Klarno: How about a thought experiment:
Let's say you have an art installation in a museum or gallery. In the installation, you have set up a camera, and direct people visiting the installation to take a selfie with that camera. The camera is connected to a computer running a script which automatically uploads and posts each photo to a thread on Reddit. The Reddit thread is displayed on a nearby computer screen. For the record, I've seen stranger art installations.
Who, then, does the copyright of the photograph then belong to? The person who thought up and set up the installation, the gallery's curator, or the person taking the selfie?
I think intent has to be considered in copyright.
vFunct said "You don't need to be paid for your photos to be a professional." We can keep doing this, but you are wrong. I don't know how else to put it, perhaps mistaken is a softer way to say it, but wrong is still wrong. Submissions don't matter, applying professional standards are nice, artistic aspiration and esthetic is swell and talent is great ... but you either get paid for your work or you don't. If you get paid you are a professional, if you don't get paid you aren't.
vFunct: Too many amateur photographers here have no idea what it takes to make a pro-quality photo. Why haven't they figured out that taking a photo isn't the only creative act when authoring a photograph?
Do they not consider the production, planning, setup, styling, lighting, editing, post-processing, and publications creative acts in photography?
Because that's part of photography at the professional level, protected by copyright. Pros spend far more time planning than shooting.
Just because you can operate a camera, doesn't mean you own the copyright. When you give a person your camera to take a tourist photo of you, they don't get the copyright.
That is why professional photographers have assistants take photos for them, and they don't even need a contract stating that they're assistants doing work-for-hire, since it's the default situation - you never see these 'work-for-hire' contracts in the real-world.
Copyright law doesn't protect assistants, only the photographer.
Sorry, but you are incorrect when you say "just because you can operate a camera, doesn't mean you own the copyright." The problem with your statement is the "can operate"' Nobody is talking about the ability to do a thing, but the result of actually doing it. There's no "can" involved, there's just the "did" operate the camera. As for the other part about amateur photographers... I think many if not most folks here appreciate both the process and result of a good photography. And most do understand and appreciate the effort it takes. What separates the amateur from the professional is payment; if you get paid, you're a professional. You can be lousy photographer, but it they buy it, you are a professional. You may want to apply other criteria (peer review, accreditation, training etc etc) and many trades and crafts do so, but constant among all of them for "professionalism" is payment.
I should have seen it coming when Apple "updated" Pages, redesigned it for the iOS crowd and dropped (at last count) 87 features turning what was an elegant feature-rich alternative to MSWord into a piece of crap. Same thing here, throw the serious users under the bus. Good for Apple I guess, butmI remember when they created markets instead of following them.
shmn: Wonderful concept and nice execution.
Thanks, a little positive feedback goes a long way...
RichRMA: Performance is similar to the 12-50mm $450 kit lens.
Nonsense. If you are in the group who hates the 12-50 beyond all reason and without justification so be it, but try to keep your comments within reason.
This is a joke, right? This article's featured photograph shows a four-year-old (?) with a DSLR. You really want to turn a camera over to a child who is as likely to use it as a hammer, or trade it to a friend for a candy bar, or drop it in the toilet to see if it floats?
If you really want a child to learn about the visual world and the wonders of photography, show him/her how to build a pinhole camera or camera obscura, Explain, show, share and teach. Spend some time, not some money.
This is nonsense.
wkay: I realize in the US that all photgraphs are automatically protected by copyright, but your right to claim damages is quite limited if you never formally file for copyright. DPReview should be nervous now that they have published the image, as their pockets are probably much deeper.
kodachrome200, sorry, but that's incorrect.
Any, and all, copyright infringement actions are open to anyone who holds the right(s). The more rigorous the test, the more difficult to win, but you aren't barred from trying.
Not correct. Formal filing has nothing to do with copyright; it might effect your ability to collect damages for violating the copyright, but it has no substantive effect on your copy-rights.
Murray Rothbard: You can't own an image, an idea, a sound, a flavor, anything that is not tangible and subject to objective, universally agreed-on parameters. You can own a piece of paper on which animage is printed, you can own a digital file containing color data, but you cannot own particles of light. If you don't want anyone to "steal" your image, then keep it to yourself. Otherwise, as the expression goes: What has been seen cannot be unseen."
That's nonsense. That's not what copyright law says. If you have a real cite that supports this, post it. Otherwise, withdraw it because it's just flat out wrong. It is true, however, that a suit may become more difficult to win under many different conditions, in different jurisdictions, but winning/losing the suit has nothing to do with the law.
"Having tested the noise reduction and sharpening settings as part of review, we felt that the E-M5 applied more noise reduction than was really needed, then added rather over-enthusiastic sharpening to crisp things up again..."
