Erik Magnuson

Erik Magnuson

Lives in United States Cape Canaveral, FL, United States
Has a website at http://www.pbase.com/maderik
Joined on Dec 29, 2000
About me:

This is what I'd like to appear on my public 'posters (sic)
profile.'

Comments

Total: 250, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

vFunct: Again, just because you can operate a camera, doesn't mean you are the copyright holder.

Copyright law doesn't actually define what a photographer is when it assigns copyrights ownership. It only works on authorship.

That is why assistants, like this monkey, are never given copyrights, because they do not author the photograph.

At a photoshoot, I could go to my unpaid intern, without a contract, give him the camera, and tell him to take a creative shot, and I would have copyright.

Most people here have no idea that a real working professional photographer would have very little to do with operating a camera, which is why assistants taking photos are common.

And most working photographers spend most of their time planning a shoot. Mario Testino recently stated he spends about 2/3 of his time planning.

I think because most photographers here are amateurs, they think of photography as that limited view of operating a camera, like what a pro's assistant would do.

@Vfunct

Only because the intern can be considered your employee and taking photos part of his duties can you claim authorship. But the monkey was not an employee. If you tell me to 'make a creative photo' and I do, you have zero rights.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 7, 2014 at 21:22 UTC
In reply to:

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.

@vFunct If you asked the stranger to sketch you or write a limerick about you, would you have the copyright? Of course not. Why is composing and shooting with a camera any different? Authorship is about control: if you set the scene on a tripod and the stranger merely pushes the button under your direction, then you would be considered the author - just as you are the author of a dictated book. But if the only direction is "take my photo", then you are no more the author then if you pay for a portrait.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 7, 2014 at 21:13 UTC
In reply to:

Jogger: "a work owing its form to the forces of nature and lacking human authorship is not registrable." .. a lot of remote photography would apply to these.. e.g. those camera traps that are triggered by animals braking an infrared beam.

Since copyright is created the moment the image is "fixed", the photographer had to have the intent to capture this photo with this composition.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 7, 2014 at 19:46 UTC
In reply to:

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.

Copyright covers the image and not the work behind it. You get just as much protection for randomly pointing the camera.

Technically, the stranger on vacation *could* claim copyright. In practice, no one does and a judge might say there was an implied relationship that assigns rights back to the tourist. The judge would also be annoyed you wasted his time on this as there is no value or damages.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 7, 2014 at 19:36 UTC
In reply to:

Ilya the Great: Great. I will train a dog to press a device that will press the camera button on command. When I will take pictures of all celebrities and pay no royalty to them since a dog took the picture.

Since no one would pay you for the images, why do this? BTW, rights to a likeness and copyright are different. Is Mr. Slater paying royalties to any of the monkeys?

Direct link | Posted on Aug 7, 2014 at 17:32 UTC
In reply to:

Scottelly: I think that monkey is cute. I don't care about the legal stuff. The photographer should know that this photo is more famous now, and Wikimedia's use of it is good for him. He can now sell prints, because he has the originals in high resolution. He's MUCH better off, now that Wikimedia refused to take the photo down.

You could be charged (or held civilly liable) if it could be proven that you were reckless in loaning the car (i.e. your friend was drunk or not qualified to drive it.) The better analogy is if could you be charged if a monkey broke into your car, put it in drive, and then ran over someone?

Direct link | Posted on Aug 7, 2014 at 17:28 UTC
In reply to:

Nigel Wilkins: Regardless of copyright ownership, Wikimedia really shouldn't be encouraging the use of images without permission, which they apparently didn't even try to obtain. As if copyright theft wasn't already a big enough problem.

I'd love to post my best images full size without a watermark, but this is the kind of thing that prevents me from doing it. I suspect there are & will be many other fantastic photos never shown to the world for fear of losing all control over their use. Who actually benefits from this? I can see no beneficiary but many losers from this kind of attitude, both photographers & those who just like to look at nice photos.

I'll bet they don't have model releases for *any* of the animals portrayed on their site. Animal rights violation!

Direct link | Posted on Aug 7, 2014 at 17:16 UTC
In reply to:

Paul B Jones: Some folks seem to be confusing right and wrong (as determined by their feelings as hard done by photographers) and copyright law.

Copyright does not reside in photographs taken by animals of themselves.

End of story.

Who has copyright to any nature? By definition, if there is no copyright, it's public domain.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 7, 2014 at 17:13 UTC
In reply to:

drummercam: Mr. Slater owns the work. Once he saw what was happening and allowed the macaque to continue what it was doing, the macaque became a mere assistant. This is a shameless power grab by a huge organization with money to pay a slick lawyer to present a wholly specious argument if it comes down to a court case. Wikimedia should take the photo down, and Mr. Slater should pay the macaque a banana.

You can't "steal" copyright from an animal - by definition it never existed. Similarly you don't have to get a model release from an animal to use it's image commercially - it has no likeness rights.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 7, 2014 at 17:11 UTC
In reply to:

Jogger: "a work owing its form to the forces of nature and lacking human authorship is not registrable." .. a lot of remote photography would apply to these.. e.g. those camera traps that are triggered by animals braking an infrared beam.

This issue is the degree human authorship. A trap camera was setup by the human to take remote photos. In this case, the human did not intend to make these photos. If a bear broke into your camera hide, removed the camera, brought it to it's den where it took additional photos, is there human authorship of such photos? That's the analogous situation.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 7, 2014 at 17:09 UTC
In reply to:

Scottelly: I think that monkey is cute. I don't care about the legal stuff. The photographer should know that this photo is more famous now, and Wikimedia's use of it is good for him. He can now sell prints, because he has the originals in high resolution. He's MUCH better off, now that Wikimedia refused to take the photo down.

Sweat of the brow vs. creative: other copyright cases have distinguished between the two types of contributions. Merely owning a camera or bringing it to a certain place would not likely be considered creative on it's own. In addition, you and the model are capable of negotiating who might own the work - the monkey cannot sign a release.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 7, 2014 at 17:03 UTC
In reply to:

Priaptor: Kudos

I love gadgets, what can I say. I rarely spend much time reading about most "new" cameras and browse more than read BUT this thing caught my eye.

Most "new" cameras are pretty much variations of an old theme with different sizes, sensors, etc but this is really NEW

I have no clue how it will ultimately pan out in real world settings and it seems somewhat heavy but I like it.

Too much negativity about this. Maybe it is just a "Polaroid" as someone has suggested but in a way even though the Polaroid ultimately failed it also had a huge impact on the paradigm shift in the advancement of photography.

Not a new Polaroid, but a new Nimslo (look it up.) And it will have about as much impact.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 25, 2014 at 05:15 UTC
On What is equivalence and why should I care? article (2087 comments in total)
In reply to:

mostlyboringphotog: Is "equivalent aperture" equivalent to "equivalent F-stop"?

I've notices couple of instance where these seem to be used interchangeably.

But that's why it's "equivalent" and not "equal".

Direct link | Posted on Jul 9, 2014 at 22:08 UTC
On What is equivalence and why should I care? article (2087 comments in total)
In reply to:

LaFonte: To put more fuel to the fire,
I think the article explained perfectly the first part
"what is the equivalence" but failed to explain the second part "why should I care"
Maybe a page 5 is needed with a real life situation for a photographer in the field with his camera, not a nerd in a lab with 4 different cameras taking picture of a single subject and comparing how they differ. I kind of don't use cameras like that and I don't think many photographers do that either.

So I am standing knee deep in a mud somewhere outside with my camera pointing at something. What should I take from the article that would help me take better picture. How does it relate to me and indeed why should I care about anything that was said (assuming of course I am not complete idiot and I understand that higher ISO means higher noise)

@LaFonte
If you only shoot by yourself, you may not need to care. In the field a lot of people also shoot communally and exchange tips. If you have an MFT system and I have an FF system and we both are shooting a night baseball game and one of us asks the other "what settings are you using?" then equivalence matters to understand the answer.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 9, 2014 at 22:06 UTC
On What is equivalence and why should I care? article (2087 comments in total)
In reply to:

mostlyboringphotog: Is "equivalent aperture" equivalent to "equivalent F-stop"?

I've notices couple of instance where these seem to be used interchangeably.

"Aperture vs. f-stop" have been conflated for years: the former is a diameter expressed in physical units and the latter a unit-less ratio. For the same lens you choose a smaller value f-stop number to get a larger aperture. Technically, "equivalent aperture" means "equal aperture" while "equivalent F-stop" means "f-stop where the apertures would be equal".

Direct link | Posted on Jul 9, 2014 at 22:01 UTC
On What is equivalence and why should I care? article (2087 comments in total)
In reply to:

LaFonte: But why do I even have to care about equivalent or not exposure?
If I say to two guys don't use your camera metering, pull out my old light meter and tell to two guys with very different camera: set your ISO 100, set 1/60, and aperture 2.2 and you will be fine, they would both get properly exposed picture. Right? Even that one geezer have 7d and the other have e-pm.
As I understand, that is the whole point of having equivalent exposure that translates to everybody. So we understand each other without looking what size of sensor you have. Starting recalculating what aperture means in different sensor sizes is good only and only for assuming DOF not for exposure.
So maybe call it equivalent DOF.
Or is it that I totally don't get it?

@mostlyboringphotog
There are a lot of things on DPR "most photographers" can gloss over. Most photographers have dealt with this intuitively (i.e, "the highest ISO I'll use with this camera is xxxx", "the best combo for street shooting is XXmm @ f/x.x @ ISO xxx", etc.) This article just explains the theory behind the practice AND how to interpret advice from those who shoot a different system from yours.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 9, 2014 at 21:54 UTC
On What is equivalence and why should I care? article (2087 comments in total)
In reply to:

LaFonte: But why do I even have to care about equivalent or not exposure?
If I say to two guys don't use your camera metering, pull out my old light meter and tell to two guys with very different camera: set your ISO 100, set 1/60, and aperture 2.2 and you will be fine, they would both get properly exposed picture. Right? Even that one geezer have 7d and the other have e-pm.
As I understand, that is the whole point of having equivalent exposure that translates to everybody. So we understand each other without looking what size of sensor you have. Starting recalculating what aperture means in different sensor sizes is good only and only for assuming DOF not for exposure.
So maybe call it equivalent DOF.
Or is it that I totally don't get it?

@mostlyboringphotog Most would know the answer but usually don't think of it in terms "equivalence". Instead they would think "I don't want to go over ISO 1600, so I'll use 1/500 and whatever aperture I need for that." Equivalent DOF is not important to most photographers unless they are unable to match really shallow DOF.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 9, 2014 at 21:15 UTC
On What is equivalence and why should I care? article (2087 comments in total)
In reply to:

LaFonte: But why do I even have to care about equivalent or not exposure?
If I say to two guys don't use your camera metering, pull out my old light meter and tell to two guys with very different camera: set your ISO 100, set 1/60, and aperture 2.2 and you will be fine, they would both get properly exposed picture. Right? Even that one geezer have 7d and the other have e-pm.
As I understand, that is the whole point of having equivalent exposure that translates to everybody. So we understand each other without looking what size of sensor you have. Starting recalculating what aperture means in different sensor sizes is good only and only for assuming DOF not for exposure.
So maybe call it equivalent DOF.
Or is it that I totally don't get it?

To pile it on -- let's say we are shooting birds late in the day: I have an FF camera with a 600mm f/5.6 lens and you have an MFT camera with a 300mm f/2.8 lens. You ask me what I'm shooting at. If I say I'm getting good exposures at 1/500, f/5.6, ISO 6400 would you want to set your MFT camera to those same numbers? No. But if you set your camera to the "equivalent" of 1/500, f/2.8 and ISO 1600 you would get similar brightness, DOF, and noise.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 9, 2014 at 21:04 UTC
On What is equivalence and why should I care? article (2087 comments in total)
In reply to:

shii: I followed the discussion with great interest but failed to grasp the concept of "total light." In the article it says " ... (while the intensity is the same) because the more (total) light you capture, the less noisy your image, ...". Noise is determined at the pixel level and each pixel does not know how much total light the sensor is capturing. So why would the total light affect noise? Take a Nikon D800, for example. Shoot in FF and then in crop mode. Are we saying the crop mode will have more noise though it is basically the same camera? Comparisons only make sense while we are taking the same picture. The cropped photo will have higher noise only if we move the camera away to keep the same frame but still use the same aperture. But then the DOF will not be the same so it is not the same comparison. So, once again, why does total light matter? Is that to avoid the discussion of having to keep the same frame between FF and cropped?

The problem with just using a crop is that you are also changing the number of area samples. Equivalence is about *the same size print*. Certainly for the same size print, any single noisy pixel will be larger and more visible in the final image with the crop.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 9, 2014 at 20:52 UTC
On What is equivalence and why should I care? article (2087 comments in total)
In reply to:

LaFonte: But why do I even have to care about equivalent or not exposure?
If I say to two guys don't use your camera metering, pull out my old light meter and tell to two guys with very different camera: set your ISO 100, set 1/60, and aperture 2.2 and you will be fine, they would both get properly exposed picture. Right? Even that one geezer have 7d and the other have e-pm.
As I understand, that is the whole point of having equivalent exposure that translates to everybody. So we understand each other without looking what size of sensor you have. Starting recalculating what aperture means in different sensor sizes is good only and only for assuming DOF not for exposure.
So maybe call it equivalent DOF.
Or is it that I totally don't get it?

If those two have the cameras set to the same ISO, then the same f-stop and shutter speed will give the similar brightness. But it will give different DOF and noise levels (for the same size print.) Or they could shoot with the same shutter speed and different ISO & aperture to get similar noise and DOF. What's more important to the viewer of a photo: the numeric ISO and f-stop used (which may not even be available) or actual image qualities like noise and DOF?

Direct link | Posted on Jul 9, 2014 at 20:28 UTC
Total: 250, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »