Easycass

Easycass

Lives in Thailand Phuket, Thailand
Works as a Offshore Vessel Exploration Manager
Joined on Jun 8, 2012
About me:

I am a late 40's Australian, work offshore running a research ship, travel all the time, love photography, and one day may even grow up.

Comments

Total: 55, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »

Small issue for some maybe, no Fuji X-Trans RAW support, as far as I can tell...

Direct link | Posted on Aug 29, 2014 at 02:34 UTC as 23rd comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

califleftyb: "Copyright law states that works not originated by a human author can't support a copyright claim...'

This would make sense IF is could be demonstrated that there was no human intervention at some point, either in pre or post, because until the point of completion it simply is not yet a "work". I assert that is impossible without human intervention. Since only a human can have legal standing the right to register the work falls to Mr. Slater.

So then, if you have the exact same circumstances, but swap the monkey for a person, then who has copyright, the thing that pressed the shutter, or the thing that did the rest of the process...?

Then, it gets confusing if we try to apply your logic.

I realise it might be nice if the law said 'when the photo is not produced by a person, copyright may fall to the person who does the majority of pre and post underlying work', but it does not.

I am not saying it is right or not, but only that in the current law, in this case, there is no copyright owner, as the shots were taken by an animal, as was somewhat reinforced by Mr Salter promoting the shots as 'selfies'.

Maybe this case will highlight the need for a change...

Direct link | Posted on Aug 25, 2014 at 04:02 UTC
In reply to:

peterstuckings: This is quite simple. The photographer planned and executed a shoot, and regardless of how the camera's shutter was triggered, the photos were his creation, and hence so is the copyright.
Nature photographers set up auto-triggers to be set off by meandering animals all the time, and drones and such remote cameras are triggered automatically all the time. By Wikipedia's ridiculous reasoning, an errant animal or the maker of those trigger devices (or the force that triggered them) could be the copyright owners of those photos.
Cats, dogs and babies trigger cameras all the time. This does not constitute deliberate and knowing content creation, giving rise to copyright in the results of their actions.
Wikipedia is wrong and should remove the photos in line with the copyright owner's demands.

Supposing Mr. Slater had set-up his camera, and given the camera to the monkey, I guess there might be some argument that Mr. Slater was the one who initiated the sequence of photos, and therefore owns the copyright to the photos. However, better argument if he initiated some kind of self-timer, or radio-remote for firing the shutter.

You see, if you swap the animal for a person, who pressed the shutter, then we would say the person took the photos, regardless of who set-up the camera, and that person who took the photos is the author, and holds copyright, yes. So, really, the only question between the animal and human scenario, is not 'who is the author', since we established that with the human example, but whether the author can hold copyright. Since an animal cannot hold copyright, then no-one in this case.

Maybe the law should be re-written to say copyright falls to the immediately preceding handler of the equipment in such cases. But right now, it just doesn't say that...

Direct link | Posted on Aug 23, 2014 at 07:41 UTC
In reply to:

califleftyb: "Copyright law states that works not originated by a human author can't support a copyright claim...'

This would make sense IF is could be demonstrated that there was no human intervention at some point, either in pre or post, because until the point of completion it simply is not yet a "work". I assert that is impossible without human intervention. Since only a human can have legal standing the right to register the work falls to Mr. Slater.

Hmmm, "just like with a time lapse or other trigger method"... When you, as a photographer, deliberately set-up your equipment, and you choose how the photo is triggered, given a specific set of parameters and circumstances, you have set-up and created the shot(s).

When a monkey takes photos after stealing your camera, do you really want to tell everyone that you believe that it was you who set-up and created those shot(s)...?

Direct link | Posted on Aug 23, 2014 at 07:26 UTC
In reply to:

Ellis Vener: A serious question: if I have set a sensor triggered camera along a trail and by crossing the sensor's beam and triggering the camera, does that mean the photo cannot be copyrighted? After all the animal effectively snapped the shutter at a discrete instant in time even if that was not its intent or was completely unaware its actions resulted in the creation of a photograph.

A serious answer: You have intentionally initiated the exposure, at a point in the future, setting your camera and trigger equipment to fire the shutter given a set of parameters, such as when an animal crosses a beam of light, at a pre-set field of view and focus depth of field. You are the photographer. You hold copyright.

If however, after taking this great photo, the animal runs off with your camera, plays with it of its own accord, and happens to snap a few selfies, different story. You had not much to do with initiating the circumstances of the latter situation aside from letting your camera be stolen by a frisky and possibly talented animal...

