David J Barber

David J Barber

Lives in United Kingdom China FTTB, United Kingdom
Works as a Actor/Writer/Teacher
Has a website at photos.davidrayden.com
Joined on Nov 12, 2009
About me:

...each day as it comes!

Comments

Total: 16, showing: 1 – 16
On Preview:olympusEM5 (1364 comments in total)

I'll have a look at this, but as an original FT registered owner, I'll be waiting to see if they offer an adapter for free. An extra $200 won't persuade me to take up m4/3. The price is already above my budget, but that's not their fault - it's a great looking weather sealed camera and probably worth it.

However, it's not only the adapter. I'd probably need to look at the grips as I suspect it'll be too small for me. However, that's a future upgrade I could look to by choice; the lens adapter is something I'd need to add to the price of the camera on day one.

I wish Olympus success with this camera - it looks interesting and tempting. I'll be watching the full reviews and people's experiences with interest.

Posted on Feb 8, 2012 at 02:38 UTC as 429th comment
In reply to:

PolarHki: The UK seems to become some totalitarian state. What is "creative expression" can never be assessed exactly, quantitatively and without doubt. So it is up to the random interpretation of some court, not up to facts, whether somebody is "guilty" or not. That is exactly a sign of a totalitarian state.

It seems there was a commercial conflict inasmuch as the defendant was refused permission to use a picture belonging to the claimant, so he copied it specifically to avoid paying royalties.
If this is the ruling, and not that the picture is just similar, then all should be well. If you had a successful commercial picture and somebody asked your permission and refused to pay the going rate, you'd be a bit pi**ed if they then copied your picture for use in a similar market, thereby robbing you of revenue.
We need to worry if a claimant is able to copyright a visual style, and certainly if this is in any way the ruling here; which it seems not to be.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 25, 2012 at 12:31 UTC
In reply to:

PolarHki: The UK seems to become some totalitarian state. What is "creative expression" can never be assessed exactly, quantitatively and without doubt. So it is up to the random interpretation of some court, not up to facts, whether somebody is "guilty" or not. That is exactly a sign of a totalitarian state.

"The UK seems to become some totalitarian state." My response was to this sweeping statement.
I get annoyed with bleating about how bad their country is and comparing it to a totalitarian state. I think it's fair to point out the rhetoric for what it is. People use this far too often and have no idea of the misery in a real totalitarian state. I wasn't suggesting moving there, but living there. It would make most people grateful for what they have and, hopefully, prepared to take action to keep it.
I'm in full agreement that we should avoid the creeping controls of government and the restrictions they wish to impose on our freedoms. I'm against SOPA and PIPA type legislation, and DRM.
However, real issues get sidelined when people use such rhetoric over what appears to be a low-level court judgement that has some merit. Save it for the issues that are truly affecting our liberties and freedoms.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 25, 2012 at 09:57 UTC
In reply to:

Nerkdergler: As an intellectual property lawyer this judgement sounds a little suspect to me (admittedly I only skim-read the judgement). It's the decision of a stand-in judge in a lower court set up to allow fast processing of minor cases - kind of an IP version of Judge Judy. It would be surprising if this went un-appealled or formed the basis of any kind of lasting precedent.

As other commenters have noted, there is a significant difference between imitating a general concept and copyright infringement. Part of this probably comes from the court's lack of familiarity with the art. A good test is to switch the question around - i.e. rather than asking 'is the second photo derivative of the first', ask: 'is the idea of colour-popping a London bus in front of Big Ben so unique that one person should have monopoly rights to do it?'.

I like your last comment, and fully support it. I also don't think it will become a precedent, but may first open the floodgates for people who oversimplify the findings. I think a lot rested on the history between the parties, and therefore intent will play a larger part. I'm sure they'll appeal.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 25, 2012 at 08:41 UTC
In reply to:

DaveMarx: This doesn't seem ridiculous to me. It's not about the similarities on their own (two people taking a shot from the same location, similar lighting conditions, similar angle of view, etc.). We can both shoot Half Dome from Glacier Point, and neither of us will infringe Ansel Adams. At worst, we'll be dismissed as too derivative.

The fact that they could prove the infringer's intent to emulate that particular photo in order to avoid paying for the original is the key point, and there's nothing new about that.

