PIX 2015
Virvatulet

Virvatulet

Lives in Finland Finland
Joined on Jul 25, 2005

Comments

Total: 101, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

johnsmith404: This might be the future of photography. Taking multiple 'sequential' exposures and extracting all kinds of information is the way the human brain does it vision job. Related mechanisms lead to high resolution (hyperacuity) and low noise.

I wonder if I'll live long enough to see the first neuromorph processing engines in cameras.

@ newe

...of you.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 6, 2015 at 03:34 UTC
In reply to:

AbrasiveReducer: Some impressive insults here. Spin this as you like; the idea is that if the person taking the picture manages to make money from it, somebody else wants that money. You see, the folks who own skyscrapers are having trouble making ends meet but you, the photographer, can help.

Just as stock photos create a revenue stream, helping Gates and Getty put food on the table.

Indeed, that is quite a "choice" to be required to point the camera against one's desired direction when operating at public places.

One could formally argue those from being truthfully public anymore, and I know that the right to use public space is stronger justice principle than a copyright, or at least I thought that I knew. This copyright issue has spun out of control because of incompetent and influenced decision making.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 9, 2015 at 01:28 UTC
In reply to:

Triggerhappy2: Copyrighting buildings in public spaces is as stupid as giving a patent to a rounded rectangle shape. Maybe the copyright holder will gain few Euros extra in selling post cards but will also loose a lot of publicity when images of the building cannot be shared freely. I think also that many of the buildings that get a copyright if this law passes has no economical interest to try to capitalize it. They will only loose the free publicity that they might now have in Wikipedia. In addition also humanity will loose a lot of historical images if this law passes. Images that are not freely available as in Wikimedia Commons has a bigger risk of disappearing in the future.

That's great; you have excellent foundation for appreciating how a view is formed into our awareness, starting from the stray photons etc.

FYI, only a very few people of those owning registrable IPR succeed in making any significant income stream out of it, I would say less than 2 %. Most of the inventions and applied scientific discoveries are made in tight connection with employers that de facto have secured their position with assignment accords.

But hey, at least it's always fun to invent something new and solve problems! (The reality might be sweat, tears, sleepless nights and agony though...)

Direct link | Posted on Jul 7, 2015 at 17:08 UTC
In reply to:

Triggerhappy2: Copyrighting buildings in public spaces is as stupid as giving a patent to a rounded rectangle shape. Maybe the copyright holder will gain few Euros extra in selling post cards but will also loose a lot of publicity when images of the building cannot be shared freely. I think also that many of the buildings that get a copyright if this law passes has no economical interest to try to capitalize it. They will only loose the free publicity that they might now have in Wikipedia. In addition also humanity will loose a lot of historical images if this law passes. Images that are not freely available as in Wikimedia Commons has a bigger risk of disappearing in the future.

I take it that your background is not from natural sciences with firsthand experience from working with IPR. I have worked for a technology transfer company, call it a patent troll if you will, and am personally a holder of IPR from the discipline of applied physics.

Now you know why I deem a view as a naturally occurring phenomenon.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 7, 2015 at 16:00 UTC
In reply to:

Triggerhappy2: Copyrighting buildings in public spaces is as stupid as giving a patent to a rounded rectangle shape. Maybe the copyright holder will gain few Euros extra in selling post cards but will also loose a lot of publicity when images of the building cannot be shared freely. I think also that many of the buildings that get a copyright if this law passes has no economical interest to try to capitalize it. They will only loose the free publicity that they might now have in Wikipedia. In addition also humanity will loose a lot of historical images if this law passes. Images that are not freely available as in Wikimedia Commons has a bigger risk of disappearing in the future.

Lucky for us, the OP is always welcome to rectify my elucidation, should there ever be a need for that.

When you state "...if buildings and works of art in public spaces were not protected by copyright laws", you'll give readers the wrong impression that I would like to remove their copyright, which is not the case at all.

What I do, is promoting the principle that nobody can claim IPR ownership of naturally occurring phenomenon, like a view in this particular case. This doesn't mean that a shady contractor would be OK with building a copy of neighbouring building etc. Even if risking it, I'll make another assumption that you actually have already comprehended it.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 7, 2015 at 13:52 UTC
In reply to:

Vanitas Photo: Again this is for COMMERCIAL PHOTOGRAPHY dumbie dumbs, it WON'T apply to tourist, family, personal, selfie stick, etc. photography.

