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
When manufacturers sell their products to us, they transfer the right of ownership for that product and for its output to us, period. All they keep is the copyright rights preventing us from duplicationg thier prodicts or their specific parts. Same with us, if I sell my camera to you, or even willingly give it to you free of charge, I transfer all my rights of ownership to you.
Atlasman: Since the camera is owned by the photographer, I would say that all products derived from the equipment belong to the owner. Without the equipment there would be no image.
I am sure the guy would claim that he shouldn't be charged with murder since he didn't pull the trigger but he would most likely accept or be forced to accept negligence charges. So he would be considered partially responsible. This is my position here - he has the right to claim AT LEAST partial ownership (or co-ownership) of the images; but since the monkey cannot be legally considered as a co-owner, the photographer should become a sole LEGAL owner of the images.
I am sure if the monkey shot another human that was around, the owner of the gun would have been charged with at least careless act leading to death. So this example supports the premis that the owner of the equipment has the rights to the output.
mh2000: When someone grabs my camera and snaps photos that end up on my memory card, I do not consider them my creative property. It doesn't matter that I am the one who owns the camera. Actually, I think it would be unethical to claim credit for photos someone else took.
What if they did it without your permission? Shouldn't your ownership of the equipment be recognized in a shared rights to the product it created? Without your equipment at that time and that place the image would not exist. Are you sure you would deny any rights to the images on your machine even if someone else taking them prevented you from doing the same?
The creative act was to let the monkey press the shutter. From his 2011 interview he mentioned that it was fascinating to watch so the incident definitely sparked this creative idea to let the animal play with the camera in anticipation of unusual results. That was very creative and it was enacted by Mr. Slater deliberately.
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
VadymA: Maybe wikimedia's decision is not against some flawed copyright law but it is clearly against basic human ethics in my opinion. The pictures by nature should belong to the photographer as they were the output of his property and his efforts, accompanied by some contribution of an animal in this case. Just be reasonable guys and respect other people property, even when there is no written law about it.
I don't see how you come to those conclusions following my logic. Camera and software makers don't own the product that I bought from them; they sold it to me and after that they have no rights to it or to its output. The monkey case is clearly a case when form is taking over the nature of the event, which is not ethical in my opinion.
Maybe wikimedia's decision is not against some flawed copyright law but it is clearly against basic human ethics in my opinion. The pictures by nature should belong to the photographer as they were the output of his property and his efforts, accompanied by some contribution of an animal in this case. Just be reasonable guys and respect other people property, even when there is no written law about it.
I liked the images but the comments spoiled the effect :(
Maybe it's time for DPR to branch out its photography tips section into a separate portal like you did with Connect. I know there are other sites for that so this is just a thought. Personally I would appreciate the convenience of having everything under one "umbrella" so I see it as a potential advantage for DPR over other competitors. Anyway, this is just a though; and nice vid for an amateur like me. Inspired me to look around the house for creative ideas ;)
Photos are awsome and the interview was great too. Didn't realize at first that there is a new question with each slide. Well worth reading.
Can somebody clarify what happens with all Aperture adjustments to RAW files (like brushes, curves, cloning, etc) when converting to another application, like Lightroom etc?
I just don't get it. I always thought the main reason people switch to Apple is for such crative and user friendly tools like iPhoto, Aperture, iMovie, FinalCut, etc. But now they are ditching everything what made Apple such a success. How are they going to differentiate themselves if not for those applications? Personally, I don't see any reason to upgrade to another iMac now. If I owned Apple stock, I would sell it now. I haven't seen anything over the last three years from Apple to boost my confidence in their furture. I think it is going to be a repeat of Apple's collapse just like when Steve left it first time in the 90th.
Fog Maker: What is not mentioned in the text above, but elsewhere, is that Apple is working closely with Adobe, to make migration to Lightroom easier. So this is truly the end.
And another quote from MacRumors: "While Photos will allow users to store, search, and edit photos via the cloud on Apple devices, it is unlikely to include the more robust, professional-oriented tools found in Aperture." I am really starting to hate Apple now. Very, VERY disappointing.
I love everything about Aperture and only hope that the new Photos app is at least as good. Having said that, I am very concerned with rather frustrating lack of innovation from Apple in a post-Steve era (which is now almost three years believe it or not). I don't like the complexity of PS with layers concept; Aperture also applies layers but in a much more friendly manner IMO. I was hoping for more features in terms of cloning in Aperture like lasso tool for example. So I would rather see Apple continue developing Apperture then changing to something else. I guess we just have to wait and see. Overall, rather frustrating news.
vkphoto: Hello,Thank you dpreview for featuring the project and thank you all for kind comments. I acquired ICA long time ago but used it only few times with original glass plates, and then it was collecting dust sitting as a decoration on the bookshelf. Few comments/answers1.I did the project purely for fun and yet after almost two years, still using the camera. 2.I chose Sony NEX because of its compact body, excellent focus peaking and tilting LCD. I think it was a good choice because now I can attach A7 using the same adapter.3.I did little post processing in ACR, Tessar is surprisingly sharp and works well for the close-up photography 4.Old ICA’s front/rear standard has some movements for tilt, shift, rise, fall and swing. All the best and have fun!
Wonderful. Where can we see more samples?
Wouldn't consider it even for $0.99/month. I just despise PS counterintuitive concept of layers.
Retzius: Meanwhile, Nikon is having a deep discussion on whether to include a touch screen and a dedicated ISO button on its next Dslr
I don't think FZ1000 is a serious threat to a DSLR. For certain applications - maybe; but there are so many things FZ1000 cannot do, so I am certainly not ditching my DSLR yet.
Hmm, I am getting practically the same effect by taking a video with just one phone while moving the arm holding the phone in a wide arch over my head from one side to another. Sure I am not "freezing" the moment but comparing cost and efforts I don't see their point really.
iae aa eia: When it comes the aperure, I don't see the big deal here yet. Its lens has a very uninteresting range equivalent to ƒ/5.2-8.1 compared to FF, and still quite uninteresting to ƒ/3.4-5.3 compared to FT. OK, in its category it's quite a deal, specially considering how well this lens may perform overall, its compactness and beacuse it's taking the lead when it comes to aperture.
But it is rather confusing though; I thought 1.8 is FF equivalent. Thanks for clarification.