LeonXTR

LeonXTR

Lives in Cyprus Cyprus
Joined on Oct 27, 2008

Comments

Total: 13, showing: 1 – 13

'There is a defense to lawsuits called "laches", meaning that the owner of rights has slept on his/her rights too long and therefore lost them'.
I will be so pleased if this is thrown out of the court and even more if he is slammed with another countersuit for legal expenses (don't know if it is possible wil US's legislation though......)

Direct link | Posted on Mar 20, 2013 at 20:28 UTC as 45th comment | 1 reply
On Online images and copyright infringement article (255 comments in total)
In reply to:

plevyadophy: Hmm, having followed the link, my views are:

1) The photographer asked for FAAAAAAAAR too much money.

2) The radio station dude offered FAAAAAAAR too little. And comes across as a bit of a dodgy guy; his abrupt ending of the dialogue seems to indicate that he seems to think he should get imagery on the cheap and the the law on the matter is irrelevant (if he was fearful of the law he would have, in my opinion, at least tried to negotiate her demand downwards)

3) Had I been the photographer, I would have reduced my damand to around $1000,or whatever the relevant local photography trade body recommends, and asked that they credit me (prominently) as the author of the image. That way the photographer gets compo and advertising. However, from reading the link it appears the photographer doesn't particularly like the idea of being associated with the product being advertised, in which case just go for the compo.

Contd below .....

That's right, there is a campaign in UK, where as in the US such legislation's have already been passed. (Not to mention UK is far from an example of European policies, look up Sweden, Finland, Germany etc......)

Direct link | Posted on Mar 7, 2013 at 14:40 UTC
On Just posted: Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM lens review article (157 comments in total)

Beautiful lens but Canon's €2K pricing policy (24-70 II,70-200IS II, 14mmII, TS-E17mm II etc..) puts many of the newest models out of non-professional reach.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 7, 2013 at 09:59 UTC as 38th comment | 2 replies
On Online images and copyright infringement article (255 comments in total)
In reply to:

Clean: Canada has a spotty record of supporting intellectual property. Their supreme court just ruled against the patent system for pharmaceuticals and there have been other poor precedents in the creative arena. I am not sure why they have a problem with the concept that stealing ideas, images, and other creative output is just the same as stealing a moose or some maple syrup. It is sad that our closest neighbor is sliding into the mold of India and China when it comes to IP.

No, its just like Europe, they respect and protect copyrights but they don't hunt-down 10-year-olds for downloading an mp3 from limewire.....
In some cases a copyright infringement can be made by mistake and/or unawareness of the technicalities of the law. The radio station behaved with respect once the matter was brought to their attention. Demanding ridiculous compensation just to "punish" them while they had no ill-intent is, like i said before GREED

Direct link | Posted on Mar 7, 2013 at 09:29 UTC
On Online images and copyright infringement article (255 comments in total)
In reply to:

plevyadophy: Hmm, having followed the link, my views are:

1) The photographer asked for FAAAAAAAAR too much money.

2) The radio station dude offered FAAAAAAAR too little. And comes across as a bit of a dodgy guy; his abrupt ending of the dialogue seems to indicate that he seems to think he should get imagery on the cheap and the the law on the matter is irrelevant (if he was fearful of the law he would have, in my opinion, at least tried to negotiate her demand downwards)

3) Had I been the photographer, I would have reduced my damand to around $1000,or whatever the relevant local photography trade body recommends, and asked that they credit me (prominently) as the author of the image. That way the photographer gets compo and advertising. However, from reading the link it appears the photographer doesn't particularly like the idea of being associated with the product being advertised, in which case just go for the compo.

Contd below .....

Well, i live in Europe, so yes the legislation is different here, you see we don't have our legislators bought-and-payed-for from the film/music industry and some democracy actually applies.
However, even in a USA court, the judge takes into consideration some aspects of the case.

Whether the infringement was ill-intent or as a result of ignorance.

How the matter was handled by the person who made the infringement once the infringement was made known.

Whether that person was cooperative with the plaintive.

How easy was for the infringement to be made by mistake (hence the practical need to visibly state a copyright claim).

How much damage was actually made to the plaintive (how much money did he/she actually lost, or how great the emotional damage etc...)

In the above case, apart from the initial mistake its all in favor for the radio station. So any reasonable judge will throw this case out....

Direct link | Posted on Mar 7, 2013 at 09:25 UTC
On Online images and copyright infringement article (255 comments in total)
In reply to:

LeonXTR: Ok, i understand all about copyright but in the above case, it was used on a presentation to 10 advertisers, 10 people. I mean, relax, it's not like it was put on giant posters nation-wide, and the station removed it after the complain.
I believe it was an honest and fair reaction to just an honest mistake.
For the photographer to seek "compensation" over this minor incident and dragging it on, shows plain-good-old greed.

It brings shame to all the rest of us.
Sounds like MPAA-blackmail-style behavior.

***OMG***
I just read the entire exchange of emails.
The radio station was very professional, cooperative and honest.
The photographer was extremely aggressive and beyond-reason insulting towards the VP of the station (a guy who did nothing but to cooperate, apologize, and who wasn't the one who made the mistake in the first place)
. Please, behaviors like that bring shame to everyone holding a camera.