Direct link | Posted on Aug 23, 2014 at 07:18 UTC
In reply to:

peterstuckings: This is quite simple. The photographer planned and executed a shoot, and regardless of how the camera's shutter was triggered, the photos were his creation, and hence so is the copyright.
Nature photographers set up auto-triggers to be set off by meandering animals all the time, and drones and such remote cameras are triggered automatically all the time. By Wikipedia's ridiculous reasoning, an errant animal or the maker of those trigger devices (or the force that triggered them) could be the copyright owners of those photos.
Cats, dogs and babies trigger cameras all the time. This does not constitute deliberate and knowing content creation, giving rise to copyright in the results of their actions.
Wikipedia is wrong and should remove the photos in line with the copyright owner's demands.

Peter,

I am not sure why you argue your points of view, which you are entitled to, by stating things that do not align with the photographers own accounts or the copyright law being administered. For example: -

"photographer planned and executed" - no, he says it was an accident, the monkey stole his camera, no planning at all.

"auto-triggers"..."by meandering animals", "drones", "remote cameras are triggered automatically" - all set-up on purpose, not accidently. Some person initiates the camera to automatically fire given a set of parameters, all done by a 'person'. Photographer in this case claimed "selfies", because he did not initiate any sort of 'auto/remote/trigger' sequence.

"an errant animal"..."could be the copyright owner" - No, this is the point. The copyright law says if taken by an animal, the animal cannot own copyright. Did you actually read the article?

I enjoy a good discussion, but your points seem to misrepresent both the photographer's account and article...

Direct link | Posted on Aug 22, 2014 at 08:09 UTC
In reply to:

Anastigmat: If I set a camera trap and the shutter is tripped when someone or some animal interrupts a beam of light, then who owns the copyright to the photo? I would say that I did because I did everything that is needed to create the photograph except tripping the shutter at the moment of exposure. Similarly, if I use trap focus to take the picture, and the shutter is tripped when a bird comes into focus, then the bird is not the copyright holder. I am.

I would say yes, you own the copyright under the conditions you described. You have initiated the exposure, albeit delayed, by using your camera equipment to start the exposure(s) once a given set conditions are met.

The intellectual property, in this case a photograph, is created at the moment of exposure. The creator/author/copyright-owner is normally, unless agreed otherwise by some form of contract, the person who initiates the exposure(s).

Direct link | Posted on Aug 9, 2014 at 16:00 UTC
In reply to:

hc44: "'a work owing its form to the forces of nature and lacking human authorship is not registrable.' "

A hypothetical contraption: A random number generator uses the current wind speed as a seed (random 'shuffle') and produces random numbers once per time interval (say 1 minute). The number is between 1 and 100; every time a 1 is generated a photo is taken.

Does the creator and initiator of this contraption have copyright ownership of the photos taken?

Well, speaking amongst ourselves, I don't think 'intent' is the essential part. The 'creation' of intellectual property in terms of photography happens when an exposure or set of exposures is 'initiated'. So,the copyright owner is the person who initiates the exposure(s).

For example, if I carry my camera in my pocket, and upon reaching in to grab my camera, I accidently fire the shutter, taking a great picture of a fire-fly that happened to also be in my pocket, I am the copyright owner, even though it was unintentional, since it was me that 'initiated' the exposure.

Next example, if someone lugs their camera to the jungle, adjusts its settings, puts it on a tripod, but I grab the camera and take an award-winning shot of myself, then I am the copyright owner, since I 'initiated' the exposure.

In the last example, if I happen to be a monkey, unfortunately, I am not allowed to own copyright and the camera owner did not initiate the exposure, so nor can they I guess...

Direct link | Posted on Aug 9, 2014 at 15:03 UTC
In reply to:

hc44: "'a work owing its form to the forces of nature and lacking human authorship is not registrable.' "

A hypothetical contraption: A random number generator uses the current wind speed as a seed (random 'shuffle') and produces random numbers once per time interval (say 1 minute). The number is between 1 and 100; every time a 1 is generated a photo is taken.

Does the creator and initiator of this contraption have copyright ownership of the photos taken?

Yes, the 'initiator' of the contraption is the copyright owner, since he/she is a person, and it was his/her intent to have the photo taken at some time.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 9, 2014 at 11:24 UTC
In reply to:

B1ackhat: That is a completely ridiculous defense to copyright infringement. If I set my camera up on a tripod remotely controlled by my phone and one of my dogs licks the screen thereby triggering the shutter, the photo then becomes the property of no one. That's ludicrous.

