Vlad S

Vlad S

Lives in United States San Francisco, CA, United States
Works as a Scientist
Joined on May 11, 2010

Comments

Total: 355, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Vlad S: It's worth remembering, that the only reason there's something to photograph at the Tayor Swift's show is that her creative team and investors put their imagination, labor, and finances into the production. The photographers are simply riding on Swift's coattails, and the show management is entitled to control how people, who did not contribute to their show, use it to their own ends.

Vlad

@sgoldswo:
1. I am not discussing the original contract, I am discussing the present one. If you want to discuss the previous contract you should create your own thread.
2. This is not close to employment relationship. This is a permission from Taylor Swift's show to third party publications to take professional images for their own commercial use. She does not rely on these images, and does not commission them. She simply asks to be able to use them too, along with the entity that actually hired the photog, and is paying for the job.

"You are requesting to attend and photograph portions of The 1989 World Tour for ___________ (name of
publication)."

Note: The photographer is requesting for some other publication, not FEI is requesting.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 24, 2015 at 21:22 UTC
In reply to:

Vlad S: It's worth remembering, that the only reason there's something to photograph at the Tayor Swift's show is that her creative team and investors put their imagination, labor, and finances into the production. The photographers are simply riding on Swift's coattails, and the show management is entitled to control how people, who did not contribute to their show, use it to their own ends.

Vlad

@sgoldswo: It is dishonest of you to assign me something I never wrote.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 22, 2015 at 23:34 UTC
In reply to:

Vlad S: It's worth remembering, that the only reason there's something to photograph at the Tayor Swift's show is that her creative team and investors put their imagination, labor, and finances into the production. The photographers are simply riding on Swift's coattails, and the show management is entitled to control how people, who did not contribute to their show, use it to their own ends.

Vlad

@ThatCamFan: these kind of issues are decided by the copyright laws. Typically there has to be a sufficiently transformative use. If your sole subject is the lamp, without any sort of transformative input, then most likely Ikea will be able to claim some proceeds from the profits that the image generates, although they may choose not to. If you simply use it as a prop for a model shoot, then your image is about the model, and so there is sufficiently transformative use – then Ikea can't claim any stake in your image.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 22, 2015 at 23:33 UTC
In reply to:

Vlad S: It's worth remembering, that the only reason there's something to photograph at the Tayor Swift's show is that her creative team and investors put their imagination, labor, and finances into the production. The photographers are simply riding on Swift's coattails, and the show management is entitled to control how people, who did not contribute to their show, use it to their own ends.

Vlad

@sgoldswo: the contract in question is not for work commissioned by Taylor Swift, it's for photographers commissioned by other publications, and it is those publications that must compensate the photographer. Those publications draw income from Taylor Swift's talent and investments, and I don't see why it would be unfair of her to set the minimum compensation that she requires for the use of her sets and her talent.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 22, 2015 at 23:23 UTC
In reply to:

Vlad S: It's worth remembering, that the only reason there's something to photograph at the Tayor Swift's show is that her creative team and investors put their imagination, labor, and finances into the production. The photographers are simply riding on Swift's coattails, and the show management is entitled to control how people, who did not contribute to their show, use it to their own ends.

Vlad

@Greg Lovern: no it is not the same for most photographers. In the studio the photographer creates the scene by selecting and organizing the objects or subjects – on a show stage the photographer has no control over the presentation. In a park the photographer is in charge of the creative process, because the photographer chooses the lighting conditions, the composition, and such. In a theatrical presentations all of that is created by the production company.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 22, 2015 at 21:50 UTC

It's worth remembering, that the only reason there's something to photograph at the Tayor Swift's show is that her creative team and investors put their imagination, labor, and finances into the production. The photographers are simply riding on Swift's coattails, and the show management is entitled to control how people, who did not contribute to their show, use it to their own ends.

Vlad

Direct link | Posted on Jul 22, 2015 at 19:57 UTC as 12th comment | 20 replies
In reply to:

Nathan Cowlishaw: It's art but there's a fine line between photography and the digital painting and manipulation. I could see this taking off in a graphic arts publication but this is digital imaging in the realm of complete manipulation. Imagine a photojournalist trying to pass this off. In it's context, it's art much like painting and so is photography but there has to be drawn an ethical line between what is photography and what's not so much...

Think about it.

"photography" is writing with light. As long as he creates a photosensitive device to record the image, it's photography. There is an ethical line between reportage and fiction, but there isn't any between manipulated and non-manipulated photography.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 18, 2015 at 22:34 UTC
On The big beast: hands on with the Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX8 article (1227 comments in total)
In reply to:

AbrasiveReducer: All this technology. But it seems that when they try to get the best quality from a compact camera it still ends up pretty big.

@G1Houston: and it is smaller than GH. The models that have miniaturization as the goal are GF and GM. The GX is a high–end rangefinder styled cam, and it is likely to be used with the big fast lenses, so it is quite reasonable for it to be among the bigger µ4/3 models. I think it's meant to compete with the Fuji mirrorless, which are pretty big themselves.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 16, 2015 at 22:35 UTC
In reply to:

DaveClark: The Senior Lieutenant at Panmunjom JSA is wearing a hat or a balloon?