This works particularly well with recommended Off and -1 settings used with Photoshop "smart sharpen." I can't get anything in Viewer2 to bring out quite as much micro detail, Brian
I just took a look at the Nikon USA website and it only lists the D5200 as a "compatible" camera. Somebody isn't coordinating this because it is either available for other cameras (and the web folks aren't up to speed and they should be) or the it isn't available and the PR folks released ahead of time.
Everybody is getting their knickers in a twist about "owning" vs. "renting" software through the Cloud. What makes you think you "own" PS now? Adobe owns it, lets you use it, and can withdraw that use at any time either through modification or simply denial of service. Why do you think you're a "user" and not a "customer?" This new move is causing a kerfuffle because Adobe isn't even pretending to be acting in your interest.
This argument is older than the technology and there is no less, or more, virtue in Instagram than any other digital tool.
The tools don't matter because no digital image is a photograph until it's printed; an image in a camera, or on a computer screen, has esthetic value but that value is separate from, and unique to, that medium. There is no issue of digital software "ruining" photography because digital images, of any kind, are many things but they are not photographs.
Simply, a digital image is data; a printed photograph is an object. A digital image only exists as a transmissive representation; a photo print is reflective, it has dimensionality and substance and once printed, the essential nature of that object cannot be changed.
Each form can represent the other, but they can't be integrated; one is a photograph, the other is not.
Brad Ross: I was in a public town park and came upon a little league game. I thought it would be a good opportunity to try and catch some images of a ball caught in mid air. A parent asked if I was the official photographer and I said no the pictures were for me. A few minutes later a father/coach came over and ask me to not take any pictures of the children. The parents did not give me permission. He said that I could take pictures of any tree or flower in the park but not children. I was take aback and shocked and embarrassed. I said okay, and turned around and left. I guess I should have asked permission or introduced myself ahead of time but the game was already in progress
Bob Meyer, yes it does "cut both ways," but this isn't about equally balanced rights, in fact it isn't about rights at all. It's about ethics, and that means, as Thomas22 says above "respecting the feelings and wishes of others is a good thing."
In fact, since you are the acting party and your behavior may be perceived as intrusive, and damaging, your right to take a photograph does not rise to as high a level as the subject's perception of harm and desire to not have the photograph taken.
larrytusaz: I always hear bad things about the ACLU, how they sue for public posting of the 10 commandments etc, but on this count I agree with them 100%.
The attitudes of people nowadays are ridiculous. Once I was photographing ducks at the lake. A hysterical woman yelled "don't take photos of my kids you pervert." My reply: don't worry, I only photograph things which look good (meaning: my, your kid is UGLY), ha ha.
Another: last year we were at a garage sale. A young girl, 13 or so, took a liking to my 1 year old son & picked him up. I took a photo of this, later the mother came by (she was a FRIEND of the one having the sell but not the home owner) and asked me to delete the photo, "I don't know you." My reply: "well, I don't know you and yet I didn't have a cow when your girl picked up my child without my permission. I just saw it as something sweet & innocent, a point of view which you could learn from, frankly."
xtoph, first of all, call me "mistaken" or even "ignorant," but you're a toke over the line saying I'm "wrong." You have no way of judging that.
Secondly, of course I have an ethical responsibility to never injure another person. That's at the heart of ethics, the description and application of just behavior.
Third, ethics describes behavior not feelings, so your comments about the subject "having an ethical responsibility for for their own feelings" is not germane to that point.
And are you really suggesting that the photographer gets to sit in judgement and decide if the aggrieved subject is "justified" in his/her perception of that behavior was intrusive, rude, offensive or any of dozens of other quite-reasonable human reactions to the photographer's behavior?
My position stands: taking a person's photograph without their permission is unethical.
larrytusaz et al, you are confusing legal and ethical behavior.Photographing people without their permission is unethical.
The issue is not your (one's) right to photograph, but the subject's right to be free from intrusive behavior. Whether or not the photograph "feels" the same way about that intrusion is irrelevant since the photographer's intent is unknown and unknowable to the subject at the time of the behavior. Therefore, the photographer's intent to do/not do harm, or belief that harm was/was not done, is irrelevant beside the subject's perception of harm done.
I've raised this issue in the past, and will continue to do so when appropriate, knowing I'll get flamed by street photographers the world over. So be it, because the issue becomes more relevant each day as the technology spreads and privacy becomes increasingly at risk.
In response to Ashley Pomeroy's "It seems a complete waste of money to print things out. You're going to throw them away sooner or later"... I'd suggest that photographic printing isn't a racial /national /ethnic process, it's just youth vs. age.
If raised in a digital world, Ms. Pomeroy may think the transient assembly of pixels is the highest photographic reality; raised in a non-digital world, I think the only reality is the print that embodies provenance and posterity.
We are, of course, both correct. The difference is I don't ascribe a higher intrinsic value to either; I'd rather judge individual images (and image makers) within their contextual form.