danieljcox: Without the artist creating this image, there is no image. Why should he not get paid for his vision and creativity? Would anybody have bought this stamp had it just been a blank, white stamp without any sort of art? No! They bought it because it had something of interest that the artist created. The artist should be paid. Without the art the artist created, there is no stamp to sell. People who create good ideas or good art deserve to be paid.
Daniel J. Coxwww.naturalexposures.com
"Would anybody have bought this stamp had it just been a blank, white stamp without any sort of art? No!"
Actually, yes. Millions of people made no artistic choice whatsoever in buying this stamp. They just paid their 37 cents for whatever stamp the counter worker handed to them. (Note that the amount stated as payments by collectors was for all stamps, not this stamp.)
In my opinion, the result is still correct, but the analysis by the court was flawed. In looking at the first fair use factor, the court says that both the sculpture and the stamp have the same purpose - "to honor veterans of the Korean War" - and that the stamp has no "further purpose." I guess the obvious gets overlooked - the stamp's primary purpose is to prove payment of postage, not to honor anyone.
Greynerd: The advantage of Photoshop is you can buy find books easily on how to use it. I used to use Paintshop Pro but there seems to be a dearth of printed literature on how to use it to its full extent.
The author of #5 on that list (the $.99 e-book) also has a website with a good number of pdf files available for free download, and with a lot of free downloadable add-ons for the program. Also:
You can also find page after page of Paintshop tutorials on YouTube. The quality if inconsistent, but I actually find the good tutorials there to be a lot more helpful than most books.
Paulo Ferreira: Who took these samples? Awful, poor light, focusing, framing auto ISO? auto everything? That landscape taken from above with the 16-35 is shameful! You could not have found worse subjects, colours, settings... or maybe I'm wrong and you will still surprise me. Literally shown in a "bad light"
Are you referring to the "miniature mode" image of the highway interchange? I think that's the intended effect of that mode, though it's one I find hard to imagine wanting myself. The same lens was used for the golf course shot. In that one, it looks to me like the camera was moving during the exposure. Not even the center of the frame seems truly sharp.
So, I won't be rushing out to buy that 16-35 lens, but this series makes the camera itself look pretty impressive to me. Very good dynamic range, in particular, which that golf course shot displays nicely.
IMO, poor technique by the photographer is somewhat desirable in this context - gives a fair indication of what my own shots will look like. Great technique and talent can make any hardware look good.
cgarrard: Ugh, when are manufacturers going to stick a small evf in the upper left corner of one of these enthusiast compacts? (See nikon p60 if you need an idea it can be done). This camera with a compact evf with decent magnification and resolution would jump its way into my bag. No viewfinder, sorry Nikon just not for me.
It's important because when holding a camera far enough from the face to use the rear LCD, it's not possible to hold a camera as steady as when using a viewfinder. Absence of a VF effectively nullifies the benefits of image stabilization.
Inability to use the LCD in sunlight is also a problem, but IMO, not nearly as bad as the inherent instability of the camera waving around in the air.
Liberty555: I'm sorry - I like this site and am a die hard DPREVIEW fan-boy, but how on Earth is that considered a "Book Review"?
I suspect it's more of a book advertisement, given ownership of this site.
Is this the same Vivian Maier book that was touted here about a year ago? Or was that something else?
graybalanced: It's amusing that a certain vocal slice of DPReview's readers would have severely dismissed the design of her camera today, if it was digital, because you compose on a screen instead of holding it up to your eye and look through it. ;)
I still use a TLR that I've had for about 30 years. Although one composes on a screen, the screen is shielded from light by a folding viewfinder, complete with a flip-up magnifier, and the camera is easily braced against the chest at the end of a neckstrap. If the TLR lacked its viewfinder, and had to be held out at arm's length, criticism of its design from that "vocal slice" would be fully warranted.
My first thought was that Pentax should sue whoever put their trademark on such a silly, ugly and cheap-looking toy. I imagine its users will capture many images of people with their hands in front of their faces, trying to block the squirt of water they expect to be coming. Their famous "designer" could not have spent more than ten minutes earning whatever Pentax paid him for this.
