Greg Lovern

Greg Lovern

Lives in United States Bellevue, WA, United States
Joined on May 4, 2004
About me:

:
Pentax K-7 since December 2011
Pentax *ist D since March 2004
O-ME53 1.2x magnifying eyecup
Tamron 17-50/2.8
Tamron 28-75/2.8
DA 18-135 WR
FA 50/1.4
FA 35/2.0
FA 100/2.8 Macro
Sigma 12-24 (original version)
Polaris 135/1.8, YS-Mount w/ K-mount T2 adapter (Mid 1970s)
Misc old primes
Pentax ZX-L (MX-6) (now used only with the Sigma at ~12mm for 122-degree angle of view)
Leica MiniLux
Fuji F810
:
Current Wishlist:
K-5
DA* 55
DA 55-300 WR
Tamron 70-200/2.8
Sigma 10-20 (wish they'd make the 8-16 in K-mount!)
Lumix GM-1
Canon S90 with Franiec
:
Fond memories:
Pentax Super Program
Kiron-made M42 Vivitar 20/3.5
Olympus OM-1 (~1980)
Sigma 21-35/3.5-4.0 (~1981) (not the much more common 1985 21-35/3.5-4.2)
Dad's 126-cartridge, flashcube Kodak Instamatic X-15 (~1970)
Various old cameras in Grandpa's basement (~1960's & early 1970's)
:

Comments

Total: 112, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

MrTaikitso: Interesting, we inherited an old Leica from my father (who got it from his father), and it looks like that Hansa. I wonder who influenced who, my history of old gear is not good. I know the Leica had this clever prism that connected to the viewfinder so you could take pictures around corners! Sneaky! I had a water pistol that could do that too, and shot my physics lecturer in the face at point blank range by mistake with it after he stepped out of the staff room in the path of my target! I had to write out lines or something, but it was funny at the time - he was a dufus. Anyway, where were we? Ah yes, Kwanon!

Those early Canons were shamelessly exact copies of Leicas. The only way to tell the difference is the name on it. Leica had been making rangefinders like that since the 1920s.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 2, 2014 at 19:01 UTC
On Hands-on with the Pentax K-S1 article (341 comments in total)
In reply to:

Michael Piziak: Yet again, a new Pentax camera that sticks with the same k-mount that they've been making since 1975 [film cameras].

Kudos to Pentax !

Unlike Canon & Nikon that changed their lens mount when they went digital - making them basically proprietary as the old lens wouldn't work on the new Canon or Nikon dslr.

Also Kudos to Pentax for keeping the image stabilization in the camera - so all those old lens, since 1975, which still fit on the camera and allow the user to still have shake reduction as they shoot !

@Dennis:

How do you figure? By abandoning their old mounts and starting fresh for auto-focus, Minolta and Canon did it the EASY way, which cost their user base more money (because they had to replace their whole kit) and, to this day, eliminates the supply of inexpensive old manual-focus lenses that can be effectively used on their auto-focus SLRs and DSLRs (not counting adapters with image-degrading glass elements).

Nikon and Pentax engineers worked harder, to adapt their legacy mounts to work with autofocus. They did it the HARD way, which helped their user bases by not forcing them to spend a lot of money replacing their whole kit, and, to this day, helps users by allowing them to use inexpensive old manual-focus lenses without image-degrading adapters.

Minolta and Canon did it the easy way, at the expense of their users. Nikon and Pentax did it the hard way, saving their users money. How on earth do you figure that's no more impressive than putting round tires on a car??

Direct link | Posted on Aug 28, 2014 at 19:12 UTC
On Hands-on with the Pentax K-S1 article (341 comments in total)
In reply to:

Michael Piziak: Yet again, a new Pentax camera that sticks with the same k-mount that they've been making since 1975 [film cameras].

Kudos to Pentax !

Unlike Canon & Nikon that changed their lens mount when they went digital - making them basically proprietary as the old lens wouldn't work on the new Canon or Nikon dslr.