Just to be clear: the station should have bought the photo, not just google it like a teenager BUT:
The main difference, of the photographers vs the stations behavior, is that the station kade a mistake, they apologized and they tried to resolve the matter within reasonable boundaries.
The photographer used offensive tone ("i was mad" is not an excuse when engaged in a formal conversation), and behaved like a 10 year old brat who had his candies taken. Then she asked for a totally unreasonable compensation and threatened legal action.
And how much damage did the photographer suffered? How much was that picture actually worth for a 10-person use? $100 at best.
To declare that you charge $8000 for a whole wedding and asking $2000 for a picture just because you can, is the definition of greed.
Totally despicable, unprofessional and shameful behavior.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 7, 2013 at 06:38 UTC
On Online images and copyright infringement article (255 comments in total)
In reply to:

plevyadophy: Hmm, having followed the link, my views are:

1) The photographer asked for FAAAAAAAAR too much money.

2) The radio station dude offered FAAAAAAAR too little. And comes across as a bit of a dodgy guy; his abrupt ending of the dialogue seems to indicate that he seems to think he should get imagery on the cheap and the the law on the matter is irrelevant (if he was fearful of the law he would have, in my opinion, at least tried to negotiate her demand downwards)

3) Had I been the photographer, I would have reduced my damand to around $1000,or whatever the relevant local photography trade body recommends, and asked that they credit me (prominently) as the author of the image. That way the photographer gets compo and advertising. However, from reading the link it appears the photographer doesn't particularly like the idea of being associated with the product being advertised, in which case just go for the compo.

Contd below .....

If you were a Judge you would know that in order a lawsuit to succeed, the plaintive must show damage.
The image was used in a closed-circle of 10 peoples, and it was already posted on the internet without any copy-blocking or visible copyright claim. (that's right copyright must be CLEARLY VISIBLE)
The image was removed immediately after the complaint.
A Judge (as well as any one who knows 5 things about the law..) would dismiss the case in before the trial.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 6, 2013 at 23:49 UTC
On Online images and copyright infringement article (255 comments in total)
In reply to:

LeonXTR: Ok, i understand all about copyright but in the above case, it was used on a presentation to 10 advertisers, 10 people. I mean, relax, it's not like it was put on giant posters nation-wide, and the station removed it after the complain.
I believe it was an honest and fair reaction to just an honest mistake.
For the photographer to seek "compensation" over this minor incident and dragging it on, shows plain-good-old greed.

It brings shame to all the rest of us.
Sounds like MPAA-blackmail-style behavior.

***OMG***
I just read the entire exchange of emails.
The radio station was very professional, cooperative and honest.
The photographer was extremely aggressive and beyond-reason insulting towards the VP of the station (a guy who did nothing but to cooperate, apologize, and who wasn't the one who made the mistake in the first place)
. Please, behaviors like that bring shame to everyone holding a camera.

And, btw, the dog- photographer's reaction and overall handling of the matter shows faaaaar more maturity and professionalism than the 1st case.

And if you read her facebook post its a straight-blunt distortion of the facts, if she really had the @@ to show the people what really happened she should post the entire conversation, not just select the parts that suited her....

Just by hearing cases like the 1st one, were someone or some business gets disgustingly greedy is enough reason for me to never become their customer and to recommend the same to everyone asking my opinion.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 6, 2013 at 23:28 UTC
On Online images and copyright infringement article (255 comments in total)

Ok, i understand all about copyright but in the above case, it was used on a presentation to 10 advertisers, 10 people. I mean, relax, it's not like it was put on giant posters nation-wide, and the station removed it after the complain.
I believe it was an honest and fair reaction to just an honest mistake.
For the photographer to seek "compensation" over this minor incident and dragging it on, shows plain-good-old greed.

It brings shame to all the rest of us.
Sounds like MPAA-blackmail-style behavior.

***OMG***
I just read the entire exchange of emails.
The radio station was very professional, cooperative and honest.
The photographer was extremely aggressive and beyond-reason insulting towards the VP of the station (a guy who did nothing but to cooperate, apologize, and who wasn't the one who made the mistake in the first place)
. Please, behaviors like that bring shame to everyone holding a camera.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 6, 2013 at 23:23 UTC as 51st comment | 3 replies

Tape?Unacceptable!
I am immediately returning my 5Diii,and selling all my L's switching over to Nikon.
I am sure that Nikon does not use any piece of tape in its cameras and if this was a Nikon they would have covered the light leak with top-grade carbon fiber.

Direct link | Posted on May 3, 2012 at 09:38 UTC as 54th comment | 1 reply

Right..........Ill pass

Direct link | Posted on Feb 3, 2012 at 05:42 UTC as 143rd comment

Then don't get a pro photographer for your wedding.
Get a realive of yours,buy him a digital rebel and a $400 digicam and do your job for free.
Off course that will get you the crappiest wedding photos ever but,hey,its cheap.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 27, 2012 at 06:28 UTC as 286th comment | 2 replies
On Preview: Canon PowerShot G1 X large sensor zoom compact article (778 comments in total)

Why couldn't it have a regular EF mount?

Direct link | Posted on Jan 9, 2012 at 17:46 UTC as 155th comment | 1 reply
Total: 13, showing: 1 – 13