I have a few K-mount lenses, though, and have never much cared what my own cameras look like. So I guess I'm hoping these things are marketing disasters that end up being cleared out at Big Lots for $69 each.
inevitable crafts studio: hmhmmm .. i dont know, i mean a guy works for 4month only, and he does 20 jobs ... a year^^
and he charges his customers, so that he can live on that money for a whole year ... i dont know ..
i mean i run one man company myself, with everything the guy explaned, but i live in europe, and to be honest, i have way more expenses and taxes and insurance to pay than this guy ... but you know what? i just work the whole year, not 20 jobs a year.
thats like i start to be a christmas photographer. what? 30grands for christmas photos? yeah, you know i have to live for a whole year, and you know, christmas is only once, but i just want to be christmas photographer ... otherwise i would have to take pictures of old people or portraits, you know ... i jsut dont like that ..
also he buys a car on loan and pays 600 per month?i only buy what i can afford :)
she was too harsh, but when i read his answer i probably know why she was so pi**ed :)
My thoughts exactly. Both are being self-centered in varying degrees, though the bride wins the contest handily. Her complaints defy reasoned or polite response.
But what Nikki glosses over is that she's grossing $50K for what she herself describes as a few days of work per week, four months out of the year. Then she sets forth how she applies that to expenses for the entire year. Maybe she's spending another 1600-1700 hours a year doing marketing or something else she hasn't said. But I haven't had three full weeks off work in over 45 years of working for a living. So forgive me, please, but it's really hard for me to muster up sympathy for someone evidently taking eight months of annual vacation.
This is an interesting case that I think was wrongly decided - the judge ends up protecting what copyright law generally does NOT protect - the concept, general elements and process, rather than the expression itself. He seems way too impressed by a Photoshop technique that is ridiculously common. I don't know what kind of appellate system they have in the UK, but I can't imagine this decision being upheld. As precedent, it's horrible.
The obvious problem for the judge, though, was that the defendants essentially "confessed" that they intended to copy all of those features of the first image, and were doing it for a commercial purpose. That evidently didn't sit well in his mind. To me, though, the difference between the two images is huge, and really IS the artistic expression of the second. Houghton copied a concept and a process, to produce a very different work more suited for the use his client intended to make of the image. That's exactly what IP law is meant to encourage.
Great article, Barney! I'm not even in the market for a camera of this class (or didn't think I was), but I found this to be one of the best in a long time. The British usage and spelling ("different to," and "neighbouring") took me back to the early days of the site, too. Thanks.
The handling of dynamic range is quite impressive, but the sacrifice of detail is a real disappointment in a frame shot at at high shutter speed and ISO 100. I own 7 year-old Sony DSC-W1 (1/1.8" sensor) that captures far, far more detail than this in a mere 5MP image. The only part of this image that seems to approach the clarity of the W1 (a $5 yard-sale purchase) is the foliage in the extreme lower right corner.
EDIT: After looking at a few other images in the album, I'm now wondering whether this one is just showing the effects of being taken through a window, or perhaps the lens was fogged.
iaredatsun: I'm not sure about this.
It seems to me that an individual work can be copied and hence copyrighted but not a photographer's whole oeuvre. I think that what is being contested here is not the intellectual theft of an idea in a photographic work but the theft of a commercial design idea or a trademark.
Imagine if every well know photographer's signature style was copyright. Atget, André Kertesz, Man Ray, Eggleston, Diane Arbus, Bernd and Hilla Becher, Wolgang Tillmans, Terry Richardson
There's very little original being produced today so if you could, in theory, copyright a photographic style then it would put most pro photographers right out of business. Amateur photographers might get away with it but if they were under threat too then they'd stop taking photos or stop putting their stuff online through fear. Creative incentive would be stifled. It would kill the whole photographic manufacturing industry and the distribution industry to boot.
This case wasn't about "style." Emulating the style of another doesn't constitute copying. But in this case, it was obvious that the set for the music video was just an item-by-item copy prepared from the photo. The copied elements were really almost too numerous to count, right down to colors and patterns of numerous elements, and the scenery depicted as the view out the rear window. Blatant barely begins to describe it.
Mssimo: I hope Panasonic or richo (aka pentax) buys off Olympus camera/health division.
How many here have actually confirmed what the deposed CEO has written as fact? I haven't, and I don't know how much is true and how much is hooey. But law is my day job, and for the past two decades, the number one bit of advice given to anyone who sees a termination coming and seeks legal advice is, "Report something improper, anything, and don't worry about how much true." Studies of this phenomenon (and I admit, I don't know all their methodology) have suggested that over 90% of corporate "whistle-blowing" is false, either in fact or innuendo (i.e., true facts presented in false light that makes actions appear improper when they're not). The same is true of media reports by today's "journalists," and only slightly less often. Anyone who thinks right and wrong in this dispute can be determined from what see here is just being foolish.
"... objects with wings are NOT allowed, as well as any kind of animal or human being (at least as the main subject)."
You didn't even have to show the full rules to see that. Did only half the entrants bother to read the rules at all? Just wondering.