Also Kudos to Pentax for keeping the image stabilization in the camera - so all those old lens, since 1975, which still fit on the camera and allow the user to still have shake reduction as they shoot !

@Viking97:

How is K-mount "hurting current Pentax camera/lens design"?

Also, regarding "Even Nikon still has circa 1970s/80s mechanical aperture", do you mean the actuator? I'm pretty sure only the most expensive Nikon DSLRs still have that; cameras that are far more expensive than any K-mount DSLR.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 28, 2014 at 01:49 UTC
On Hands-on with the Pentax K-S1 article (341 comments in total)
In reply to:

Michael Piziak: Yet again, a new Pentax camera that sticks with the same k-mount that they've been making since 1975 [film cameras].

Kudos to Pentax !

Unlike Canon & Nikon that changed their lens mount when they went digital - making them basically proprietary as the old lens wouldn't work on the new Canon or Nikon dslr.

Also Kudos to Pentax for keeping the image stabilization in the camera - so all those old lens, since 1975, which still fit on the camera and allow the user to still have shake reduction as they shoot !

What makes you think Nikon changed their lens mount?? Maybe you're thinking of Minolta. Minolta was the first to abandon their manual-focus lens mount, then Canon (in both cases, the change was made when going to auto-focus FILM SLRs, long before going digital). And of course Olympus abandoned their whole manual-focus line long before their first DSLR.

Nikon is effectively just as backward compatible as Pentax. There were some specialty lenses that aren't compatible, but Pentax never had equivalent lenses anyway. Nikon's very oldest bayonet mount lenses have significant compatibility issues, but those Nikon bayonet mount lenses that are no older than Pentax's oldest K-mount lenses (1975 I think) have no more compatibility issues than Pentax.

So give Nikon credit regarding lens compatibility; they've done as well for their users as Pentax has done for theirs.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 28, 2014 at 01:41 UTC

Apparently vFunct knows everything and the Copyright Office knows nothing. Why bother having a Copyright Office when we have vFunct? Imagine the tax dollars we could save by eliminating the Copyright Office and just consulting vFunct for all copyright questions. What are we waiting for?

Direct link | Posted on Aug 24, 2014 at 22:17 UTC as 19th comment | 1 reply

Can't wait to hear vFunct tell us all about how the Copyright Office's 1,222-page document is all wrong... :-)

Direct link | Posted on Aug 22, 2014 at 01:27 UTC as 127th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

photo_rb: The question I have is if the monkey took the photo, why should it be public domain?

mauritsvw: If just taking his camera to the Macaca's natural habitat in the jungle was the relevant creative act that resulted in authorship according to copyright law, and therefore copyright ownership, then just taking a camera anywhere would give you copyright on any photos taken by that camera.

Do you think the copyright law judge will agree? From my study of copyright law for an unrelated project, I don't.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 7, 2014 at 21:30 UTC
In reply to:

fz750: From the BBC:
...............
Mr Slater said he spent three days in Indonesia shadowing the monkeys in 2011.

"I became accepted as part of the troop, they touched me and groomed me... so I thought they could take their own photograph.

"I set the camera up on a tripod, framed [the shot] up and got the exposure right... and all you've got to do is give the monkey the button to press and lo and behold you got the picture."

...............

Seems pretty clear to me that he deserves the credit for the photos and wikimedia are just wrong.

vFunct, as you know, copyright law assigns copyright ownership to the author of the creative act. The question here is whether that creative act of authorship in this case was:

A) the photographer bringing the camera to the Macaca's natural habitat in the jungle where the Macaca then had the opportunity to steal it and take pictures, or:
B) The composition and choosing of the moment.

The photographer brought the camera to the Macaca's habitat in the jungle, no argument about that. The Macaca stole the camera and took hundreds of handheld shots; that isn't disputed since the photographer said so originally.