This is a long-established principle in U.S. music copyrights. Party A goes to Party B to obtain a license to use a famous piece of music in their movie. Party A doesn't like the quoted price, and pays a hungry composer to produce a "sideways arrangement." If it's not sufficiently different, and there's proof the filmmaker wanted the original, and a price tag already hangs on the transaction, party B has more than enough to get a day in court. After that, it's up to the judge.

Well said and good analogy. Too many people here haven't read the article properly. There was a history between the parties. The judge even said the defense tried to show similar photos that damaged their case as they *'served to emphasize how different ostensibly independent expressions of the same idea actually look.'*

Direct link | Posted on Jan 25, 2012 at 08:37 UTC
In reply to:

PolarHki: The UK seems to become some totalitarian state. What is "creative expression" can never be assessed exactly, quantitatively and without doubt. So it is up to the random interpretation of some court, not up to facts, whether somebody is "guilty" or not. That is exactly a sign of a totalitarian state.

I really hate it when people spout this crap. Try living in China, visiting North Korea, or similar countries. The arguments I have with people who think life is so difficult in the UK when I return are numerous. You have no idea how lucky you are to live in the UK. Yes it's a Nanny state, and yes it can be annoying to deal with petty bureaucracy , but at least you don't die if you're poor and can't be whisked away without trial for standing up for basic rights. Learn to be happy with what you've got and, if you think your life is hard, try living in other countries to readjust your barometer.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 25, 2012 at 08:28 UTC
In reply to:

jerome_munich: People should really read the judgement before commenting. The conclusion is, in substance, that infringement came from trying to produce a similar picture. There are other pictures of the red bus in front of a B&W Big Ben, but they do not look similar. An example here:
http://www.sabistyle.com.au/blog/?tag=routemaster-double-decker-bus

To make it similar, the defendant had to chose a similar skyline, remove the people and traffic and remove the sky. And he did that with the clear intent to produce a similar picture.

If you read the judgement, you are likely to know that there was a history between the defendant and claimant and the decision was based on the balance of probabilities that the intention of the photographer was to make a derivative of the original work. This does not appear to be a case of another artist randomly arriving at a similar shot; and that makes all the difference.
However, a ruling such as this may open the door for a flood of similar claims, and future decisions will show us if this is the the thin edge of a nasty wedge.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 25, 2012 at 08:10 UTC

I'm hoping this will be the body that finally replaces my E-400; when the prices settle down at retail.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 24, 2012 at 06:22 UTC as 86th comment
In reply to:

AngryCorgi: "...focusing is possible between 8 and 20 inches for close-up shooting with a maximum image magnification of 0.72X (35mm camera equivalent)..."

The author of this news piece ought to know that image magnification is independent of crop factor.

Cax, there is plenty of debate.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 15, 2011 at 06:31 UTC
On Stilt Houses in the Countries and their stereotypical housing challenge (4 comments in total)

Congratulations. Great shot! Where was this taken?

Direct link | Posted on Oct 24, 2011 at 03:25 UTC as 2nd comment | 1 reply
On M. look in the Portraits side lit challenge (5 comments in total)
In reply to:

apice: No offense here, but this is the best "side lighting" shot?
What are you people looking at? Who does the final judging, Paula Abdul?
There are at least 10 better shots and I'm not refering to my submission. As a working pro, I turn in hundreds of images to editors, marketing services, ad companies, ect....I try and turn in stuff a little outside of the box. I expect harsh C&C.
I see shots that too dark, lighting is wrong and just plain bad.
Again, this is a fine shot, maybe top 20, but not #1

"No offense here, but this is the best "side lighting" shot?"

According to the voters, yes. End of.

Congratulations on the win.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 8, 2011 at 04:59 UTC
On The story of a picture - Sydney Harbour Bridge article (29 comments in total)
In reply to:

Tom Caldwell: Hate to niggle but Geoff knew it was Sydney Harbour Bridge in his article but did it need to be 'translated" for the headline? Harbors are fine in the USA and everyone can use the proper local spelling without any angst, but Australia still (mostly) uses English-English Spelling.

