PeaceKeeper: I think many of you are missing the point... Ignore that the complaint was filed by Getty.
So we are clear, Google is telling people that they MUST provide the full res images to be listed on the search engine. That, coupled with their efforts to absorb/destroy competing search engines, forcing people to use theirs or "die", is a pretty sound basis for the complaint.
The real money is in ad revenue, and that is what's really at the heart of this. Google is able to sell ad space, data mine, etc, without the user ever having to view the page hosting the image.
If you had a blog/website that produced revenue by ad space, and used images to draw people to it or make it more appealing, you'd be pretty ticked off if another site was embedding your photos and making money off ads without ever sending traffic to your site. This is exactly what Google is doing.
"Use another search engine!" Maybe you don't understand how a monopoly works... and why they are illegal.
<< "Use another search engine!" Maybe you don't understand how a monopoly works... and why they are illegal. >>
*Hint* ... they are not actually illegal and the government even grants them in some instances. You might want to read up on the law about Monopolies.
Also you are making quite a few other unproven claims in your rant.
No-Brainer: if Getty wants a specific service from Google, then Getty should buy that service from Google and pay them appropriate compensation for it. Otherwise Getty is certainly very free to take their business elsewhere. I guess thats pretty much the message they got from Google about this issue and I feel Google is right on the mark.
Stephan Def: I think this is targeted to sell to professional type organisations with adequate budgets which will always buy into the latest Nikon hardware by default selection. This strategy may not work out in a very tight and depressed business environment.
@mxx I'm afraid you don't get the point. (Remember the GM - Hummer?)
I think this is targeted to sell to professional type organisations with adequate budgets which will always buy into the latest Nikon hardware by default selection. This strategy may not work out in a very tight and depressed business environment.
Stephan Def: Samsung should come out and say what their strategy is going forward because, I don't get this. Samsung has spent millions developing a lot of basic digital camera technology. It would be very bad business to just throw it all away.
Managing expectations is important, Samsung could very well do that now, if they had a strategy that is.
Samsung should come out and say what their strategy is going forward because, I don't get this. Samsung has spent millions developing a lot of basic digital camera technology. It would be very bad business to just throw it all away.
I think what Samsung is saying, is that their marketing costs are much too high. I interpret that to mean that they will not invest anymore into special Samsung floor-spaces in large Media Super-Markets. I imagine that it will continue to be possible to order an NX1 from Amazon in Europe for quite some time.
Maybe Samsung is just way ahead of the curve. Camera stores in Germany are closing down left and right. Japan has dropped back into a recession. Hard times lie ahead for such luxury items like expensive Cameras.
If you do a Wedding with this, you can easily charge at least double the price... everyone will see right away that you are a very high-net-worth professional photographer.
OK, I admit, I was being ironic ... :-)
Hallstatt Austria Photo: doing Austrian villages in the Mountains is hard, either the mountains are overexposed or the houses underexposed. This image does not capture the unique light and atmosphere of Hallstatt, its just a very straightforward HDR image that looks a little overexposed. Hallstatt is actually a very shady place with much deeper shadows, because it is surrounded by high mountains, it has a very unique light and an ancient feeling about it. I guess I could probably spend a week there and still have a hard time doing that special place photographic justice.
Overall a very nice Landscape shot, however imo it does not nail the unique visual points of Hallstatt.
p.s. at the age of 17 I would have felt very fortunate to have my own Camera setup and the resources to use it well in a place like Hallstatt.
Anadrol: I installed a CISS in my Canon MG7150 (look in my gallery), and bought ink from China at 5 USD per LITER, yes 5 USD per LITER and it works perfectly !
I can tell you that the Chinese ink is as good as OEM, and guess where the OEM ink is manufactured anyway ?
Thank you very much for that tip. I looked on youtube and these CISS systems are available for many kinds of printers also for HP Officejet in this Video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tH9WPH5RC2At
I guess I am going to be ordering one soon...
Stephan Def: I hope very much that Fujifilm continue this concept in future models. For me the key feature is the very good OOC jpegs & film simulations, also the EVF and swivel screen. Also the overall very good build quality. (High-end AF is not important on this kind of a Camera).
If one can use a TV screen & do post-processing in-camera without the need for an addtional computer & software then that is a huge benefit for any user.
I don't think Fujifilm has to jump on the 4K bandwagon, just decent enough Video qualtiy would be good. Also the ability to record a short sound clip with a still image is very nice to have and would be technically easy to do.
What I would like to have is film-simulation bracketing, so that I do 5 shots in rapid succession using various film simulations & settings. At the end of the day I could then just choose which ones I want to keep. More stuff like that, neat features to have implemented by exploiting existing hardware thru better software.
Cool, thanks for that Info.
I hope very much that Fujifilm continue this concept in future models. For me the key feature is the very good OOC jpegs & film simulations, also the EVF and swivel screen. Also the overall very good build quality. (High-end AF is not important on this kind of a Camera).
