Vanitas Photo: You are misunderstanding this... Think it as someone making profit from a photo of your photo or a video of your video, or a video of your photo, etc.
The same here the people who designed those buildings hold copyrights and they should be able to perceive monetization if their work is used commercially (same if your photo or video is being used in another work, remember Obama's poster, not the same but similar)
They aren't going to forbid you to shoot a skyline for personal use, they are going to put limits on how you can exploit this commercially)
We can't expect for our copyright to be held strictly and not allowing other artists (painters, architects, sculptors, etc.)
The hating part. Or hating the EU when it is Italian politicians who want to extent their national regime of giving architects copyright over images of their buildings.
Another opportunity for the haters to hate.
Marty4650: The concept that public buildings can have copyrights is bizarre. If governments don't want them photographed perhaps they should erect tall fences to block then from view?
But no one is actually saying these public buildings cannot be photographed.
They just want you to obtain "permission" which probably means you will pay a royalty fee or a tax in order to photograph something that public money paid for.
Socialized governments can never have enough money to spend. I bet the Democrats in the USA are watching this closely.
If not the architects, who else would be pushing for this? Ok, it's some national politicians (ie, politicians from some countries) that are pushing for this. But why are they pushing for it? Out of a sense of moral justice for architects or because the architects in their countries are pushing for this.
Whenever copyright protections are enhanced (or protected), it's ultimately the copyright holders that are behind it. Of course what can happen is that a fairly small group of copyright holders are the ones pushing for it which might be a small minority within their profession but know the right people to push their wishes.
sait: Night/illuminated shots of the Eiffel Tower have been banned for commercial use for several years now.
As for "Copyrighted buildings", can you explain how this works ? Is there a register ? As far as I know copyright is automatic and belongs to the author/photographer/generator, etc of a work, it doesn't even have to be marked with the copyright notice. Does that mean that every building that is younger than 50 years is under copyright ? Does the copyright belong to the architect, the builder, owner of the building, or the caretaker ? I thought the correct procedure for banning commercial use of a building's image would have been facilitated through the Trademark route.
In France, every building is under copyright until 70 years after the death of the architect (royalties go to his or her heirs). The Eiffel tower's architect has been dead for more than 70 years, but the 'designer' of the lighting arrangements hasn't been dead long enough (or probably isn't even dead already).
Why for so long after the death of the architect? Because architect's associations have lobbied for it. It's typical rent-seaking behaviour. I am almost certain that it wasn't always 70 years but one special interest group managed to squeeze some more money for themselves.
The fact that most countries with relatively open societies (ie, excluding the Balkans and the less developed part of Eastern Europe) don't have those special rights for architects shows that most societies have decided that it is morally ok to take pictures of publicly visible buildings and make money of it.
The difference is that a photo of a building is much less use than the building itself. The architect gets payed for the building by the users of the building, the don't get paid by the city because they improved the skyline.
Reproducing a photo gives you exactly the same utility as the original photo, taking a photo of a building gets you much less utility than the building itself.
If you create clothing, you get royalties (in theory, never in practice) if somebody copies the design but not if somebody takes a photo of somebody wearing the clothes.
P.S.: If I remember it correctly, the photographer in the Obama poster story eventually lost the case. And a poster is used for the same purpose as a photo is, a photo of a building is not used for the same purposes as the building itself is.
skogredd: Eurocrats are the worst enemy of the people in Europe.
If the harmonisation would have gone into the other direction (ie, allowing the commercial use of photos of buildings in all countries, that means, including France) we would be praising the 'Eurocrats'.
If a government does something you don't like, you conclude that governments are bad per se. But if governments do something you like, that doesn't seem to affect your position on whether governments are bad or good (or whether we should have governments at all).
Just look at the decision on roaming just a few days ago.
You misunderstand the term 'public buildings'. This proposed law has nothing to do with who owns a building. The world 'public' here means: Is-visible-from-public-spaces (like roads).
The people pushing for this are architects (as it them, not the buildings owners) who would receive any royalties.
Jon Rista: "**Compatible with TC-14E series teleconverters (AF not possible). Compatible with TC-17E and TC-20E series teleconverters. AF is only available when used with DSLR cameras that offer f/8 support. "
Um, WHAT?? No AF supported with TC-14E? If that is truly the case, then WOW...EPIC FLUB!!! I use Canon for my bird and wildlife photography. I practically live with the 1.4x TC attached to my EF 600mm f/4 L II. If I didn't have the ability to AF with the 1.4x, the lens would have greatly diminished value to me. How in the world could Nikon produce a nice new 600mm lens like this, then totally gimp it by decimating compatibility with the most likely to be used teleconverter?
I'm a big fan of Nikon's newer cameras, and the IQ they deliver. But wow...this is egregious. O_o
Yup, it's the note here at DPreview that improbably claimed the 'AF not possible'.