Translated why? It's Sydney Harbour bridge, plain and simple. (I know it's not you Geoff)
Why on earth would the American English spelling be preferred for an Australian landmark?
I don't want to get into which English is "real", but America is extracting enough urine with their Hollywood version of world history. More people speak/learn British English than any other. One problem is that MS Word and web-spellcheckers default to US English.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 14, 2011 at 08:17 UTC
On Five of the best tripods for under $450 article (84 comments in total)
In reply to:

NineFace: Benro and Induro are the same manufacture so get Sriui it's better with same price

Sriui are not the same -I've compared them side by side here in China. Benro, I believe, were originally an (ahem) off-shoot from a joint venture with Gitzo. I love my Benro A1691T. I shoot with an Olympus E-400, so not really taxing it's weight (Though it holds the 500MM Celestron scope perfectly). However, it's been in salt-water and sand, and cleans perfectly after a quick dismantle. Of course, it's only my opinion. I searched many, many tripods and this was my best bang for buck. (USD$120 here.) It replaces my heavy mono-pod and tripod combination and is shorter and lighter packed. Beware, though, the height of the mono-pod is a bit too low for some, and requires Allen-key trickery to change it. I never seem to be in a rush when needing it, though.
My best advice, as given by others: Buy the best you can afford, take your gear to the shops and play. Don't forget the minimum height!

Direct link | Posted on Sep 3, 2011 at 11:58 UTC
On I'm out'a here in the Shot in the back challenge (6 comments in total)

CharlesB58 wrote:
> David,
>[SNIP] Most seem to vote simply for those images which are the most eye-catching whether they offer a narrative appropriate to the challenge or not.

Which is really annoying. I guess they vote based on the sounbites as well.
I do despair, though. It should be simple. Read the criteria for the challenge and consider if the photo you are looking at rises to that challenge. If not, move on.
> As hosts, we can try to make the theme and rules as clear as possible, and someone will always disregard them.

Understood, which is why I was not wanting to blame the host. :)

DavidJ.

--
_______________________________________
If you think education is expensive, try ignorance.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 20, 2009 at 16:09 UTC as 1st comment
On I'm out'a here in the Shot in the back challenge (6 comments in total)

AlexBakerPhotoz wrote:
> Sorry, I am the challenge host and it's true that I should have caught this entry and disqualified it. This is clearly not what I intended for this challenge. I have been out of touch lately for personal reasons. My apologies.
> --
> Alex

No need to apologise. I re-read my notes and can see my "This challenge is a joke" could be seen as directed at you. I was in fact referring to the entries and the voting.

I know the hosts have other lives, and so did not want to cast any stones at the host, and wouldn't want to. I haven't hosted one yet, and time is the major factor.

I think there is a problem with voting. We can't really control all submission, but I just don't get how people vote for "a shot of someone from behind" as "telling a story". I thought your wording was reasonably clear.

You didn't say simply "Show us your photos of people with their backs to you"!

Perhaps */I* misunderstood.

DavidJ.

--
_______________________________________
If you think education is expensive, try ignorance.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 20, 2009 at 10:27 UTC as 3rd comment
On I'm out'a here in the Shot in the back challenge (6 comments in total)

CharlesB58 wrote:
> Simple theme description/rule: "Shot from behind, tell something about people with no faces showing."
>
> This shot should have been disqualified, yet people vote it into 6th place? No wonder some people mock the challenges. :-(

I agree.
I would go further in that my interpretation of the words "Shot from behind, tell something about people with no faces showing" was that they were looking for a story, an attitude, a character. The picture saying something.

Most of the entries failed on that point, though I voted for all that gave me a story when I looked.

You have to get to number 17 before my first vote.

Sorry, but this challenge was a joke. Random shots of people from behind that tell nothing other than they are being photographed from behind.

I was looking for an idea to pop into my head that would give me something for my imagination to wonder about the people in the shot. Number 17 is the first in the final voting that does this. The old man waiting patiently alone on that rather steep hill with probably his wife's dog while she was inside the house talking to a neighbour or collecting something: and many other thoughts.

I don't think the challenge wording was too loose, but the interpretation by those submitting and voting was. The picture of the bird proves this beyond doubt.

DavidJ.

--
_______________________________________
If you think education is expensive, try ignorance.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 20, 2009 at 03:16 UTC as 5th comment
Total: 16, showing: 1 – 16