Danny: Post only low-res images, keep the high-res for yourself. If people mess around with your images, it will only be the low res ones, good enough for posting online, but bad enough for doing anything serious with them.
He obviously also posted the hi res version somewhere else. Otherwise point 2 wouldn't be there. People can't magically find the high res version from the low res unless you also post the high res somewhere else.
D1N0: If you don't want your photo's "stolen" don't put them on the internet. Right click prevention scripts won't save you. Just get the URL from the source. The print screen button can not be scripted away anyway. Stupid greedy photographers who think they can sue anybody over simple instructions to avoid clumsy protection which doesn't even work in every browser are idiots. Put pictures online and get angry when people copy them. That is more moronic than even a baboon could ever be.
I think all D1N0 is saying is that if you leave your keys in the ignition of your convertible don't act shocked when someone steals it. Sure its still theft but that doesn't make you any less dumb for making it so easy.
DStudio: It's plain and simple. The studio owns the rights to the photos unless there's a written agreement stating otherwise. It sounds like the Walton family has also been illegally reproducing copies of these photos for some time, and they should have to pay for that. Normally, casual reproduction would be let go by a studio (it's unclear how extensively they were republished), but since the Walton family has now made an issue of it they should be required to pay for this misuse as well.
The PPA's backing of the defendant is a near-certain indication she's right. The PPA has high integrity and a clear understanding of the law. It's interesting that the other case they cite in their article involves someone else (Oprah Winfrey) who's power has also gone to her head. It's too bad - I suspect that the Walton generation which founded Walmart would never have done this, but the current generation lacks such sensibility.
Actually you're right I misread who the "they" meant in "provided a copyright notice to the Walton family notifying them that they owned “exclusive rights to reproduce” the pictures."
Obviously just because Walmart says they have it doesn't mean its true until the show it in court. The way it reads also doesn't really suggest Walmart owns the physical copies, just the exclusive rights to ever use them. Which make sense, except for maybe some of the earlier picture I can't imagine Walmart hiring a photographer without full and exclusive rights for the use of the photos. So to me at least both side sound fishy.
According to another article Walmart is claiming to have such a written agreement.
cmorse: The way the article reads Walmart's claim is that they already did pay for the full rights and the widow isn't honoring her husband's agreement. That may or may not be true, but just because Walmart is greedy doesn't mean the widow isn't also being greedy.
My sympathies aren't with either one of them at the moment. From my understanding of the article either one of them could be in the wrong. It shouldn't be assumed that Walmart is in the wrong just because they are rich, it shouldn't be assumed that they are in the right either. The same the applies to Ms Huff, just because Walmart is a big evil corp doesn't mean she isn't trying to scam them.
The way the article reads Walmart's claim is that they already did pay for the full rights and the widow isn't honoring her husband's agreement. That may or may not be true, but just because Walmart is greedy doesn't mean the widow isn't also being greedy.
My camera already has super high resolution based on offsetting the sensor though hand shake. Apple's method is pretty meaningless unless there is a tripod involve .
Bugs Bunny: XP is gone, Long live the Mac OS Microsoft had that os for more than 10 yearsA lot of people do not trust Microsoft OS.Apple is years ahead.
Even after Windows 7 was introduce XP was still widely available on new PCs.
NZ Scott: NO!
No filter thread on the new 7-14 ...
That means I can't buy it. I'll have to get a 9-18 instead, which doesn't go wide enough for me.
Sony's NEX system has an ultrawide starting at 15mm (ff equivalent) that takes filters and only weighs a couple of hundred grams.
Why can't Oly/Panny do the same?
Apparently the panasonic 7-14mm is relatively easy to add the rear filter holder from panasonic's fisheye.
Adrian Van: I actually like the camera body design and nice lens bodies of this camera better than the Nikon 1 J series (I know Nikon 1 is not m43 but it is competing with it to a degree in mirrorless) and also like the tilt screen of this new camera. If the sensor and image quality is good enough, and reasonable price, this could get interesting with JK Imaging /Kodak entering m43 arena of cameras out there or ILC in general.
The kit lens of S1 shows Aspheric ED Lens at 12-45mm. After using the collapsible lens of Oly, I stopped using it, and prefer the non-collapsible in other m43 lenses on my EPL. So these lenses I like. I would use primes for short lenses over collapsible ones.
If they are using a sony sensor I doubt the image quality will be any worse , at least in raw. Focus speed, buffer speed, interface, build quality and the like are where it would likely show it's price.
shaocaholica: It seems like the limitations of highlight clipping for a sensor without a color filter array could be solved by something like the Fuji EXR system where there's are 2 sets of photosites where one set is highly sensitive for shadows and the other set is less sensitive for highlights. Not sure how much resolution you'd lose with this approach but it would be cool to have the extra DR.
Seems like they could have done something rather more interesting buy replacing some of the color filters with ND filters