Team Yeti: Welcome to the smoke and mirrors show. There are economies throughout the world on the brink of collapse (or in the process of it), terrorists running amok, starving people in third-world (and second- and first-world countries), environmental disasters, widespread pollution in developing countries, natural disasters, conflicts in many regions, health epidemics, religious strife, violent drug cartels, failed immigration policies, issues with food supplies, etc. The list goes on and on.
But certainly, re-examining copyright law should definitely be at the top of the "to do" list. Heaven help us if someone decides to take a picture of a building in a public space. *cue sarcasm and drop mic*
Team Yeti, that would be true if the public paid any attention to this issue. As far as I know, only the photographic community - which should amount to 0,001% of the European population, if that much - cares about this discussion. Its interest is strictly relative (which is not the same as saying it is not important). Let's keep things in perspective.
ThrillaMozilla: Let's see what happens if we apply this kind of rule uniformly and enforce it.
No pictures of the New York or Paris skylines. How could one possibly obtain the permission of all "copyright" holders.
An extreme limit on cinema films shot in public places. Almost no incidental views of public spaces anywhere. No skylines ever.
No publicly available pictures of the Eiffel Tower if they include other buildings. No picture postcards. Severe limits on travel books. No tourist brochures either.
Hmm, maybe no tourism.
If similar rules applied in previous years, probably no Ansel Adams photos, no Galen Rowell, no Eliot Porter, no Edward Weston. Probably no National Geographic Society.
It's not a matter of restricting freedom to take pictures, but one of selling pictures of buildings.That said you nailed with your point about cinema films. As movies have a commercial purpose, this kind of restriction could make filming in public places impossible - or at least very expensive, given the rights to be paid to copyright holders.It would be a sad spectacle to see courts flooded with claims made by architects against film makers and studios.
The controversy is getting somewhat out of proportion. What the regulation draft previews is that commercial use of pictures from copyright-protected buildings needs the consent of the architect. Photographing buildings for non-commercial purposes will still be subject to what member states statute, as it is right now.This is the logical consequence of having architectural projects copyrighted. As with a book, a recording or even a photography, the author holds rights over his creation. I believe no one here would like to see one of his/her pictures sold by someone else without his/her consent. Freedom of panorama is the way to make these rights compatible with freedom of expression (which allows for photographing).Whether an architecture plan is similar to an artistic creation, so that it needs this extent of protection, is a debatable matter; however, if you centre the issue on selling pictures of copyrighted buildings, everything might make a bit more sense.
Still no Contax G2...
jorepuusa: Wonderful pictures of war planes, but where are the pictures of US military planes bombing children and other civilians to pieces? Cannot see any. Romanticizeing killing machines feels absurd.
C., let me put it this way: I'd rather think of you as a psychologically challenged person. Otherwise I'd have to conclude you're someone completely devoid of a single trace of humanity who approves (and is keen on) murder and genocide. Because that's what the terrorists which you found to have been legitimately trained by the CIA do and that's also the outcome of wars founded on what amounted to a pack of lies.As you find murder and genocide to be legitimate, in my view that qualifies you as a MONSTER. Even a lawyer has the right to steer away from people like you. I'd refuse to have you as a client. However, because I'm as compassionate as any human being can be, I'd rather believe your thoughts on war are driven by some kind of mental disturbance - or at least a state of mental confusion that steals all discernment from you.In any case, I have no business with you. You may proceed with this rather absurd debate, but you'll be talking to yourself. I'll waste no more time with you.
Don't worry about my clients, chris. Worry about yourself instead. Take special care about your mental health, although it might be too late by now.
Well, I was sitting on the dock of the bay wasting time when I decided to browse DPR on my phablet and found this article. I was stricken by the title, of course. It got me whistling. So soulful.This studio scene comparison puts Canon under a really bad light. Not only are colours oversaturated, but the images taken with the Canon camera and lens seem out of focus when compared to the Nikon-Zeiss combo. And the Nikkor does a great job too, on a par with the Canon-Zeiss coupling.Given this, I have to conclude one really needs the best optics available in order to take advantage of the accrued resolution. I also have to conclude MP's are not the whole story when it comes to resolution, but that's something everyone should know by now.
Chris, I have been doing some research on the internet and found out you were once portrayed by the great Diane Arbus.Here's your portrait: http://whitehotmagazine.com/UserFiles/image/1_1_Leah%20/diane%20arbus/01_Arbus,-patriotic-young-man-with-a-flag,-nyc,-1967.jpg
c: If I'm following your reasoning correctly, the US didn't train and finance the Mujahideen in Afghanistan, nor the 'contras' in Nicaragua, right? And the subprime crisis didn't affect other countries. It was a strictly domestic affair, wasn't it?And you must be wondering why a true patriot like you gets ridiculed. They can only be anti-Americans, of course. Oh well...