So, B1ackhat, I think I see, but to clarify, after your dog successfully takes a photo, and let's just say it happens to be a real hero shot, an award winning masterpiece of an event that happens only once a century, and it was captured by your dog, not you, then you're very happy to claim all rights to the image, copyright ownership and any income derived, correct?

I wonder what your trusted friend, your dog, will think about you after that...

Direct link | Posted on Aug 8, 2014 at 08:52 UTC
In reply to:

MediaDigitalVideo: Wikimedia , give the photographer some money so he can buy some banana's for the monkey. Everybody happy :)

In actual fact, Jwull, yes, in the case you described, you will likely be judged to have 'authored' the works by: planning camera placement, intentionally organising the shoot, and setting the camera to start video exposure. It certainly wasn't just a random act of nature.

However, if your cousin (or whoever) started the camera rolling, unless you have an agreement otherwise, he is the photographer and copyright owner.

And, if the dog stole your gopro, managed to start recording stuff, without the help of you or your cousin, that would be an act of nature. Plus, if you then grabbed back your gopro and posted that content somewhere with a title of My Dog's Selfies, I reckon it'd be tough to call yourself 'The Photographer' of the images and go on to claim all rights and rewards afterwards...
What would your dog think of you then ; )

Direct link | Posted on Aug 7, 2014 at 15:59 UTC
In reply to:

Easycass: A simplified view...

Definition: To 'take' a photo means 'initiate the exposure', regardless of where the camera is mounted, what is in the frame, who or what is holding the camera, how much lugging it took to get there, how much expense, how much post-processing was done, who posted it, or where it was posted. Agreed?

Copyright: If a person initiates an exposure, whether a single shot, a self-timed, remote-released or trigger-released shot, creating a single exposure, sequence of exposures or video sequence, then, unless the person waives their rights in some written agreement, they own the copyright. Agreed?

Scenario 1: If a person is not holding the camera, but initiates the exposure(s) then copyright is theirs.

Scenario 2: If a person is not holding the camera, and does not initiate the exposure(s) then copyright is not theirs. If the exposure was initiated by another human, copyright belongs to that other person. If not initiated by a human, there is no copyright.

Greg: My comments are not opinion, but based on my own humble knowledge. I was only trying to paraphrase the applicable parts surrounding this case. That is, the copyright 'normally' goes to the author, but an 'item' cannot be copyrighted where the author is not a person(s).

Essentially, if a person stole the camera and took 'selfies',the general premise of the law would dictate that the photo 'taker', not the 'equipment owner' has copyright. Since the thief in this case was not a person, the copyright law does not say, "therefore copyright goes to the equipment owner instead", it says, "a work owing its form to the forces of nature and lacking human authorship is not registrable".

Whether or not this is fair or correct is still up for grabs. It would be helpful if a law stated that the owner of the equipment, who was directly involved in the photos being taken by 'a force of nature', should be given copyright/ownership/control of the images. But for now, it just doesn't say that.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 7, 2014 at 14:58 UTC
In reply to:

Easycass: A simplified view...

Definition: To 'take' a photo means 'initiate the exposure', regardless of where the camera is mounted, what is in the frame, who or what is holding the camera, how much lugging it took to get there, how much expense, how much post-processing was done, who posted it, or where it was posted. Agreed?

Copyright: If a person initiates an exposure, whether a single shot, a self-timed, remote-released or trigger-released shot, creating a single exposure, sequence of exposures or video sequence, then, unless the person waives their rights in some written agreement, they own the copyright. Agreed?

Scenario 1: If a person is not holding the camera, but initiates the exposure(s) then copyright is theirs.

Scenario 2: If a person is not holding the camera, and does not initiate the exposure(s) then copyright is not theirs. If the exposure was initiated by another human, copyright belongs to that other person. If not initiated by a human, there is no copyright.

Yes, agreed, so if the photographer in this case belongs to Scenario 2, and did not initiate the exposure(s), he cannot claim copyright. Very simple.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 7, 2014 at 06:21 UTC

A simplified view...

Definition: To 'take' a photo means 'initiate the exposure', regardless of where the camera is mounted, what is in the frame, who or what is holding the camera, how much lugging it took to get there, how much expense, how much post-processing was done, who posted it, or where it was posted. Agreed?

Copyright: If a person initiates an exposure, whether a single shot, a self-timed, remote-released or trigger-released shot, creating a single exposure, sequence of exposures or video sequence, then, unless the person waives their rights in some written agreement, they own the copyright. Agreed?

Scenario 1: If a person is not holding the camera, but initiates the exposure(s) then copyright is theirs.