Imagine, that someone could be you, eg, by starting with Nikon's official website."Compatible accessories: AF-I/AF-S Teleconverters TC-14E/TC-14E II/TC-14 III/ TC-17E II*/TC-20E*/TC-20E II*/TC-20E III** AF possible when attached to f/8-compatible camera body."While it should be blindingly obvious that Nikon wanted to point out that the TC-17 & TC-20 have limitations in that they only allow AF with some cameras, if you throw all common sense into the wind, the formulation could be misunderstood to mean that the TC-14 does not offer AF. That's what happened here, somebody (presumably DPreview) had a momentary lapse and typed something without really thinking about it.
The new 300 mm PF has the same description in regard to TCs, but we all know it does AF with the TC-14E. There is at least one report (on Nikonrumors) of somebody having tested the AF with the new 600 mm + TC-14E III.
If the TC-14E really would allow for AF, there would be other reports, but there aren't.
That is not what the footnote is referring to (though it would be not be completely unexpected). The footnote is explicitly talking about the TC-14E 'series', as well as TC-17E and TC-20E 'series', meaning all the different versions of TC-14E ('I', II, III) and so on. This is made quite clear as the f/8 AF comment applies to all versions of TC-17E and TC-20E.
Scottelly: Obviously Nikon isn't planning to move completely to mirrorless any time soon. I wonder if they'll make a mirrorless line of cameras with m4/3 size sensors to go with (or enhance) their 1 system. Then they'd have 2.7x, 2x, 1.5x (their APS-C DSLR range), and full-frame (like the D4s, D610, D750, and D810) camera bodies.
Yeah, having three (partial) lens lines for three different sensor sizes isn't enough, they also need a fourth lens line to make each lens line even more incomplete because they cannot develop enough lenses to fully spec out all lens lines.
The question is why you would even entertain the idea that this might actually be the case? That footnote is clearly there to point out that the 1.7x and 2.0x TCs, which put the actual f-stop below f/5.6, only allow for AF with cameras that offer f/8 AF.
Why would Nikon ever consider developing a long tele lens that only autofocuses with the 1.7x and 2.0.x TCs but not with the 1.4x TC? That makes no sense which is why that is not what they did.
What can happen is that something changes technologically that requires new versions of TCs. But again there is no reason to suspect any of that (there is nothing new in regard to AF with these new lenses, there is nothing different between the 1.4x and 1.7x/2.0x TCs).
This is a typo or badly worded phrase. Nothing else.
MacroBokeh: soon there will be Mirrorless Medium Format, very affordable and compact than today's MILC.
Because the mirror mechanism is the expensive part in digital MF systems. Not.
Celsus: Come on Hassy, put out a medium format challenger to the RX1. Put a 50/2 fixed lens with H5D sensor and try your darndest to get all of that in under $5k. I will buy one. If it doesn't try to make the EVF optional for an additional $800...
Forget the $5000, even Pentax charges $8000 for its MF sensor and that comes without a lens (yes, it has a mirrorbox and PD AF) but I doubt Pentax could deliver a $5000 MF fixed-lens camera. And Hasselblad won't be able to be cheaper than Pentax.
BrightTiger: So much for DxO's unbias now that they are a camera manufacturer. Is it really worth it DxO?
No, they don't score any other 'stacked' images but then I don't know any other camera that offers stacked raw files (as in multiple raw captures in one file).
Horshack: " Simple image averaging of four images should lead to a 2 EV increase in noise performance"
Four images would reduce noise in half, equal to 1EV.
The noise would be halved but correspond to a 2 EV higher exposure.
The Silver Nemesis: If this camera was a movie, the trailer should have been: "From the producers of "incontestable" camera and lens benchmarks: DxO presents THE Camera. Fools, be prepared to go bancrupt overnight!"
Yeah, DxO would go bankrupt if they lost all the non-existing revenue from their DxO score website.
keeponkeepingon: 3 front page features on this copy of a sony innovation? Three. It's almost like dpreview has some sort of formal relationship with DXO. Oh wait they do.....
Two articles about the Canon G3x and the Ricoh GR II. OMG, they must be in bed with Canon.Four articles about the Leica Q. OMG, they must really be in bed with Leica.Six articles about three new Sony products, where two of the products where just sensor updates. OMG, they definitely must be in bed with Sony.
I have a really hard time figuring out whether you guys have just lost all sense of reality, just like to make preposterous statements because it makes you feel good, or your reality (ie, how you act in real life) conforms to your accusations.
John Laroque: How in the world are we ever going to trust DXO mark scores ever again now that DXO is making hardware? What a sad day in the camera world, I hope someone picks up where DXO left of here in the benchmark aspect.
All that DxO measures with sensors can easily be corroborated by third parties. There is no chance they would start cheating because they would be found out quickly.
Ribbit74: Based on the picture, it looks like the camera needs to sit flush against the lightning connector on the phone. Meaning it isn't going to fit if you have ANY sort of case on your phone. That's a major design fail. Even my Seek Thermal camera has enough of a protrusion to at least work with Apple's own cases.
Yes, but sitting flush gives it significant extra stability.