Step 0: Learn to read
Step 1: Don't diagonal or half read, read it completely
Step 2: Interpret what you read
Step 3: THINK what you read
Step 4: RE-THINK what you have just read
Step 5: Draw your conclusions from what is written and not from what you think it is written
Step 6: Avoid writing yourself something dumb because you didn't followed what it was written from step 0 to Step 5...

And those calling this foul from the USA try to take a photo of an US embassy in any part of the world without having a major issue with them... PFFFT

Touting learn to read to others doesn't bode well for the prospect of intelligent discourse.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 7, 2015 at 12:30 UTC
In reply to:

Triggerhappy2: Copyrighting buildings in public spaces is as stupid as giving a patent to a rounded rectangle shape. Maybe the copyright holder will gain few Euros extra in selling post cards but will also loose a lot of publicity when images of the building cannot be shared freely. I think also that many of the buildings that get a copyright if this law passes has no economical interest to try to capitalize it. They will only loose the free publicity that they might now have in Wikipedia. In addition also humanity will loose a lot of historical images if this law passes. Images that are not freely available as in Wikimedia Commons has a bigger risk of disappearing in the future.

I believe the point from OP was that copyright of a building shouldn't extend to its pictorial presentations in the first place; the picture is an independent artwork.

This suggested legislation change aims at giving tools for reinforcing and implementing this unjustifiable and otherwise problematic inheriting nature of current copyright interpretation. A change with copyright law is needed but not into this direction.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 7, 2015 at 12:17 UTC
In reply to:

ProfHankD: If presenting a view from a public place of a "copyrighted" building for monetary gain is not ok without permission, it wouldn't take much to say that taxi drivers need to get permission from all the buildings that a passenger might see through the window during a paid ride. That's nuts.

I can imagine issues with simulating a trademark, or implicit endorsement of a product, but existing law would handle those cases reasonably. Explicit restrictions on use of photography typically are about an expectation of privacy -- extending that concept to inanimate objects (buildings) is a huge stretch.

The national park and Disney examples are fundamentally different in that those involve views from specially-designated areas. For example, there are military bases where photography is restricted in marked "sensitive" areas. I've never seen a copyright notice posted on a building so that it is clearly visible from all public areas that might view the building....

Whether or not a building technically resides in public space is really more of semantics as long as it can be seen using public space. I recon that what you said convey this notion too.

From a philosophical and equality viewpoint there is also a reciprocative principle, put something into public space without asking its other users and don't expect the others to ask anything further. Obviously legislation doesn't directly recognise this.

Indeed there are many logical discontinuity problems with the current legislation concerning IPR, usually giving bizarre rights like the possibility to claim ownership of a view or even worse, just a colour.

A thorough overhaul is needed and copyright should be in most cases limited to the original intent of an artwork. For example meaning that a photograph, painting or sketch of a building can not infringe its copyright, but another building might do so.

Something that is unlikely to happen, thanks to those mentioned special interest groups...

Direct link | Posted on Jul 6, 2015 at 23:13 UTC
In reply to:

ProfHankD: If presenting a view from a public place of a "copyrighted" building for monetary gain is not ok without permission, it wouldn't take much to say that taxi drivers need to get permission from all the buildings that a passenger might see through the window during a paid ride. That's nuts.

I can imagine issues with simulating a trademark, or implicit endorsement of a product, but existing law would handle those cases reasonably. Explicit restrictions on use of photography typically are about an expectation of privacy -- extending that concept to inanimate objects (buildings) is a huge stretch.

The national park and Disney examples are fundamentally different in that those involve views from specially-designated areas. For example, there are military bases where photography is restricted in marked "sensitive" areas. I've never seen a copyright notice posted on a building so that it is clearly visible from all public areas that might view the building....

@ nixda
The copyright concern is inconsequential compared to the underlying fundamental principle on the right to use public space, something that has to be evenly and justly shared. No one should be able to take a position where they could arbitrarily dictate what others can or can not do in public places. It doesn't matter if one chooses to do something for monetary compensation.

For example an artist or an architect consciously chooses to put something into public space, and usually gets paid for doing it, which is their way of utilising public space. Likewise a photographer might get paid for taking pictures using the public space or a sightseeing guide takes a tour with a group of tourists paying an attending fee.
These all are examples benefiting from the view.