Scenario 2: If a person is not holding the camera, and does not initiate the exposure(s) then copyright is not theirs. If the exposure was initiated by another human, copyright belongs to that other person. If not initiated by a human, there is no copyright.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 7, 2014 at 05:56 UTC as 405th comment | 9 replies
On What is equivalence and why should I care? article (2019 comments in total)
In reply to:

Easycass: One last go...

Equivalence is a great word, in the cases we wish to use it for here, it essentially means "gives the same result", or at least "very similar". I may not fully understand all this, but surely, whether you have a use for the information or not, we can agree on the following: -

1. Equivalent exposure - Eg Settings of f/2.0 - 1/60s - ISO400 has an 'equivalent exposure' to f/4 - 1/30s - ISO800. Agreed?

2. Equivalent FOV - Eg a 50mm lens on 1.5 crop sensor has an 'equivalent field of view' to 75mm on a full-frame sensor. Agreed?

3. Equivalent DOF/DIF/TL - Eg Settings of f/1.4 on a 1.5 crop sensor has an 'equivalent DOF, diffraction and total-light' to f/2.1 on a full-frame sensor. Agreed?

No one is saying in any of the 'equivalences' above that the 'settings' themselves are the same, only that they produce an equivalent result: whether exposure, FOV or DOF.

Maybe my numbers above are out (late at night), but you likely get my drift.

Let's move on, hey...

Hi Polytropia,

In reply...

1. Whatever terms you would like to use instead of "crop-sensor" and "full-frame sensor", please feel free to insert to help you feel better. I am easy on what they are called. Your own enlightened suggestions are most welcome.

2. No claim on my part. Many things are are not 'exactly' the same in photography. For example, no one worried much about understanding reciprocity, f-stop/shutter-speed relationship, even though film exhibited reciprocity failure. We just all accepted it gives equivalent exposure... usually...

3. And since lenses are generally specified by stating their maximum aperture, it seems useful to use a single value to specify any sort of 'equivalence'. If you wish to extrapolate to more values, again, please feel free. One value is enough for me to 'get it'.

I guess I don't read as much into all this as other people do. I feel any tool, no matter how imprecise, that allows me to better assess differences and similarities, all helps...

Direct link | Posted on Jul 28, 2014 at 10:19 UTC
On What is equivalence and why should I care? article (2019 comments in total)
In reply to:

Easycass: One last go...

Equivalence is a great word, in the cases we wish to use it for here, it essentially means "gives the same result", or at least "very similar". I may not fully understand all this, but surely, whether you have a use for the information or not, we can agree on the following: -

1. Equivalent exposure - Eg Settings of f/2.0 - 1/60s - ISO400 has an 'equivalent exposure' to f/4 - 1/30s - ISO800. Agreed?

2. Equivalent FOV - Eg a 50mm lens on 1.5 crop sensor has an 'equivalent field of view' to 75mm on a full-frame sensor. Agreed?

3. Equivalent DOF/DIF/TL - Eg Settings of f/1.4 on a 1.5 crop sensor has an 'equivalent DOF, diffraction and total-light' to f/2.1 on a full-frame sensor. Agreed?

No one is saying in any of the 'equivalences' above that the 'settings' themselves are the same, only that they produce an equivalent result: whether exposure, FOV or DOF.

Maybe my numbers above are out (late at night), but you likely get my drift.

Let's move on, hey...

Hi there GB and M,

Yes, I understand all your points. Being a 35mm film dude from way back, I too really do think of exposure as 'how much light' and 'for how long', with the relationship between them known as reciprocity, but I guess I added in the ISO part of the equation in my example since, these days, digital control of ISO sensitivity appears to play a big part in what people use to control the final image 'brightness'...

I guess I was just trying to get us all beyond the point of worrying about using the word 'equivalent', as it 'seems' so many posters were worried that any mention of it combined with the word 'f-stop' would be confused with exposure. I mean, so long as we stipulate explicitly 'what' is equivalent, using the word with FOV and DOF/DIF/TL/etc should be quite understandable.

I do believe there is a place for the article above and hopefully Richard can use the assorted comments to refine his article to avoid future confusion and/or controversy...

My best...

Direct link | Posted on Jul 21, 2014 at 08:22 UTC
On What is equivalence and why should I care? article (2019 comments in total)

One last go...

Equivalence is a great word, in the cases we wish to use it for here, it essentially means "gives the same result", or at least "very similar". I may not fully understand all this, but surely, whether you have a use for the information or not, we can agree on the following: -

1. Equivalent exposure - Eg Settings of f/2.0 - 1/60s - ISO400 has an 'equivalent exposure' to f/4 - 1/30s - ISO800. Agreed?