Oh, he's back! You sound angry now. Did I strike some nerve, or is that because the US keep minding their own business by invading sovereign countries? Or is it because the USA "tend" to domestic affairs by spying on their allies?For your information, EVERYTHING that happens in the United States is of concern of the whole world. The world has suffered too much from the USA's misdemeanours to afford to have no opinion on American affairs. You trained and financed terrorism when it was convenient for you; now it has become a global threat. Should I be thankful for that? Your Wall Street speculators started a financial crisis which repercussions are yet to be measured; should I praise the United States? Need I go on? I thought you had the good sense to realize you were embarrassing yourself by coming here and posting your idiotic, conservative BS - but it's obvious you didn't. And I'm sure you'll go on, won't you?
But you're right: why should the American people have voted for Mitt Romney?
Not to mention having the NSA spying USA's allies like France and Germany! Yet Obamacare was a nice move towards the kind of welfare society we've been enjoying in Europe for several decades. I do comprehend some of his actions are being blocked by the conservative majority in the Senate and the Congress, though.
Right. Clumsy word choice, I admit. As for the atomic bombings in Japan, in my view they were completely out of proportion. It is now known Japan was going nowhere and was about to capitulate by the time the US decided to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki.Lest someone thinks I'm anti-American - there was a time when it was all too easy to label anyone so just because he/she didn't subscribe Donald Rumsfeld's viewpoints -, let me tell you I'm a lawyer who studied the decisions of US High and Supreme Courts thoroughly, which helped me go further and develop a keen interest in all American issues. There are a lot of good things to be said about the USA indeed. The simple fact that American people chose Barack Obama for President is one of them. Even the contribution of the USA for photography (getting back to what brought us to this website in the first place) is admirable. My most loved photographer of all times was an American. His name? W. Eugene Smith, no less.
HowaboutRAW, that's not minimizing the role of the USA in WWII: it's putting things in perspective. And I was deliberately excluding the Pacific front for the sake of brevity (and not to have to write the words "Hiroshima" and "Nagasaki", too). We Europeans have always been brainwashed into believing the USSR had little to do with WWII victory and the crucial moment for European liberation was D-Day. The latter was important, as well as the covert effort you mentioned, but not to the extent we were led to believe. (You see, I belong to a generation that was raised during Cold War.)Otherwise thanks for adding all those dictators. I didn't want to be exhaustive, but even with your contribution the list is incomplete. There was a time all of South and Central America countries were ruled by american puppets: Somoza, Sanguinetti, Videla, etc. All, as you know, great democrats and freedom lovers...
The role of the US in ending World War II has been largely exaggerated. By D-Day time the USSR was already winning the war at the eastern front and closing in on Berlin. Germany's position was weakened by then and D-Day was a relatively unimportant push that had the tragic effect of rushing the 'final solution'. Of course the US war effort in Europe was and will always be celebrated, but there's a substantial difference between a rather tardive intervention that only took place to prevent the USSR to play an influential role in Western Europe and what is touted as the military action that liberated Europe.As for democracy and freedom, the US have been quite busy deposing legally settled governments and replacing them by dictatorships. Think Noriega, Pinochet and other democracy and freedom lovers. Even Saddam Hussein got USA's support in the war against Iran. So the USA are not the freedom and democracy champions some believe them to be.
Christom: please stop! I'm laughing so hard my belly hurts. Your next reply may make me actually roll on the floor laughing. You should do stand-up comedy. You're that funny.
DStudio: don't steal the show.
@christom: I see what you did here. You really got me laughing now. You're just kidding, right? And all the while people took you seriously... including me! You really fooled us. You're a naughty, naughty boy.So what's next? Are you going to tell us about how flat rate taxes will help the economy develop? Global warming having no relation to human activities? Ban the Tesla Model S? Or... freedom to bear arms? What's it going to be? I'm impatient.
We've got to love people like christom. Whoever doesn't concur with him is a communist.And then he has the nerve to talk about dictatorships... can you imagine a country ruled by people like him?(OK, there used to be one: the USA under George W. Bush's administration.)
Why do conservative people always speak on behalf of "freedom"? Their ideology precludes freedom, save for speculators and greedy CEOs. What freedom do they have in Iraq and Afghanistan, now that the 'tyrants' were ousted?Oh, wait, I know: "freedom fries..."
Valiant Thor: This camera is kind of like inventing an electric toilet seat. You could do it if you wanted to; but why?
An electric toilet seat! Now that would be an interesting idea. We men wouldn't care about forgetting to get the lid down. Ever thought of filing a patent?