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.
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.
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 CarverThe 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...
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.
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 CarverGreece is on a one way road towards total economic collapse and societal anarchy, if that looks sensible to you... so be it.
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...
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.
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.
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.
Deorum: Seems funny how when he takes the camera out of the advertised bag, lens cap is already off.
Nice bag though, nice design
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.
Lee Jay: This is what happens when you put marketing people together with legalized pot.
LOL! I do agree, but would like to add that the marketing guys don't really need external chemical encouragement; they just listen to themselves and seek peer-support for their dolt ideas in emancipating meetings, held in rooms full of remarkably expensive distractions (stuff feeding their imagination they would claim).
And this is the result, cerebral agony to those who actually understand something...
ThatCamFan: Or just use a polorizer, mit is wasting time.
The reflection is most and practically entirely polarized when the angle of incidence is at so called Brewster's angle:
In other angles the polarization is weak and no polarizer regardless of quality could effectively remove reflections, unless the light is for some reason polarized to begin with (like coming from LCD monitor or such).
These are very good. Intriguing property of #1 is that at first I thought the horizontal angle of dominant object, the shelter wall, was slightly off; but forgive me for suspecting such sloppiness... I was wrong.
Great collection, thank you for sharing!
Neez: Tamron version has stabilization.
Indeed, and with excellent optical performance. Even though competition is welcome, after the Tamron SP 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD, I see little to no reason to launch a new lens into this category without stabilization. Tamron is that good.
I'm sure the Tokina is built impeccably though.
Marty4650: If these were branded by Hassleblad, they could sell for $62,000!
You boys have dirty mindsets... or is it just me with my skewed imagination?
As a patriotic Finn I am proud of both, our beautiful country and about Janne Voutilainen on how majestically he represents Finland in his art. Outstanding work, gallery class no question!
Virvatulet: Many seem to support the idea that one could arbitrarily dictate what others can do in public places. Using a public space inherently conveys an accord on limited privacy; the very prospect to be heard, seen and remembered by others.
As long as no physical change is forced on one's personal proximity, there really is nothing what one should do about other's freedom to choose how they use the immediate free space of theirs.
Passively collecting stray photons with a camera can not be objectively seen as excessive behaviour. It's also vital to remember to separate photographing from publishing (legislation variant). What can be legally seen shall be legally photographed (a priori), regardless of the circumstances affecting lawful publishing.
The ladies in the picture exercised their right to choose how they want to be seen and remembered when they use public space. Not willing to give even a split-second moment of their day to the memories of a gentleman randomly crossing their path.
Considering all the 24/7 surveillance videography, both government agency and private security firms arranged, it certainly shall be interesting to see how lawmakers will manage to retain any logic behind such bans. They won't if the ban targets solely photography; they might to some degree if the target is publishing.
In any case this is very troublesome development in the larger view of freedom of speech and expression. Photography is still seen as a threat in many societies, because of its perceived documentary and testimonial properties, making it therefore a convenient restriction target whenever a new excuse arises.
By the way, I follow pretty much the same "code of conduct" as you do. However, it is simply not even possible to ask people in many occasions, so I don't usually bother when I don't have to, given the circumstances.
rallyfan: Why harass the three elderly women in Spain?
@ Roland KarlssonI also have been demanded money for such a casual vacation photo. That was somewhat tainted spirited coming from people I was not specifically portraiture photographing.
Very nice set of various subjects and an appetizing treatment of such photography. Picture number two is my favourite, has a touch of Leni Riefenstahl's style approach in it. Thank you for sharing!
Many seem to support the idea that one could arbitrarily dictate what others can do in public places. Using a public space inherently conveys an accord on limited privacy; the very prospect to be heard, seen and remembered by others.
AstroStan: here is a well timed shot:http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html(APOD)
That is not exactly a fair comparison, but then again, moderation is a fatal thing.