As has been said many times before, the solution to the copyright concern is to refrain from using the public space; the only possible way having full control without arbitrarily restricting others' freedom to choose.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 6, 2015 at 21:09 UTC
In reply to:

ProfHankD: If presenting a view from a public place of a "copyrighted" building for monetary gain is not ok without permission, it wouldn't take much to say that taxi drivers need to get permission from all the buildings that a passenger might see through the window during a paid ride. That's nuts.

I can imagine issues with simulating a trademark, or implicit endorsement of a product, but existing law would handle those cases reasonably. Explicit restrictions on use of photography typically are about an expectation of privacy -- extending that concept to inanimate objects (buildings) is a huge stretch.

The national park and Disney examples are fundamentally different in that those involve views from specially-designated areas. For example, there are military bases where photography is restricted in marked "sensitive" areas. I've never seen a copyright notice posted on a building so that it is clearly visible from all public areas that might view the building....

And for further clarification, the mentioned initiator could be e.g. an artist, a sculptor or a property developer using the public space for their needs.

BTW, this 1000 character limit makes it quite painful to maintain solid argumentation on complex subjects; especially for a non-native English-speaker like myself.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 6, 2015 at 17:32 UTC
In reply to:

ProfHankD: If presenting a view from a public place of a "copyrighted" building for monetary gain is not ok without permission, it wouldn't take much to say that taxi drivers need to get permission from all the buildings that a passenger might see through the window during a paid ride. That's nuts.

I can imagine issues with simulating a trademark, or implicit endorsement of a product, but existing law would handle those cases reasonably. Explicit restrictions on use of photography typically are about an expectation of privacy -- extending that concept to inanimate objects (buildings) is a huge stretch.

The national park and Disney examples are fundamentally different in that those involve views from specially-designated areas. For example, there are military bases where photography is restricted in marked "sensitive" areas. I've never seen a copyright notice posted on a building so that it is clearly visible from all public areas that might view the building....

The legal action you are referring to as model release is all about privacy protected under the law, not about copyright even though that can be mentioned in such agreements. It's a universally recognised premise that non-living objects do not have feelings and therefore can't have need for privacy and protection thereof. Thus not applicable.

But if I play along with your idea for a moment: Has the building given its consent to be placed out into public view to begin with? This silly sounding question is logical continuum from the approach you are trying to use.

The fact that something has been considered in a certain way for a long time or in many countries doesn't make it more rational as such. The legislation is influenced by different interest groups and seldom reaches logical integrity.

There shouldn't be any restrictions on how one can use public spaces based on intangible principles, the responsibility for protecting such values should always be a priori within the initiator.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 6, 2015 at 17:11 UTC
In reply to:

ProfHankD: If presenting a view from a public place of a "copyrighted" building for monetary gain is not ok without permission, it wouldn't take much to say that taxi drivers need to get permission from all the buildings that a passenger might see through the window during a paid ride. That's nuts.

I can imagine issues with simulating a trademark, or implicit endorsement of a product, but existing law would handle those cases reasonably. Explicit restrictions on use of photography typically are about an expectation of privacy -- extending that concept to inanimate objects (buildings) is a huge stretch.

The national park and Disney examples are fundamentally different in that those involve views from specially-designated areas. For example, there are military bases where photography is restricted in marked "sensitive" areas. I've never seen a copyright notice posted on a building so that it is clearly visible from all public areas that might view the building....

The taxi driver analogy is just a logical consequence of such legislation since commercial use won't be classified or fixed to only some information relaying platforms. And if it would be, that would merely underline the logic deficiency behind this proposal.

Furthermore, at least here in Finland we have a precedent from Supreme Court ruling where taxi drivers are obliged to make a certain type of copyright compensation if their customers can hear taxi driver's car radio. And it didn't matter that radio stations have already paid the same fees.

Pure prowling this is, when there is no sound logic behind copyright claims the extension possibilities are virtually endless.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 6, 2015 at 01:07 UTC
In reply to:

Wubslin: Why should you be able to exploit other peoples' property for your own commercial benefit?

Because public space can not be nobody's exclusive property and therefore putting something in it comes with an inherently formed accord on the prospect that that something will be seen and even touched by others in uncontrolled ways and means.