Surprise! Sony is focusing on FF because thats where the money is. Also, obviously Sony has no taste for competing with Samsung in APS-C, because Samsung would take them down on price and tech.
Interesting to note that Sony aren't saying that they will try to compete in Sports-Photography any time soon.
So now theoretically Sony could sell a highend APS-C BSI Sensor to Fujifilm, because they are no longer competing in that segment? Or should somebody else sell it to them? Or, Fujifilm will develope their own?
What can we conclude from this? APS-C is being left to Fujifilm and Samsung?
p.s. I certainly agree with what many others have said here about Sony being extremely proprietary, closed systems and with very little or no customer orientation.
I read thru this review, yes the specifications are very impressive. Then I looked at the images, there is no wow factor for me in them. At the end of the day, would't it all have to be about the outrageously good images? Then I checked the price and thought no.
I might like to have this as a Museum Camera, you can get good enough Foto's at the museum with it, likely without drawing any unwanted attention. Yet there are always smartphones, which are always somehow good enough, and continously getting better. Maybe a Samsung nx500, which you can even swap lenses on, and its farily pocketable too, at 28MP BSI, and a much lower price.
90% of all people will not have the computing power at home to post process 4K. However the casual user will likely try to post process 4K on his tablet computer (ipad) anyway, because they don't get it.
nixda: The article points out that one would need to ask for permission when posting to certain "social media sites, such as Facebook or Twitter, as those sites carry advertising that is attached to the content of its pages."
Does it not occur to people here that any problem can be avoided by not posting to such sites?
Are people not aware of the fact that such sites strip the user of all rights to their own creations?
Are people so cheap and greedy that they prefer to be stripped of their rights, rather than support regulation that protects the rights of creative people? Besides, there are sites that are free and do not strip people of their rights. Best of both worlds.
To me it seems that social media sites such as Facebook and Twitter have people in a stronger bind in many instances than some totalitarian regimes. Go after those sites first.
@nixca you are a troll, because you are resulting to personal attacks instead of staying matter of fact.
Just read your insame ravings to see what is actually paranoid in your posts above.
I think it wil be better if you take your medication before getting carried away
RichO: Is there a lawyer in the house? If I understand the current law, buildings older than 70 years past the death of the architect would be in the public domain and not affected by the this. Perhaps the clarification that is needed is what constitutes commercial use. A photograph taken for advertising or for publication as a postcard would be clear examples. However a photo taken and posted on a news site or travel blog would near clarification. If a news agency responds to an incident in front of a public building does that constitute fair use or require prior authorization? Would all travel blogs about EU countries have to post without photos or obtain prior authorization?
really I don't see how you could copyright a building, one could copyright the building plans perhaps, but even that depends on all kinds of nitty-gritty legal details.
How to copyright a foto of a building I don't know, especially not under international copyright treaties. The U.S has very liberal fair use laws, so if you publish in the U.S, any litigant would be put to a hard test to be sure ,and even then it varies from state to state. Good luck with that.
@nixda you are refuting you own arguments, they are self-contradictory. "Posting on a private website without any intent to commercially utilize these pictures is totally fine." So who has to prove what to whom at what cost in such a case? You know that the cost for the potential litigations cannot be carried by the normal people.
"They can harass you for violating privacy laws, but not for taking pictures from public places." ... I have been harassed under current laws in Germany, for no good reasons more than once and I am a very obvious non-comercial hobby photogapher. So give these suckers more legal leeway and the harassment will only increase exponentially for sure.
@nixda I think you got it wrong, the proposal as it stands will enable for everyone to be harassed. You photograph a street scene with some landmarks in it, post it on your own website and get sued for royalties, damages whatever.
But an individual hobby photographer may even get harassed whilst in the process of photographing a panorama by some assumed authority asking to see his permit, authorization etc.
Any way you cut it, it sucks. Its taking away basic freedoms and rights from the people.
Here is how it works: Angela Merkel is member of the CDU, Axel Springer Print house has huge power within the CDU, defacto they tell Angela Merkel what politics they want and they get it. Axel Springer sees themselves in aggresiive competition against Google amongst other U.S. Internet companies. Therefore Axel Springer is pursuing a political Strategy against Google using Angela Merkel (CDU) as their executioner for that strategy.
Then Angela Merkel makes Günther Öttinger EU Komissioner for digital economics and he in turn makes proposals to change copyright laws against fair use policies that have been in place for hundreds of years, the goal being to squeeze out Google and other U.S Internet entrepreneurs to make Axel Springer happy in Germany.
If that becomes the law, then there will be collecting company's similar to the mpaa and gema that specialize in sueing Internet service and content providers to paying their dues. This will change ground rules in the digital space.
FujLiver: Shows everything that is wrong with the EU.
The UK is smart, as it will become the most photographed country it will continue to be the number one destination for tourists.
You reap what you so. Have pity on us who live in the EU dictatorship
No not necessarily, the UK has to legislate a law of their own which has to be compatible with the laws of the UK. If the UK would say no then it creates a political disagreement EU/UK thats all. The EU cannot force the UK to do anything.