2. Equivalent FOV - Eg a 50mm lens on 1.5 crop sensor has an 'equivalent field of view' to 75mm on a full-frame sensor. Agreed?

3. Equivalent DOF/DIF/TL - Eg Settings of f/1.4 on a 1.5 crop sensor has an 'equivalent DOF, diffraction and total-light' to f/2.1 on a full-frame sensor. Agreed?

No one is saying in any of the 'equivalences' above that the 'settings' themselves are the same, only that they produce an equivalent result: whether exposure, FOV or DOF.

Maybe my numbers above are out (late at night), but you likely get my drift.

Let's move on, hey...

Direct link | Posted on Jul 20, 2014 at 17:16 UTC as 73rd comment | 7 replies
On What is equivalence and why should I care? article (2019 comments in total)
In reply to:

Richard Butler: It's been suggested to me that people would be happier if we used the term 'Equivalent F-number' rather than 'Equivalent Aperture.' Is this the case?

Instead of a new term, or an existing term that might confuse people, then, since we are mostly trying to give a match to characteristics of field-of-view and depth-of-field, why not be specific: FOV/DOF Equivalence

To satisfy both sides of the argument to get equivalent images, 1) those that wish to use the full sensor frame will adjust their lens focal-length and aperture, and 2) those that wish to crop their sensor data keeping the same lens focal-length and aperture, we can quote the information with focal length, aperture and crop factor...

Thus simply: -

FOV/DOF Equivalence Information

APS-C: 54mm f/1.4 ~ 35mm FF: 84mm f/2.1 ~ Crop Factor 1.5

I think most people would understand that. Just an idea...

Direct link | Posted on Jul 12, 2014 at 04:42 UTC
On What is equivalence and why should I care? article (2019 comments in total)
In reply to:

Easycass: Perhaps a simple question may help decide if this is useful or not: -

Let's say my photo assistant has an APS-C camera with a crop-factor of 1.5, and I have a FF frame camera. We agree that we will take the same shots of a model, in that the end results of the raw image files must have the same angle of view, same exposure, same framing and same depth-of-field. We also decide that the APS-C camera will use f/1.4 and a 56mm lens, in aperture priority.

We essentially want 'equivalent' photos.

So, the question is, what settings do I need for my FF camera/lens to match the APS-C images?

From what I see, I might get two answers to this: -

1) a lens focal length plus aperture value to use, or
2) opinions expressing that it is unimportant, or that f1.4 is f1.4 is f1.4, or it is too confusing, or I don't need any calculations, etc...

For me, I would certainly find the first answer to be more helpful... Possibly a use for some calculations after all?

Okay, let me have it...!

Hi nigelht,

Yes, I get your equivalence methodology: -

Crop: take my FF sensor, throw away all the data that surrounds the central part of the image.

Yep, that actually works. Incredible.

Guess that just means my nice FF camera is not really worth having. What a shame.

And yet, if someone were to just do a tiny little bit of maths, I could use the whole FF sensor by suggesting an 85mm, at f/2...

As to your "The real question is why would you want to in the first place". If you cannot answer the question, fair enough, but you have no right to ask me to change it.

I see that the problem is the difference in methodology and terminology. Most aspects of photography can be accomplished using multiple methods. Why not we just all live with each. You can stick with your cropping method, and I will use my whole sensor with an 'equivalent' lens and aperture.

If I want the equivalent image straight out of two different format cameras, simple math works fine no matter what we call it.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 12, 2014 at 04:08 UTC
On What is equivalence and why should I care? article (2019 comments in total)

Perhaps a simple question may help decide if this is useful or not: -

Let's say my photo assistant has an APS-C camera with a crop-factor of 1.5, and I have a FF frame camera. We agree that we will take the same shots of a model, in that the end results of the raw image files must have the same angle of view, same exposure, same framing and same depth-of-field. We also decide that the APS-C camera will use f/1.4 and a 56mm lens, in aperture priority.

We essentially want 'equivalent' photos.

So, the question is, what settings do I need for my FF camera/lens to match the APS-C images?

From what I see, I might get two answers to this: -

1) a lens focal length plus aperture value to use, or
2) opinions expressing that it is unimportant, or that f1.4 is f1.4 is f1.4, or it is too confusing, or I don't need any calculations, etc...

For me, I would certainly find the first answer to be more helpful... Possibly a use for some calculations after all?

Okay, let me have it...!

Direct link | Posted on Jul 11, 2014 at 19:05 UTC as 99th comment | 15 replies
Total: 55, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »