arhmatic: Probably a beginner question regarding wireless - does this mean that the flash can be located anywhere in the room, and it can be triggered with the camera, within a certain range? Does the camera need to be wireless capable?
What one will need for wireless remote control is any compatible (that would be a Fujifilm system) flash that can operate in master mode (or a pure remote controller unit without flash functionality).
This Fujifilm flash has both master and remote modes selectable, so one would need for example at least two of these; one flash unit attached to the camera working as a master and the other unit as a slave in remote mode.
BTW, I don’t know how Fujifilm has implemented it and I have not exclusively tested it with my Canon flashes, but my real life experience is that the master flash doesn’t light up the subject because there is a small intentional delay after the master’s communication optical pulse train has completed transferring remote commands. I should specifically test this to be certain.
Digimat: long overdue.
but why the hell do all on-camera flashes have to look like they came to us in a delorean?! i mean its not the 80s anymore...a bit more compact, quality and design isn´t something bad...its 2016 after all.
and why is there no radio communication? even those cheapo china things can do it pretty reliable...
To me this Fuji flash looks like a tool with pleasing and stylish utilitarian form language. By the way the compactness comes with limitations, particularly within the power-recharge department and heat management. One can’t have it all, I’m afraid.
Well, actually optical remote control of flashes can and often will work reliably also thru reflected light, particularly when operating in a relatively small confined space like a room in an apartment.
If optical communication is used in outdoor environment or there are very strong other light sources like sunlight coming thru windows then direct optical path from master flash to the slaves is required for reliability.
I have used optical remote control (Canon) successfully even in a church, so I wouldn’t necessarily deem this as a disadvantage, especially because optical communication is free from regional regulatory problems and your neighbours’ WLAN, microwave oven etc. won’t ruin your day.
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.
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.
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...)
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.
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.
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 readStep 1: Don't diagonal or half read, read it completelyStep 2: Interpret what you readStep 3: THINK what you readStep 4: RE-THINK what you have just readStep 5: Draw your conclusions from what is written and not from what you think it is writtenStep 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.
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.
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...
@ nixdaThe 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.
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.
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.
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.