Jan Bohme: If we, on the other hand, instead discuss de lege ferenda - i.e. discuss the law as it should be, which is essentially a political discussion - I agree that one can apply a fairness argument for copyright to be awarded. The problem is that fairness points in two different directions. One may argue that it is unfair that the photographer can't get copyright just because the work of art is so unique. But one may equally well argue that it is unfair that an author of a work of art is excluded from copyright just because it isn't human. While it might be difficult to benefit the actual monkey who - supposedly - took the selfie, it wouldn't be altogether impossible to allocate the revenues of the photo to benefit monkeys of that species in general in that area, which would hopefully benefit also the actual author of the photograph.
However, I don't think that copyright law will be changed because of this. This situation is so rare that it isn't really reasonable to adapt legislation to it.
What I see is the far more disturbing idea that a 3rd party (other than the Copyright office or the courts) with no claim whatsoever on a specific image is deciding who does and doesn't have the rightful claim to that image.
Look at it this way: it's terribly expensive for a photographer to prosecute a copyright violation in court against a single violator who also claims to hold that copyright. It would be effectively impossible for anyone other than a billionaire to prosecute violations by a number of persons who decide they can use an image because the alleged copyright holder isn't legitimate.
Of course it's in "the last place you look for it." Once you've found it, why on Earth would you continue looking for it anywhere else?
The best camera of 2012 ... is the camera you already have. That camera will take pictures. Remember taking pictures? It's the whole point of photography.
The camera on your wish list doesn't take any pictures; not by you, anyway. This is just shilling for the camera manufacturers.
This front page picture has no redeeming social value.
The N.Y. Post itself has no redeeming social value.
plasnu: No contest. ipad or macbookair wins hands down.
Nah, plasnu. That might be true when you can run something on the Apple products that Apple doesn't sell, and you certainly couldn't run Photoshop like you could on a laptop. The Surface Pro could actually put laptops on the go out of business.
photosen: Anyone know of an ugly, unfashionable, stable, light and cheap or the cheapest possible (less than a manfrotto 055CX) tripod for a 1.80 meter guy? For a max 3 Kg ultra wide angle setup.
That's a 5.9 feet guy and 6.6 Lbs setup for you imperials, I guess.
Slik has a carbon fiber model that's really light and will get up to around 64 inches or so before you add a ballhead. I've been using it for a couple of years and I'm satisfied with it.
Well, if you don't already own PS, at $600 for the new package versus 20/month, with new versions issued every 24 months, subscription begins to look like a sensible deal.
M1963: At 15h45 this Sunday, this article had 7 comments. The Nikon J1/V1 review had 326. People care more about gear than photography. Am I alone when I say it should be the opposite?
If your ability to produce artful photographs is limited, you can always obsess about the cameras and lenses. There's no talent required to do that.
I'd like to know if Canon plans to make available an accessory tele-extender like the one made for the G10/11/12 cameras.
I realize there are a lot of people who use Olympus cameras. But seriously, this has nothing to do with photography, per se. If Olympus were a major player in the digital camera market, it might be of some interest, but if Olympus were to cease producing photographic products tomorrow, there would be a very small impact on the field of consumer photography and it would be of very limited duration at that.
I'd prefer dpreview focus on the technology and techniques of photography and leave the financial issues of camera manufacturing to the financial pages.