You've made an interesting point about authorship in the case of film productions on creatively designed sets, but you haven't supported your opinion that this natural jungle scene counts as such.

Your stated opinion that composition and choosing the moment are irrelevant to still photograph copyright law authorship is strange, and you have not provided support for that opinion.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 7, 2014 at 21:19 UTC
In reply to:

Scottelly: There are a lot of sites using the photos. Here is just one, which includes a good explanation of the way they see the legal use situation:

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110712/01182015052/monkeys-dont-do-fair-use-news-agency-tells-techdirt-to-remove-photos.shtml

vFunct: The max statutory fine per photo, assuming each photo is registered with the copyright office separately, is $150,000. It would be a little weird to register each photo separately as it costs $35 each, though he may have done so in this case. So that's $300,000 for the two photos shown here, plus actual damages. But the max statutory amount of $150,000 per registered infringed work is usually not awarded; the judge usually awards much less. If the judge agrees that the defendants had a reasonable case, even if wrong, the amount is likely to be much less. The full amount can only be expected for the most egregious cases of clear, unambiguous infringement.

How do you figure that's going to be enough to bankrupt all these media companies that posted the pictures?

Direct link | Posted on Aug 7, 2014 at 21:04 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.

You still haven't explained where in copyright law you find support for your opinion that the creative act in still photography on which copyright law authorship hinges is in the "production, planning, setup, styling, lighting, editing, post-processing, and publications" etc., and not in composition and choosing the moment.

You've made an interesting point about film productions on creatively designed sets, but this photographer no more designed that natural jungle "set" than a street photographer or landscape photographer.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 7, 2014 at 20:50 UTC
In reply to:

fz750: From the BBC:
...............
Mr Slater said he spent three days in Indonesia shadowing the monkeys in 2011.

"I became accepted as part of the troop, they touched me and groomed me... so I thought they could take their own photograph.

"I set the camera up on a tripod, framed [the shot] up and got the exposure right... and all you've got to do is give the monkey the button to press and lo and behold you got the picture."

...............

Seems pretty clear to me that he deserves the credit for the photos and wikimedia are just wrong.

So how did the monkey take so many pictures of the ground?

Also, the photographer originally said the monkey took the camera.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 7, 2014 at 20:40 UTC
In reply to:

PaulStimac: If Wikipedia wins then there's tons of amazing work that will be up for grabs. National Geo. relies heavily on camera traps:

http://preview.tinyurl.com/lwrldny

vFunct: Where in copyright law do you see that the law defines the author of a still photograph to be the person who merely brings a camera to a natural nature scene, in this case the jungle?

It's different for a video production on a set where creativity was applied to designing the set. In that case, just taking a picture of the creatively designed set doesn't make you the author.

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

kemal erdogan: I love these pictures.

However, if the photog has made any post edits on these pictures, then he must be the owner of the pictures; unchanged originals remains public domain.

K.

vFunct, by your logic, street photographers and nature photographers do not own copyright on their own images.

After reading your many posts, I get the impression that you are applying copyright law as it applies in the film industry to still photography. Do you believe that they are the same in terms of how copyright law is applied? If so, what makes you think so?

Direct link | Posted on Aug 7, 2014 at 17:10 UTC
In reply to:

Matt1645f4: If he went out there with the intention of allowing the Monkey to use his equipment and see what the results would be would he still be the copyright owner?

I would of thought yes. As it would of been his creative intention that lead to the images capture. And i can't see much difference in this argument that would deny him his copyright.

This does question the right of copyright. If i was to go and make a Photograph of another photo would this entitle me to the copyright, as i would of created a new and unique image?

Copyright law does not give you copyright on a photo of a photo, unless your photo of the photo is clearly a new creative work, as for example if you take a photo of several framed photos sitting on a mantle. Even then, you still don't have copyright on the original, and so may need to get permission to distribute your (in copyright law parlance) "derivative work".

