JimW-203

JimW-203

Lives in United States Tarpon Springs, FL, United States
Works as a Retired
Joined on Jun 4, 2011
About me:

I have been doing photography since the early 50s while in school and later traveling the world in a variety of positions in the government and private industry. Moved from Boston to Florida in 1988; first, St. Petersburg then Orlando, and now, Tarpon Springs.

Comments

Total: 202, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »

The potential for negative impact of 'on location' filming of commercial motion pictures, TV, advertising and even news footage could be enormous. If, hypothetically, one were to film a sequence including a drive through Paris - would the producers need to gain approval, frame-by-frame, of the entire sequence prior to filming? Would the holder of the copy right of a single building, structure, statue, etc. have essential veto power over the sequence? In essence, would each holder of copy right included be able to hold hostage filming activity in a city like Paris, filled with iconic structures, unless they approve of each frame containing an image of the structure they have copy rights to? This could hold up production forever. Would this include scouting footage, stock footage, or even scenes that are never intended for use in the final cut but are deemed commercially used because they supported the production process? My concern: what happens when lawyers get involved?

Direct link | Posted on Jul 4, 2015 at 20:47 UTC as 84th comment
On Fujifilm X100T Review preview (668 comments in total)
In reply to:

Pirate Photog: How much bigger would the camera have to be if Fuji put a FF sensor inside with an f1.8 or 1.4 lens? And how much more would it cost to produce?

Richard Butler:
I have apparently been laboring under a misunderstanding for some time now - I always thought the area of the circle had to double to achieve a one stop increase, not the diameter. Thus, the diameter would have to increase by about 50%, not 100%.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 2, 2015 at 18:27 UTC
In reply to:

C.A.S.: I don't care what the management company rep said... the contract is crystal clear... “…FEI shall have perpetual, worldwide rights to use…” Perpetual means FOREVER.

If the picture was of you, would you allow unfettered use of it for any purpose in any publication or in any environment the photographer chose? How about your image being used as a poster or billboard depicting something you found distasteful or repugnant but fell short of being libelous? Where is your recourse and your share in the proceeds from the use of your image? No, I think the prudent thing to do is restrict its use up front and not wait to litigate after the damage has been done.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 24, 2015 at 21:57 UTC
In reply to:

C.A.S.: I don't care what the management company rep said... the contract is crystal clear... “…FEI shall have perpetual, worldwide rights to use…” Perpetual means FOREVER.

True, perpetual does mean forever; however, I see no equivalent perpetual injunction preventing your using them as well. You are merely agreeing to ask for their approval as to how and where you will use the artist's likeness in future. A reasonable agreement, I think - after all would you even have an opportunity to profit if the picture did not portray someone the market cares about. Rarely are the scales in balance and the subject's and photographer's name equally desirable and valuable, e.g. Yousuf Karsh and Winston Churchill.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 24, 2015 at 21:27 UTC
In reply to:

HowaboutRAW: Um except the photographer in question has already pointed out a problem with the Swift response.

Swift's people say that the photographer keeps the copyright to the image. And that's true, but no one was claiming that Swift gets the copyrights to the images shot.

It's that Swift can use the images if she wants, and the photographer can't even if he/she still owns the copyright.

Swift would be in a better position if she'd not made that misrepresentation.

(And Swift's tour would be better served employing the photographers as well salaried staff paid in advance, even if something interrupts the tour, with the written agreement that these photographers assign the copyrights to Swift, but the photographers receive credit and an agreed up residual any and everytime one of their images is used.)

Taylor Swift and Co. can be pigs too, and lie about it, not really a surprise.

I can understand the concern on both sides:
The value of the photograph is principally derived from "who is photographed" rarely from "who photographed whom." Just as the case of autographs, who signed it is the critical factor in most cases, not who got it signed. The photographer is trading control of the image for access to the image and the opportunity to profit from that access in future. If you want to maintain total control of your work, simply don't shoot in environments that restrict access and commercial rights - and there are many - many public buildings, museums, concert venues a all types, theaters, et al ad infinitum. If I am granted access I have an ethical and moral obligation to not harm the subject of my pictures by portraying them unfairly or publishing in an disreputable medium.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 24, 2015 at 21:10 UTC
In reply to:

OBI656: I will not elaborate on this subject since it will be a longer story. Therefore make it strait simple, this photographer who ever it is, is a cheep idiot.

I don't understand how you derived a belief that the photographer sounds like a baby chicken - or did you mean cheap? Is one of the other four languages chicken?

Direct link | Posted on Jun 24, 2015 at 20:24 UTC
In reply to:

HowaboutRAW: Um except the photographer in question has already pointed out a problem with the Swift response.

Swift's people say that the photographer keeps the copyright to the image. And that's true, but no one was claiming that Swift gets the copyrights to the images shot.

It's that Swift can use the images if she wants, and the photographer can't even if he/she still owns the copyright.

Swift would be in a better position if she'd not made that misrepresentation.

(And Swift's tour would be better served employing the photographers as well salaried staff paid in advance, even if something interrupts the tour, with the written agreement that these photographers assign the copyrights to Swift, but the photographers receive credit and an agreed up residual any and everytime one of their images is used.)

Taylor Swift and Co. can be pigs too, and lie about it, not really a surprise.

As I understand the rationale:
1) The photographer retains rights to the photograph
2) Even though it is the photographer's photograph, it is Taylor Swift's image - the concern is where and how that image is used. If they deem the proposed use to be less than flattering or harmful to Taylor Swift's commercial or personal reputation or depiction they can block its use. For example, she may not want a candid photo of her picking her nose to end up on the front page of National Enquirer, thus she needs protection and/or recourse to remedy the situation.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 24, 2015 at 20:20 UTC
In reply to:

Johannes Zander: Who is Taylor Swift?

Just another inflated canary?

Not a canary, more like the 900 pound gorilla in pop music.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 24, 2015 at 20:09 UTC
In reply to:

Waterengineer: What a self-serving article - trying to justify his position and decision.

Waterengineer:

What was your first clue that it was not a review of the camera but rather his rationale for his decision? Oh! The first word in the title, maybe? We all do it when ticking off the reason for any choice we make: car, house, college, mate, job - pick one.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 20, 2015 at 20:32 UTC
On peek-a-boo challenge (2 comments in total)

Hypothetically, if one were to submit a photo in which the subject (a person) was seen to be peeking around/through something in order to look at something that cannot be seen in the frame, would that be acceptable?

Direct link | Posted on Jun 16, 2015 at 04:29 UTC as 1st comment | 1 reply
On Airman Walter Huges in the Airman portrait challenge (4 comments in total)

The comment was to correct the gentleman's name: Walter Hughes, not Huges - I am not the submitter, merely one who made the comment in order to give true credit to his service.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 15, 2015 at 22:17 UTC as 2nd comment
On Simple Joy in the Birthday challenge (15 comments in total)
In reply to:

RedFox88: Surprised no one pointed out the lack of dynamic range in this.

I understand your concern; after all, has no one noticed that Mona Lisa has no eyebrows!? ;-)
Other than that, no one seeing this shot could doubt the joy and excitement the birthday boy was feeling - it just works.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 15, 2015 at 04:18 UTC
On Old time airman in the Airman portrait challenge (2 comments in total)

I absolutely agree. I doubt very much if the "aircraft" shown is a real-life, three dimensional thing, but rather a large photo backdrop. Also, no part of the ostensible "uniform" has seen much if any seat time.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 14, 2015 at 22:02 UTC as 1st comment
On Taxi In in the Airman portrait challenge (5 comments in total)

I was way wrong. On closer inspection I now believe this is a P-51 Mustang, which, indeed, could have achieved the kills credited. I completely missed how the canopy mates with the fuselage and the evidence that the aircraft is likely to be a tail-dragger, which the F86 was definitely not. My apologies to those who fly these birds and especially to those who keep them flying.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 14, 2015 at 18:48 UTC as 2nd comment
On Taxi In in the Airman portrait challenge (5 comments in total)

No, compare the canopy to that of any F86 iteration.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 14, 2015 at 18:28 UTC as 3rd comment
On Airman Walter Huges in the Airman portrait challenge (4 comments in total)

Hughes

Direct link | Posted on Jun 13, 2015 at 23:23 UTC as 4th comment
On Taxi In in the Airman portrait challenge (5 comments in total)

This is a very evocative image and well deserving of credit; my only ding goes to the liberties being taken with the plane itself. It is an F86 Sabre that didn't go into service until 1948 (its first flight was October 1947), well after the end of WWII in Europe and Germany's surrender in May 1945. It could not possibly have had 6 confirmed kills of German aircraft.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 13, 2015 at 23:22 UTC as 5th comment
On Week in Review: Sony FTW article (302 comments in total)

Sometimes a debate is not a debate: if no new thought has gone into a response other than to take greater pleasure in the other guy being wrong than in uncovering new knowledge, there are no winners. "Not so - yes, too!"

Direct link | Posted on Jun 13, 2015 at 19:14 UTC as 27th comment
On Leica Q First Impressions Review preview (559 comments in total)
In reply to:

topstuff: For some inexplicable reason, people like to attack Leica because of its prices, seemingly immune to the fact that the same people probably willingly pay "premium" prices for other items like cars and clothes, even though often it is the brand they are paying for. It is a strange irony.

This Leica looks like it stands up on its own merits. It really does seem to be a beautifully designed, high quality item that performs very well.

Leica haters have nothing to hate here. They aren't going to like that ! :)

Given historical perspective and memory lets me recognize the value in the introduction of the Leica Q. It not only offers thoughtful technology but in a package that very neatly reminds us of where we came from in photography. The 35mm as a still format grew out of a need to make better motion pictures; 35mm supplanted 120/620 as a film format largely because of cost of goods and the availability of a wider range of equipment capabilities. My first camera was a Brownie Hawkeye (620) in 1949, the next and first 35mm was an Argus C3 in 1954. This was followed by a Bolsey B2 in 1957 and from there a succession of Exactas and a Contax. My first SLR was a Nikon F in 1965 which grew into several bodies and many lenses and other stuff that I carted through many countries for several years doing what I had to do. So, I can relate to and take joy in what new technology allows, the money and time saved, and the weight taken off our backs - but only because I remember what got us here.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 13, 2015 at 18:43 UTC
On Mammals B&W (Non human) challenge (9 comments in total)
In reply to:

JimW-203: What are the chances you would expand the limit to something like 80 or so to allow those who were DQed an opportunity to correct their error and get back in?

I admit I must have gotten lazy in reading the rules. I obviously let my esthetic ego overwhelm my ability to comprehend - and obey. I shall endeavor to try to do better in future.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 12, 2015 at 21:54 UTC
Total: 202, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »