All the government's surveillance legislation gets rubber stamped by the queen (given Royal Assent), so I find it a bit rich when the royals whine about privacy, when they don't seem to have a problem with the government surveillance of the rest of us mere subjects 24/7!
As for the photos and how they are gathered, if the photographers are breaking laws then prosecute. If not, then suck it up. It's the celebrity status given to such people in the first place, and their own self importance which generates the paparazzi interest.
So if I copyright myself as a work of art (I'm no oil painting...well...maybe a bad one) then I can sue commercial or private CCTV operators for taking my image in a public place if they do not first seek my permission, as copyright owner?
I sometimes wonder where all the money goes. Now I know, it's paid to bureaucrats to sit around and think up ever more ridiculous "laws", that may or may not be enforced somewhere at sometime. Most likely to be used by some shark of a lawyer out to make a fast buck.
I am guessing that when the photos were taken, issues such as copyright were not even a consideration in the process, so it's likely there is nothing giving the Walton family any claim to ownership apart from their own sense of importance.
Unfortunately, we all know the reach of the rich and powerful and the influence they can bring to bear on "legal" decisions.
A very talented photographer and some superb, very atmospheric shots, full of life.
IcyVeins: Nobody is going to buy this lens except for suckers and people who want to brag about how badass their lens is.
Yeah, they can get a P510... if they want substantially worse IQ and other options! I use the old Tamrom 18-250mm as my general walkabout lens for convenience. It sits on my Pentax K5 and fits in my laptop bag, so I always have a camera with me. If I want to go somewhere specific and look for specific subjects I'll then ditch the Tamron UZ and take the primes in the camera bag. It's a compromise, but everyone knows that, including many who will buy this lens. It may well surprise with some good IQ, maybe not enough to satisfy the self proclaimed gearheads and pixel peeping experts, but good enough for most.
bokane: Great photos and useful tips - but I'm still waiting for the killer (if that is the right word, maybe stunning instead?) post on how you get insects in the wild to stay still long enough to photograph them.
"Wake up early, about sunset."
Wow! That is early. I'd wait a bit longer though and maybe get up around sunrise. :o) During summer I am often at my usual spot at first light, also means nobody else about to scare off the subjects.
Well it's different, I'll say that. Good spec too....but not for me.Without a viewfinder, or the facility to add a good quality external EVF, I couldn't use it. I have tried...man, how I've tried, to use mirrorless without an EVF but I just can't get along without one. Not knocking this new model in any way though if the output is as good as the K5.
ozgoldman: Its very clear that many submitting comment to this particular forum have no understanding of copyright law.Copyright is a complex and diverse subject with a myraid of outcomes that may be somewhat confusing to a lay person.
I do point out however, that the law of defamation appears to have been breached here regarding derogatory comment directed towards the judge in several of the contributions, and could in the UK be subject to legal process.
I think the subject of copyright has been twisted and perverted out of all recognition in order to make it a money making scheme for lawyers and digruntled inventors and artists.What next? Perhaps a recent Pigeon photo will get me into trouble with someone as it resembles a photo they took a couple of years back? Different Pigeon but same location / background and in a similar pose? I'm sure there are many artists and photographers out there who, having seen some work, go out and try to emulate the look and feel of the original. That is NOT infringement of copyright, no matter how similar it may look to an original work.
seriously, this world gets crazier every day!
Great shot of one of my favourite subjects. Not seen a blue one before and the colours are beautiful. Well done!
I used to think that the police in the UK were pushing the limits in the way they handled things with regards to photographers. That was until I started reading how some in the US were being treated when recording police officers. For example, arrested for illegal wiretapping (what the hell...). In these ever more ridiculous days of constant surveillance by the state of our activities (security has nothing to do ith it), I often hear the old adage "if you are doing nothing wrong, then why object". Surely the same should apply to those tasked to protect us? They are, after all, supposed to be public servants, paid for from our taxes, NOT there to bend us to their will. Filming or photographing the police in public where, we are told, we can have no reasonable expectation of privacy, surely acts as a deterrent to them acting unlawfully, as it does the rest of us?
Maxfield_photo: You can have my prism when you pry it from my cold, dead hands.
Ok, so the market for small mirrorless systems has ballooned in Asia and the west is going to be playing catch-up. Fine, but right now I prefer my dslr for the image quality, physical size and nice bight OVF.
However, what a small number of dedicated dslr users may want and what the marketing bods and shareholders might want are two very different things. Might we see those big shareholders in thoe two big manufacturers push them away from the dslr market into a more profitable mass mirrorless market? Scary I know but when money rules everything these days, the needs or wants of a particular customer sector mean nothing if it's not shifting in high enough numbers.