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.
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.
Smokymtnhiker: The 16-35mm F4L should be awesome on the A7R. It would be the perfect do-all lens for backpacking trips. I hope Novoflex hurries up with their AF adapter. If so I will forget about getting the Sony 35mm 2.8.
I don't get it. Sony Zeiss makes some of the absolute best AF FF lenses available. My #1 motivation in buying that camera would be to get access to those lenses. If you live near a Sony store, try them yourself and see what I mean.
You shouldn't be buying that camera without the A-mount adapter anyway. Even if you're adapting a complete lens kit from another brand, the Sony lenses are better in many cases. Only a very specialized use case would convince me otherwise.
stevo23: Nordin Seruyan replied below - no claims of 100% natural circumstances.
- Yes, he used Photoshop- Yes, he moved the bugs into place in come cases- No wires or tape- No bugs were harmed
See below before claiming cruelty or lies or calling him/her a liar. And stop being hypocrites - who among you hasn't smashed an insect?
@stevo23 - Do you genuinely think it's "on the edge" of honesty when you say you keep happening upon amazing scenes while you're actually staging them?
Considering STM and the price, I'd hardly call Canon clueless here.
But if IQ and/or lens speed is your priority, the Tokina is almost certainly going to be the better choice.
If the size and price are OK, you've already got one of the best UWA lenses in the Sony 16-35/2.8, plus you get AF. Why would you look elsewhere?