jhumkey

jhumkey

Joined on Jan 25, 2012

Comments

Total: 2, showing: 1 – 2

Far more interested in the "Ultimate Lens", 12mm-1000mm 1.4f w/ no spherical or chromatic aberrations. Weighs a few oz's and is 1" deep. (But I'm afraid we'll have to conquer "gravity" to produce such a lens. Glass alone will never cut the mustard.) For the camera: 60fps shutter burst, 2 days on a battery, Full Frame (primarily for anti noise) 6 "user config presets". Configurable HDR (2-11 shots, with 1/3stop step rate). Excellent low light performance. All for $500 or less. You know . . . "just the basics". Right now, my 7D is "acceptably close". A 7D speed with Full Frame Sensor and a tad better HDR options . . . would be "very" close. (And NO!!!!! Software for HDR means options for ME to do HDR, NOT doing HDR processing "in" the camera.)

Direct link | Posted on Oct 22, 2012 at 15:33 UTC as 91st comment
In reply to:

AndyGM: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work

Quote:

"For copyright protection to attach to a later, allegedly derivative work, it must display some originality of its own. It cannot be a rote, uncreative variation on the earlier, underlying work. The latter work must contain sufficient new expression, over and above that embodied in the earlier work for the latter work to satisfy copyright law’s requirement of originality.

... the Second Circuit held that a derivative work must be original relative to the underlying work on which it is based. Otherwise, it cannot enjoy copyright protection and copying it will not be copyright infringement"

Yeah, ok so this is US law, but UK copyright law has a similar clause.

I'm sorry, but Justin Fielder's photo is about a derivative as they come (images using this Popping technique, with a London Bus on Westminster Bridge, with Big Ben in the background, is a cliche). Therefore, his photo should not have any copyright protection.

I mostly agree, but, you raise an interesting question. Even the full judgement uses the phrase "iconic London landmarks". Is the real problem, not that the 2nd image violates the copyright of the first, but that the first image (using such well known iconic images) wasn't properly copyrightable in the first place? That it too copies something so well known and recognizable . . . ? Does Ansel Adams photos of FAMOUS Yosemite LANDMARKS block all subsequent photos?

Direct link | Posted on Jan 25, 2012 at 14:24 UTC
Total: 2, showing: 1 – 2