Direct link | Posted on Aug 7, 2014 at 16:59 UTC
In reply to:

ManuelRaposo: Who bought the camera? Who went on a trip to photograph the monkey? Who let the monkey take hundreds of photos? (he could have shoot the monkey...)
That's right, no other human being had any role on taking those photos besides David Slater. Certainly not Wikimedia.
From a logical point of view, the copyright owner is David Slater, hands down. If the law says otherwise, then I think it's time to change it...

vFunct, the NFL would like us to believe that they own copyright on all photos taken at NFL games. But as far as I can tell, it's considered a dubious claim and is disputed. Can you provide support for your argument?

http://brandlaw.org/2010/01/nfl-flexes-its-copyright-muscle/

Direct link | Posted on Aug 7, 2014 at 16:55 UTC
In reply to:

koolbreez: The question also has to be raised as to who owns the monkey? In a zoo setting all animals are owned by the zoo, and property releases have to be obtained to use their animal's photos for commercial purposes.

Do the same rules apply for game reserves, and national parks? The legal question would be who owns the monkey, and is a property release required for the commercial use of the monkey pictures, no matter who took them.

The Macaca was in the jungle. No owner.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 7, 2014 at 16:46 UTC
In reply to:

JordanAT: Is the photo in Wiki unretouched? In general, works which are in the public domain which have been altered or enhanced are copyrightable by whomever makes the modification. To be clear of copyright, only the original is due.

Parallel example: You may copy and distribute the Correlli Trio Sonatas as they are public doman. If you arrange a version for, say, clarinet - that work is under your own copyright and may not be reproduced. It need not even be transformative; a simple typesetting of the old work in its original voicing and form is copyright by the typesetter.

If the images released were unretouched, I would say Slater has lost his battle. If, however, he modified the image (color correction, sharpening, etc.) before release and has never released the original file then he actually does have a (legal) argument that the image is under copyright.

That doesn't sound like the copyright law I've studied. Where do you read that?

According to copyright law, revisions can only be copyrighted if they result in a something that is recognizably a new creative work, as when an artist takes parts of multiple photos and combines them into a new composition.

Your example of the typesetter is not to the point. In that case it's the typesetting that is copyrighted, not the music composition itself. A composer who just changed a couple of notes here and there could not copyright their revision as a new creative work.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 7, 2014 at 16:45 UTC
In reply to:

Atlasman: Since the camera is owned by the photographer, I would say that all products derived from the equipment belong to the owner. Without the equipment there would be no image.

Where do you read that in copyright law? Copyright law requires a deliberate creative act.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 7, 2014 at 16:35 UTC
In reply to:

rinkos: is it the photographers camera which he held just before the monkey took it ? ..then case closed .

such nonsense . there is the law and there is the spirit of the laws intentions .

obviously the lack of copyrights situation is not related to the case of a monkey taking your camera ? ...

i had a gun ..i let a person take it from me and do as he will with it and he shot some people..therefore he alone is guilty of murder ????? ..LOL

Copyright law doesn't cover murder. There are other laws that cover murder, and they don't necessarily follow the same logic as copyright law.

Where in copyright law do you read that the camera owner gets copyright for all photos taken with a camera he owns? By that logic, camera rental firms would own copyright on photos taken with cameras they rent out.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 7, 2014 at 16:33 UTC
In reply to:

stevo23: Look, despite whatever the laws say, Wikimedia is being an a$$ and taking advantage of the little guy. Sorry, this is just corporate thuggery. The guy deserves to own that photo - it happened to him, it's his camera, his being there inspired it, the monkey chose him, etc. Why be a big corporation arsehole and steal this man's work?

If they really want to split monkey hairs, it belongs to the monkey and they need the monkey's permission. But did they get it? Of course not!

Copyright law does not allow Macacas to own copyright. So if the creative act relevant to copyright law was the Macaca's, then according to copyright law the images are public domain.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 7, 2014 at 16:30 UTC
Total: 112, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »