> as a legal alternative to image theft.
It's copyright infringement, not theft.
This 'news' should be in a new news category, "news for dentists", just like that new hasselblad.
2. Calling this camera compact is ludicrous. The G1X is a brick, this is a bigger brick.
Good news for dentists
To me the images that 'win' show not actually what is asked, namely how people (after all that's what life for humans is about) really connect. E.g. someone charging a phone, which is not interesting. If it had been say a solar charger, then it would have been interesting...
The image I submitted was, though perhaps not artistically great (then again I see nothing special in the winning images), interesting as it showed a connection from book to PC to tablet (better than a mobile phone for me, esp. where there is good WiFi coverage) with the picture of someone I know in all of them. This signifies much more, a connection to people, and of how communication changed (from letters/books to electronic)
I don't believe no entries from the USA or western Europe were at least as good as the winning images, and that these all come from non-western countries is thus caused by bias of the judges, perhaps even who they want to win because they can use the prize money better.
PART 2: Nothing is built from the air, everything is built from the shoulders of others. Now we have companies who have bought old pictures and sell the right to them which is essentially a tax. Good for them (the people working in them), good for the people selling them to those companies (such as children, who have done no work to earn that money). But these companies serve no real purpose. They produce nothing of value. Their tax goes to pay people doing administrative work that serves no further purpose, or even worse, pays people who have done zilch.
Copyright law hogs memories, so we can't just download a song from our youth, we need to buy it (again!). Ditto for TV and everything else that we like(d) and already paid for by watching advertising or paying a licence fee. The only interesting change for copyright laws is when the duration is reduced to say 10 years.
PART 1: The biggest problem with all copyright laws is the duration for which these rights are granted. This means administrative nonsense and not always being able to rerelease stuff due to not being able to find all copyright owners. It also means a hogging of our memories. Whatever we really like, the thing in question has something related to the times (fashion type qualities) or it has innate qualities of how we think and perceive things that we like. So it's not a creative work, it's a creative work that is appreciated by people because of how they are. It's partly like a discovery, not a invention.
Boerseuntjie: This is proof that we live in a era of smart phones and stupid people
> likewise I have never seen anything remotely intelligent come out of your mouth swhs
Mods, please ban this moron.
And FYI Boerseuntjie, your view about my writings is of no value whatsoever.
And yet another infantile meaningless comment. I have not seen anything useful from you ever. In one of your comments below you whine about the USSR, you whine again about 'Samsuck'. Moderators: Please ban this troll!
> many commentors dismissing his images as unprofessional at best, and at worst unpatriotic.
Ah yes, there we have 'patriotic'/'unpatriotic' again. Of course!
Such inane comments are much more offensive than any quality those picture may or may not have. And such commentators obviously don't understand anything about the olympic ideals. No, it's not about performing for a country, it's for yourself. Despite what countries (goverments and/or a large part of the populous feeling the following way:) who want advertise themselves (esp. during the Cold war times, but it hasn't stopped for various reasons) as better than others, think.
iudex: I am really impressed. A used to own an EX1 and was really satisfied how it worked and what pictures it took. There were some flaws, however: 1. no full HD video, a bit too slow, only 1/1500 s was not sufficient in bright sunny day, f7,1 as well, 72 mm was a bit short and 370 g was a bit heavy. All this has hanged and the good remained (or even got better). That is what I call progress. My Canon S100 with its f2-5,9 is ashamed. :-)
What 370g? 387g? Did you two measure or just read specs off of websites?
Mine is an early one so no improvements that might have been made in versions with later serial no., and it weighs 336 g including battery and memory card.
BJN: Raw is descriptive of the format, it's not an acronym (raw, not RAW – unless you're shouting at a sushi making competition). I think tkbslc is correct that when you settle for the small sensor you're not likely to fret too much about not getting raw files.
> Thanks for the lesson, but nobody thinks it's an acronym, but just as file discriptors like JPEG, TIFF, are often written in upper case, so can the word RAW.
Apparantly you need the lesson, because JPEG and TIFF are acronyms, not 'file descriptors', whatever that is...
Raw files are raw, not RAW, therefore uppercase is inappropriate.
patchfree: Similar to Pana GX1 but GX1 has a smaller size, included the lens. So no real choice: GX1.
> half? 4/3 sensor is 13mm high, APS-C is 15,7mm, just 20% more...
Uhm, yes, and what about width? You need to take the surface so square that factor...
Karl K Grambow: I think a lot of you have missed the point (which to be fair hasn't been accurately put across in the article either).
The defendant had previously tried to use the original photograph in a commercial setting. But the claimant said "hang on, that's my photo, if you want to use it commercially then pay up". And they went to court over this.
Later on, the defendant decided that if he couldn't use the original photo, he'd take one that was similar so that he could avoid having to pay royalties.
The problem is that he used the original image as the idea with which to compose his photograph. And he did so expressly for commercial gain (and the claimants ultimate commercial loss). The fact that there are many other such-like images was irrelevant in this case because the defendant admitted in court that he used the claimants image as his inspiration.
So the issue here is that he copied someone elses idea (he addmitted as much) specifically for commercial gain.
> I think a lot of you have missed the point (which to be fair hasn't been accurately put across in the article either).
I certainly didn't and many others didn't either. It's all been explained and your post restates again a untenable viewpoint that an idea is copyrightable.
> The problem is that he used the original image as the idea with which to compose his photograph. And he did so expressly for commercial gain (and the claimants ultimate commercial loss).
[ snip ]
> the defendant admitted in court that he used the claimants image as his inspiration.
> So the issue here is that he copied someone elses idea (he addmitted as much) specifically for commercial gain.
This doesn't matter. Just like reverse engineering is allowed, this is too. Ideas are not copyrighteable. The second photo is not a work based on the first, but a similar one.
The only way this case should have been handled is as a trademark issue because both pictures were used to sell stuff.
Vlad S: Why do you guys all ignore the finding (that was not disputed by the defendant) that The defendant *fashioned* the image specifically based on Fielder's version, specifically to avoid paying the licensing fees. I think this is not so much about the freedom of expression as about a cheat being caught.
From the ruling:"The whole point of this case is that Mr Houghton and his company wish lawfully to produce an image which does bear some resemblance to the claimant's work. The inference that I draw is that Mr Houghton sought out this other material after he had decided to produce an image similar to the claimant's. ... That does not avoid a causal link. If Mr Houghton had seen Mr Fielder's image, decided he wanted to use a similar one, found the Rodriguez or Getty photographs and put one of those on his boxes of tea, there would be no question of infringement. ... But that is not what happened."
> You guys always seem to omit one or the other aspect of the ruling.
No.But you seem to 'forget' that I said that reverse engineering is legal.
> PLUS the circumstance that Houghton already tried to steal this image outright and was forced to pay the license fees, PLUS Houghton's admission that he was not aware of the similar images before he used Fielder's. That's just too many "coincidences" to say that he did not try to reproduce Fielder's work knowingly and in substantial part.
What he did to circumvent paying a licence fee or what he did in the past is IRRELEVANT!
The issue is about having a copyright on an idea. Which is wrong.
No, reverse engineering is also legal. So making something that looks like something else is not illegal, nor a violation of copyright.
As I said before, the only way this should have been judged is on trademark issues, copyright most definitely was not violated. The scene is fairly simple, and using one colour with a gray background is fairly old hat as well, removing the sky is another simplification going back to artists drawings for advertisements. So this is a fairly simple subject, and the 'idea' or 'concept' of the work shouldn't even come into it.
Peter Galbavy: Posters here are confusing the different aspects of Copyright law, especially the UK law, when it comes to this judgement. Copyright is not about duplication per se in this case, it is about the creative elements of the works in question. I especially like the (traditional) way posters from the US assume that their particular version of Copyright applies globally.
I recommend a good read of http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/contents and all the various updates since for the "real" issues in this case.
Not really, the comments are that this should not be a breach of copyright law. It's quite clear that copyright law is not about just duplication, see for example works based on another work. However, when it gets so far that ideas/methods are being considered copyright, then you get into patent territory.
So you can have derivative works, which this is not, or similar works obviously inspired by something else. See the book 'Tanja Grotter and the magic bass'. However, this gets close to copyrighting a plot, which is a concept. Should this be allowed?
In both cases it should be a trademark issue, not copyright.
The other posters are right, with this sort of behaviour all sorts of types of photos are suddenly the exclusive domain of some companies. A photo such as shown is not complex enough to allow this, in my view.