Paul B Jones: Interesting, workers (photographers) create the value, but a large percentage of that value is expropriated by capital - sort of like what Karl Marx said would happen.
Maybe it is time for photographers to create a stock image collective of our own. After all, without our work Getty is nothing.
It is easy to do with virtual agencies on PhotoShelter. We have one set up for music photographers already.
Humberto_Yaakov: all photographers should boycot such demand by any band and let them rotten in ther own sheet!!!!
Professional photographers do boycott them. Fans gladly step in and sign these things. They are flattered by seeing their images on the band's website. Fans could not care less about professional music photographers losing their source of income. Labels and management will gladly use these free images. It costs them nothing. With so many images coming from fans, they are bound to get a few great ones purely on the law of averages.
This is what happened to the stock photography market too. Anyone with a camera sent their images into the micro stock / royalty free agencies. It completely eroded the rights managed stock photo market. The stock artist alliance, the one stock photo trade organization, even disbanded. Even Getty Images, once the world premiere rights-managed stock photo agency, is now primarily driven by their royalty free revenue lines. They completely undercut their own artists.
Artpt: It seems like contract law in the photography community is not evolving fast enough with the speed of electronic media...
For the forum and editorial staff, does a large bodied photographers trade group have a position on this?
Leveraging advantage with urgency to sign is pinning the professional's probable income right down. It is understandable to sign without much time to review the contents of these agreements for the sake of not missing a shooting opportunity. Keep in mind all contracts can be modified before signing and even negotiated after the event on good faith. You may surprised how presenting your work after the shoot and against the language of a contract will quickly start to engage in candid discussion.
Lots of photography trade organizations disagree with the policy of presenting these rights grabbing contracts. The issue comes down to uneducated people getting photo passes and signing because they don't know any better. They aren't business savvy and believe what the tour reps tell them ("everyone signs them"). As long as record labels and band managers get people to sign them, they will continue to present them.
None of the contracts have ever been tested in a court of law to get a ruling on how "legal" they really are. Contract law states both parties must participate in a fair negotiation. These forms offer no fair negotiation. You accept them or you walk. Fortunately, we are getting more coverage in the press about these rights grabbing contracts and have had some success in getting a few revised or tossed altogether.
Read dozens of similar rights grabbing contracts on MusicPhotographers.net or on the Music Photographers Facebook page.
When will they offer the 24-70/f2.8 with VR? This has been missing from the lineup for a very long time. I own the AF-S 28-70/f2.8G ED. I see no reason to upgrade unless a VR edition comes out. In fact I just had it repaired in Melville. It works great with the D800.
Thomas Kachadurian: I'm not buying it. If this was done in a movie it would be an Homage. Half of the hot cult movies out there could be sued for "stealing" from their fathers.
This is substantially different. Photographers may not like it, but it's more like a literary reference than theft.
LaChapelle should be flattered and shut up.
Photographers should be protected, but pushing it too far will hurt us all.
If you think about those movie scenes where homage or mockery of a past movie is made, they never "copy" the original scene in a very substantial way. It is implied, but never duplicated.
And a scene in a new movie that is making a statement about a similar scene in a past movie may fall under "fair use". Rihanna's video wasn't making a statement about DLP's photograph. That is the basis for why the judge said their "fair use" argument was flawed.
hdc77494: There was a copyright vase here inTexas several years ago between two restaurant chains. One sued the other for stealing building design elements, color schemes, etc. The term used was trade dress. The idea stealing company had to change several elements of their design, and eventually went out of business.
Someone here mentioned the iconic Obama poster. While Obama is a public figure and his image is subject to Fair Use, the copyrighted AP photograph the artist used was not. I believe he lost his case.
sagebrushfire: While copyrights do protect "intellectual" property, I don't think there's complete validity to the idea of "elements you bring into a picture." First of all, Photography of a specifically designed set and photography of a natural scene are both equally protected. What's protected is the actual final result of the work; not the journey there, not the props, not the angles ... those are subjective design concepts.
Based on my interpretation of the law, as long as you're not taking a picture of an ACTUAL photograph, you are not infringing on someone's copy rights. The video does not contain any ACTUAL piece from the photo in question, which is the object protected by copy rights. A good example would be photos of the Cistine Chapel. While taking your own photo would not infringe on anyone's rights, messing with another photographer's photo is because the copyrighted work is that person's exact photo, not the painting in it. Proving that would be difficult but it's technically right.
The Cistine Chapel isn't a good example because the artwork there is "public domain" because of its age. There is no IP treaty in all the world that still protects that work.
Imagine you see a photograph created in a studio where the photographer made all the design choices, arranged all of the elements, chose all the colors, made all the wardrobe and styling selections, orchestrated all the lighting, and chose the lens and camera height to give a desired angle of view from a given vantage point. If you recreated that, took your own photographs of it, and marketed it as your original work, you in fact have infringed. There is case law precedent backing this up. Your setup does not have to be a 100% exact duplicate. It only has to be substantially the same to the point where it affects the value of the original photographer's work. That is the statement that the judge is making in this case.
absentaneous: I don't quite get it. first the judge explains what can be a subject of copyright protection by saying: "'copyright protection may extend only to those components of a work that are original to the author"...etc. so, which are actually those components of a work that are original to the author when at the same time the judge says: "'The Video's "Pink Room Scene" and LaChapelle's "Striped Face" both feature a choreographed S&M-inspired scene of women dominating men in a fanciful domestic space. From this choice of subject it follows naturally that both works depict women in a living room with a man bound on the floor. Because these subjects flow naturally from the chosen idea, they are not protectible and are not probative of substantial similarity.'" so, if the idea of a S&M-inspired scene of women dominating men is not the issue then what is? the way women dressed? the size of the room? the room having two windows? the room having a door? so, what here is original to the author?
The judge is saying the "concept" isn't copyrightable - a woman dominating a man in a fanciful domestic space". What is copyrightable is the specific representation of that concept - the arrangement of the elements, the colors, the wardrobe, the style in the specific photograph from DLC is almost entirely duplicated in R's S&M video.
I'm a Nikon DSLR shooter. These raw files don't look as good as my Canon PowerShot G11 raw files at comparable ISOs. The camera system has a great deal of flexibility with interchangeable lenses, but the price relative to the image quality compared to other cameras in this sensor class just doesn't compel me.
Even the ISO 100 image shows significantly more noise than I would expect from ISO 100 on a camera at this price point when viewed at 100% in the camera maker's own software. The ISO 6400 image actually impressed me most. It had less noise than I expected.
Get the image quality up, reduce the price by 25% and this will be a very competitive camera that spans the gap between compact P&S and full-body DLSRS cameras. Lots of travelers would find this an excellent compromise. Flexibility without the load and space consumption of a larger DSLR setup.