think "solely by nature" or "solely by animal" is applicable to something that is regularly cretated by the forces of nature or by animals; not when a human being's deliberate interactions influence the nature or the anumals to create something that didn't exist before, like a painting or a photograph.
Biological_Viewfinder: If I hand my camera to my child, and she takes a photograph that I post-process; it still belongs to me.
If I drop my camera off a cliff, and it hits a rock and takes a picture that I post-process; THE PHOTO STILL BELONGS TO ME!!!!
You would be considered the owner of the photos but may not be considered the author. Both the author and the owner are eligible for copyright protection, but other criteria also should be met for the work to be copyrightable - the authorship must be traceable to a human being, and there must be some level of creative expression present in the photos. If in both examples it was your intention to create the images that way than I think the authorship could be traced to you. However there might be not enough creative expression in both cases to qualify for copyright protection. In any case, THE PHOTOS WILL STILL BELONG TO YOU!!! ;^D
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?
PassinThru: Most of the people arguing for copyright going to the human seemed to be based on a sort of moral outrage about what's right and wrong, or want assign copyright based on the owner of the equipment. Intent to take pictures also seems to play a large part for many, whether the human took them or not.
A much more interesting discussion would happen if you followed the "Copyright law" link in the 4th paragraph. It's not as clear cut as anyone is saying.
While 503.03 talks about works not originated by a human author, this is discussed in the context of painting and sculpture produced by random processes. Note: photography is explicitly discussed in section 508, not here.
508.01 talks about what qualifies: it boils down to "composition", done by the photographer when the picture is taken.508.02 talks about what doesn't qualify. It seems to cover trap photos well.
Why don't we talk about the CopyRight Office Practices doc instead of some vague sense of injustice?
I have to admit that I am among those who appeal to the ethical grounds of the issue. I am glad you pointed to the link and I looked at section 508 carefully. I have to disagree with regard to the trap shots - there is nothing at all referring to trap shots in the law. The way I read it, if a trap shot contains "at least a certain minimum amount of original expression" it is qualifiable. The law does not say anything about who press the shutter either. So it should be clear that Mr. Slater has the right to be protected by the Law - his photographs are loaded with "original expression".
Gpruitt54: Totally stupid to assign ownership of the image to the ape. Of course, the photographer owns the image. Who’s gear was used to capture the image? Who set up the camera? Who made it possible to capture this image? Answer; the photographer.
How can you claim that the monkey pictures were not originated by a human? He spent days with the tribe gaining their trust. He tought them how to press a release button. He setup a camera hoping they would just play with release button but one of them actually grabbed the camera and dragged it around. And after all of this, people are ready to give all credits to the monkey like the photographer never even was there.
VadymA: So I am asking, who owns a product made on a stolen equipment and with stolen materials? Is it the owner of the equipment and materials or the producer? In my view there must be at least a joint ownership, so Mr. Slater is a rightful co-owner of the images. Case closed! :D
Personally, I think in all cases you should share the rights and collectively agree how to proceed. The images are on your camera and you have the right to delete them, for example. You do not need anybody's permission to do this. Depending on the efforts, the share may not be 50-50; it could be 40-60 or 10-90. The key is to recognize everyone's contribution to the process and reward fairly for that. In case of Mr. Slater I don't believe his contribution is fairly recognized.
Klarno: The photographer is the one that made the macaque selfie possible. The monkey didn't go to walmart and buy the camera, and the monkey didn't really compose any images, not knowing that any images would be captured, only seeing her reflection in the lens and hearing the sound of the shutter.
The copyright can't belong to the macaque, as the law does not provide for animals to have copyright. Nor does the macaque have power to determine whether or not any copies can be made of the photograph.
Copyright is an economic right, and if there's a profit to be made from this photograph, that right should belong to the photographer who made the photograph possible. He put himself, and the camera, in the situation where the macaque selfie ended up happening.
The only way public domain can apply in a private photographer's situation is if the copyright expires (in the UK, 70 years after the photographer's death), or the photographer chooses to place the photograph in the public domain.
In this case the photographer has no rights to release this photo unless you sign a release form. So until then, you both have rights. This is what I am arguing for - Mr. Slater should be granted at least some rights to these images and not just bluntly ignored due to some loopholes in the law.
Krich13 - There are a lot of things produced by non-humans that individuals claim the ownership for. Why this case should be different? Why Mr. Slater should be refused any rights to the images taken with his camera when it was done with an assistance of an animal? There is a video of a dog walking around with a go-pro camera on its neck. Should the owner of the video be refised of any rights to it?