It's a portable airfield.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 16, 2015 at 01:23 UTC
In reply to:

TakenUserName: Meanwhile, back in the USA...take a picture of Cinderella's Castle at Disneyland or Disney World and use it for commercial purposes and Disney's lawyers will be all over you. There are several others buildings in the US that are trademark (technically, buildings and other sites are not copyrighted) but Disney is probably the most famous. Similarly, National Park Service allows photographs for personal use, but commercial use requires payment of a fee.

Disney landmarks are located on a completely private property, they are not visible from public land.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 5, 2015 at 20:46 UTC
In reply to:

fz750: The French MEP who proposed the changes, and who said that no one has ever been prosecuted for copyright infringement in the countries that have no Freedom of Panorama should be reminded that not all countries are like France (who selectively apply laws..) and will certainly follow the law to the letter...

If there were no plans of prosecutions, then why would they need the law?

Direct link | Posted on Jul 5, 2015 at 20:43 UTC
In reply to:

Lil g: How can the earth rotate when its flat?

It doesn't. The crystal sphere with the moon attached rotates. You can even hear the buzzing sound!

Direct link | Posted on Jun 30, 2015 at 01:48 UTC

I doubt very much that she actually knew what was in the photo authorization form. Most likely it was written by lawyers for Firefly Entertainment Inc.

I think the demand from Swit's company to have perpetual rights for any non-commercial purpose is wrong, but the condition that the photos can be used for just the current assignment, and no others seems fair to me.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 25, 2015 at 22:36 UTC as 30th comment
In reply to:

Neez: In taylors defense, they spend millions putting a tour together, with the set, the makeup, costumes, lighting effects and the models(taylor), and you think you can just waltz in and have full rights to any pictures you take in the venue????

I don't think it's hipocritical at all, don't expect to take pictures and make money off of them without either compensation or approval. I imagine if you're going to sell a print for a local newspaper for $100 they don't care and will approve. But if you sell an image for thousands, they'll probably want their cut which is fair.

What apple was doing was different, they weren't going to pay anything and offer artists work up for free. Just to further apple's business off the hard work of others. That's not fair at all.

@Don Sata: the media does send reporters and journalists to promote her art for free – they do it because they need material, that would attract viewers and advertisers. They provide a service to their own audience, not to the artist.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 25, 2015 at 22:21 UTC
In reply to:

Weia: Reminds me of Buster Keaton playing all instruments in an orchestra directed by Buster Keaton. Without computers quite skillful... 3 musicians at a time and 9 dancers. The Playhouse: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRo36k1ipkE

Thank you for sharing, that was wonderful.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 6, 2015 at 19:54 UTC
In reply to:

rondom: Too bad the conductor is facing the audience...other than that, perfect.

There's no audience!

Direct link | Posted on Jun 6, 2015 at 08:05 UTC
On Sony rides wave of US Mirrorless sales surge article (732 comments in total)
In reply to:

cgarrard: It would be very interesting to re-visit the overall numbers when Mirrorless cameras can match or exceed the continuous AF performance of the big DSLR brands.

Sony adding pro support to the overall package has helped appeal as well. But they know, and need to work on, a greater lens line up for the system to stay in first position.

Its a heated race.

@Macro Nutrients: I think you underestimate the abilities of the modern CDAF. There are countless examples of birds, airplane models, running dogs, etc., well focused with mirrorless cameras. A restless kid is not any more of a problem for current CDAF than it is for a consumer grade PDAF.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 5, 2015 at 00:12 UTC
On Sony rides wave of US Mirrorless sales surge article (732 comments in total)
In reply to:

cgarrard: It would be very interesting to re-visit the overall numbers when Mirrorless cameras can match or exceed the continuous AF performance of the big DSLR brands.

Sony adding pro support to the overall package has helped appeal as well. But they know, and need to work on, a greater lens line up for the system to stay in first position.

Its a heated race.

The advantage of DSLR in continuous AF is greatly exaggerated. In real life situations the performance of mirrorless cameras is satisfactory for the vast majority of users. As more people switch from DSLR to mirrorless and continue to produce the same stuff they used to, they will spread the word that continuous AF for most users is only a theoretical difference.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 4, 2015 at 22:02 UTC
On The Bone Doctor: Dr. Paul Koudounaris and Memento Mori article (25 comments in total)

"In general, in other parts of the world people tend to be extremely welcoming, hospitable, and trusting—it was a nice lesson to learn."

Probably the most important lesson from the book.

Direct link | Posted on May 31, 2015 at 06:25 UTC as 6th comment
In reply to:

Vlad S: The way they pronounce "bokeh" makes me cringe every time they do it.

You can easily find on youtube how the Japanese pronounce it. And it's not difficult at all!
https://youtu.be/iqipY-wQaxc

Direct link | Posted on May 29, 2015 at 06:30 UTC
Total: 355, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »