DotCom Editor: This appears to be a poor job of headline writing. To claim that "Walmart sues" would seem to be completely untrue and inaccurate. In the story it says, "The Walton family complaint..." That's vastly different than Walmart. So, which is it?
Get your facts right before writing the headlines. You want a professional photographer to shoot your wedding; you should have a professional journalist doing the journalism.
On the contrary, according to multiple legal websites it was filed by "Crystal Lands, LLC; Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. " as the Plaintiff.
Getting your facts right is important.
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.
I already found the same article. Walmart doesn't even claim to have such a document - not in any article I read.
What I did read made me suspect the motive is to cover for having already misused these photos, which they don't own. They may have plans for more extensive use in the future, whether for museums, ads, or other promotions. Above all, they want the courts to ban Huff from any commercial use, thus making themselves the only potential "bidder." This flies straight in the face of the very reason for the law!
They're already backpedaling, with the Walmart spokesman's statement this afternoon that "some" of the photos belong to Walmart. Yet their suit still claims they should get ALL of them, the vast majority of which have clearly belonged to the studio all along.
I think they're trying to confuse the matter by claiming that a few of them were taken in for restoration. They're being deliberately ambiguous, trying to win in any way possible rather than addressing the truth.
MrTaikitso: 64GB of SSD in 2014 is pathetic. I'm using 1TB of SSD on my MB Pro 15", and will need more in a year. I had 256GB on my excellent MB Air 13", but filled it up in a year too before getting the MBP.
What are MS thinking? Where are people going to store all their images? (I keep all my content locally AND in the cloud, for peace of mind.)
They're thinking you know what a USB 3.0 port is for!
Biowizard: Brilliant! Am I the only one looking forward to "iPad Pro" - now about 99% more likely this year than before!
If it runs iOS it ain't gonna be the same - at all!
It'll have none of the photography apps that run on Windows or OS X. So no matter how powerful the processor is, if such an animal were to be released tomorrow it would take at least 2-3 years to get these publishers to create even just a few apps with similar power and capabilities.
Can you provide a reference to this article please?
The very idea sounds fishy, however:
1) This would have resolved the issue ages ago
2) Why would PPA stand behind the studio if a legitimate document like this existed? It would be a waste of their resources. Such a document would simply be in accordance with existing law, and there'd be no reason to file an amicus brief since there'd be no threat to the industry. PPA would simply leave the widow alone to face the consequences. On the contrary, they see some kind of manipulation occurring here.
The Walton family is clearly trying to circumvent the law, for some reason (it would be interesting to learn their actual motive).
Steve in GA: I suppose there have always been folks who saw themselves as victims of vicious economic brutality by those who are more successful. But, the odd thing is that I can’t recall ever hearing anyone express such views before internet blogs came along.
Yes, there have always been a few muckraking press reporters who would try to blame someone’s misfortune on, “the evil rich”. But for the most part, most people saw business success as something to aspire to and emulate, rather than as something to hate and tear down.
Now, internet blogs are filled with, “destroy the Waltons” and “kill the Koch brothers”. I hope comments like these in this blog are not coming from Americans, but I know many of them are.
What a sad country we have become.
Sorry Steve in GA, this attitude has been present in America since before Andrew Jackson and the founding of the Democratic Party, who's stated strategy was to manipulate the "uneducated" majority by "standing up for them." And to this day they claim the votes of the majority by calling them "women and minorities."
The only difference the internet's made is it allows people to publish their antipathy more easily. But these attitudes have been held and discussed by Americans since the founding of our country.
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.
visualvirtuoso: Not sure where the competitive advantage lies. LiveU, Streambox, Dejero all bond cell signals to deliver footage from the field: http://www.liveu.tv/
Small detail: He's a photographer, not a videographer!
Peter Galbavy: Erm, much as I dislike the Eye-Fi card for it's poor support and lack of stated confidentiality (for their mandatory upload-to-cloud-to-auto-share), once it's working it's good. I shoot, WiFi Direct to my tablet, select images and upload. If I wanted to I could also edit but I don't generally.
This is nothing more than a bit of ego-massaging PR. No innovation here. Move along.
You fail to realize this is a change in the workflow, which is a huge deal. So his photos get published quicker than yours every time.
There are ways to do this much more simply and more compact as long as you're willing to go with just one cellular network at a time and keep an eye on it. No backpack required - just your pockets, or a pocket of the backpack/camera bag you already use.
The truth is you should have all 4 cellular networks at your disposal when possible - there are places where only one network works that well, and it could be any of them.
This cellular bonding technology can be essential for video, but can be overkill in many photo applications. It still doesn't hurt - as long as his solution is compact enough for him it's great, but competitors could do almost as well on a shoestring (with zero software development or custom hardware) ...
Wow, #9 really stopped me in my tracks! And then the ones that follow it are interesting too.
Ken Aisin: F**k creative cloud.... back with the non-cloud version please.
I've known people like this ... Profanity followed by "Please?"
Real McKay: This is exactly why, I along with what I believe is the majority, prefer programs to be on our computers.Can you imagine earning you living in photography & this happens - its just not acceptable. I am switching to something where I do not depend on the cloud. LR5 & PSE12 are available still outside the cloud so no great loss of functionality for 99% of what I need.I also believe that this will hurt Adobe more than they think.
Craig76 - I'm a fairly strong Adobe critic, but you will NEVER go with CC? I don't use LR, but I'm on CC for Photoshop because it made more sense to me right now. You're saying you don't need Photoshop, and you will NEVER need it it the future either!
I have my ideals, but in the end Adobe gets to decide most of what happens, and I just need to decide whether or not I need the product.
DStudio: It makes sense that the same callous heart who would lack the sensitivity to care about these animals would also lack the artistic sensitivity to create anything beautiful.
I have some regret for having made this statement - in particular I feel guilty about two words ('callous heart') I wish I hadn't used.
I knew there was something funny going on, but at the time I hadn't properly isolated what he himself had done from the actions of others (whom he was being grouped with).
I've since realized he has a serious integrity issue, which I've outlined above. And I still think one's moral decisions will be reflected in his art. But I regret suggesting I understood his heart.
I think people are misunderstanding which ethics are important here. The treatment of the animals - while important - is a red herring. The real ethical issue is of deceiving viewers by making up stories, telling them that these fabricated pictures are journalistic in nature. Nordin used these tricks to become more popular, allowing these stories to remain in the popular press for years before saying anything.
Now that he's published a preponderance of similar images - too many to be coincidental and naturally occurring - he's got a new story. We can only presume that his "new truth" is in fact half-truths.
photo perzon: Make it 24K to be appreciated it, users are on the side of the football field.
Or perhaps that it should be 24k gold, since users on the side of the field can be seen. Could even be referring to American football, where photographers are often highly visible, standing directly on the sidelines and frequently getting run over by players going out of bounds.
bobbarber: I wonder if people will post about the "affordable" price of FF on this thread. I'm sure the 400 2.8 is an awesome lens, but 12 grand? Really?
@tom1234567 - You couldn't build this lens for under £2000 at any sales volume - the cost of manufacturing is too great. Why can't we understand that the results these lenses produce is amazing, and that takes careful engineering and expensive, high quality materials?
Jonathan F/2: Where the heck is the Nikon 300mm f/4 VR? I bet they'd sell more lenses of that over the 400mm even with the car-like price!
The 400/2.8 is much more useful for the World Cup than a 300/4. And since it's f/2.8 it's also better suited for use with a TC as well. This means Nikon has effectively delivered a 600/4 lens as well.
They can worry about a 300/4 after Brazil '14.
DStudio: Since the IQ of the EF-S 10-22 is left wanting, I hope this lens can do better. Perhaps it will be the first step towards quietly replacing the former.
The 10-22's IQ could be understandable at $300, but not at the price it sells for.
Next we need a faster and better IQ UWA EF-S lens - whether prime or zoom.
But UWA isn't really Canon's strong suit anyway, so one needn't get his hopes up too much.
For all this negativity, I'm genuinely glad Canon is releasing both of these lenses - I think it can only be a good thing in the end.
Someone's gotta lotta 'splainin to do, because the 10-22 just doesn't create very interesting or nice looking images. And a number of competing lenses do.
But if you prefer numbers, you can see how the 10-22 falls short of the others in MTF tests as well: http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos
Aroart: Wow, is Canon so clueless. Why buy a 10-18 f4.5-5.6 when you can get a Tokina 11-16 2.8... Is it that hard to make it a 2.8....
@rrccad - I think you're absolutely right - it's a very market-driven design. Making it 10-18mm instead of 10-17 or 10-20 is a way of saying this is the lens every entry-level buyer should get to supplement their 18-55.