In other words, if you don't want it to be seen by others, keep it locked-up and covered-up.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 5, 2015 at 12:30 UTC
In reply to:

Francis Carver: Europe -- is toast. Kaput. Fin. Finito. Ende.

But I guess the damnable Eurocrats did not get THAT important memo?

Kudos to Greece -- they are on their way to leave this whole sordid mess behind. Or soon will be.

@ Francis Carver
The Novo GRD's projected exchange rate would be 1/3 to 1/5 of the original ECU connection value, but you are such a dolt that you probably think it's just a good thing to have more drachmas for an Euro...

Direct link | Posted on Jul 5, 2015 at 11:59 UTC
In reply to:

Francis Carver: Europe -- is toast. Kaput. Fin. Finito. Ende.

But I guess the damnable Eurocrats did not get THAT important memo?

Kudos to Greece -- they are on their way to leave this whole sordid mess behind. Or soon will be.

My understanding is that Greece is, for now, a democratically governed country whose political elite has indeed been elected and is responsible for accumulating the debt burden, and is guilty to cooking the books in order to qualify for the monetary union.

There is no way Greece could cope without external financing and imported goods, and it won't get new loans from open international market. I don't see how stating the facts makes me a part of anything, notwithstanding this coversation.

The impending asset devaluation has dramatic consequences, should Greece decide to leave the monetary union. For the time being Greece has benefited from interest rate stability, with its own weak currency it will get ugly. Even tourism will suffer because of political and social tensions.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 5, 2015 at 02:55 UTC
In reply to:

Michael MacGillivray: There just isn't an end to corporations tredding on individual freedoms these days. This one -- if passed, just begs for civil disobedience. Can't you picture 50,000 people out with their cameras photographing Shell's HQ?

London, of course, is the center of this kind of hubris.

@ Francis Carver
Greece is on a one way road towards total economic collapse and societal anarchy, if that looks sensible to you... so be it.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 5, 2015 at 01:47 UTC
In reply to:

Vanitas Photo: You will be able to shoot photos of anything you want, the law puts limitations on the COMMERCIAL use of those photos.

You can take photos of the eiffel tower at night what you cant do is sell them without the consent of the artist who made the illumination...

GEEEZ

Maybe your point didn’t come thru to me. But I don't need the art-lighting to be on on Eiffel Tower, and even more so, I don't generally recognize the artists' right to arbitrarily put something into public display in order to be able to dictate what others can do with public space.

The whole concept and principle is badly and irrevocably flawed, this is really a big deal that should not be taken lightly.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 4, 2015 at 20:27 UTC

This greediness, logic in pure failure mode and madness of arbitrarily claiming ownership of public space (and views WTF!) has to come to an end. Nobody should be able to dictate what others can and cannot do in public places as long as there is no direct and concrete impact on others using the public place.

The legislature development is collateral damage related to hard lobbying media corps’ attempts to reinforce their IPR in every possible way they just can think of.

In the end this is very dangerous development because this will severely hinder our freedom of speech and expression, and freedom to relay and receive information or ideas in any way we deem appropriate for ourselves.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 4, 2015 at 20:14 UTC as 137th comment
In reply to:

Francis Carver: Europe -- is toast. Kaput. Fin. Finito. Ende.

But I guess the damnable Eurocrats did not get THAT important memo?

Kudos to Greece -- they are on their way to leave this whole sordid mess behind. Or soon will be.

What an ignorant comment that was.

Greece's departure from the monetary union i.e. Euro-zone, shall that ever happen, is nothing to be celebrated about.

If anything, I feel very sorry for the ordinary Greek who will suffer the most and are unable to protect themselves from the extreme, not seen in Europe after the WWII, devaluation of their assets and income.

I could even predict a military led coup d'état taking place, situation will get that ruthless.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 4, 2015 at 19:33 UTC
In reply to:

Deorum: Seems funny how when he takes the camera out of the advertised bag, lens cap is already off.

Nice bag though, nice design

haha

I for one always prefer keeping the lens cap on until I'm holding the camera securely and possibly have the neck strap where it should be. Well, I would guess one could still use lens caps, however if the bottom material has hard surface then having a lens cap grinding against it is not a good idea.

Interesting bag concept, I must say.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 5, 2015 at 12:21 UTC
Total: 101, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »