E-1 - temptated .. but what about 5 MP DETAIL ?!? Locked

Started Jul 3, 2013 | Discussions thread
This thread is locked.
bobn2
bobn2 Forum Pro • Posts: 58,592
Re: Newman stealing copyrighted images - again ...

John King wrote:

As usual, a whole lot of fluff and self-justifying nonsense from you, Newman.

I don't think I attempted to justify anything, rather more trying to see if I could help you along in your endeavour to save Sergey's photography from the depredations of unsharpness.

BTW, there is an absolute distinction between linking to something that exemplifies what you are saying, or inserting a reference to it in a text or article, and using the object wholesale, complete. A single, complete image is the complete body of the work that is the subject of the copyright. It is not "part of a whole" as you appear to be claiming it to be.
There is also zero possibility of your using the defence that you were using this for "Moreover, use of a small part of a canon of work for criticism or discussion is well within 'fair use'.", as stated by you. Your motives were far from that level of "purity".

I also do not offer my images to the world, free of charge as you asserted: "since you offer the world the image free of charge". ALL my images are copyrighted. So you are again wrong, as usual ...

Well, as you like, still if you took the case to court, and by some chance the court ignored the extensive precedents on linking images on websites, and awarded you damages, there would be the question of what the damages were, and since you offer the world free these same images, and indeed posted a version of the image yourself in the same thread, the damage would be seen to be zero.

Here is an image that you posted on the Sunday Cat thread a while ago (as one of your better-known alter-egos). Since you seem to have no problems with breaching my copyright, I will breach yours, by way of reciprocation.

That's not good law John, but never mind - you aren't breaching my copyright.

I seem to recall both you and Green defending this image as somehow being an acceptable image - after all, it was taken with a (gasp, genuflect) Canon 5D in 2009:

http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/1197453283/photos/487761

Ah but you'll note in that post John that I acknowledge that the shot was spoiled by camera shake, still - I think that is a lesson well learned by Sergey, so my problems with camera shake won't help him along. What we need is some of your work as an exemplar how to do it right.

I further note that even when you have been informed of the correct camera make and model that I used to take the image that you embedded here, you still can't manage to get it right ... You stated that it was taken with an "E500", apparently implying that it was taken with an Olympus camera. Sloppy, Newman. Plain sloppy. It was taken with a 2002 model Nikon E5000.

Oops, I missed a '0'.

You patently did not notice that the image you so carefully sought out was actually taken in 2005 - 8 years ago. I have certainly learned something in 8 years, both about photography (with an ancient P&S camera ... ) and about PS. Have you?

Perhaps you should stick to things that cannot be seen, or verified by most people, such as photon shot noise and quantum efficiency. Then you can laud it up for all its worth without fear of contradiction. However, if your thoughts on those subjects are as sloppy as what you have displayed in this thread, I don't think that most people would bother even trying to verify them ...

I apologise for my own mistake. It appears from the image that you embedded to be hosted somewhere on the DPR servers, once embedded. As this is the case, I can no longer withdraw this image from this use. Therefore my copyright has been irrevocably breached by you.

I think it is only the part that appears in the post. The full size image is hosted as normal by your thread. I think DPReview must have looked at the copyright implications of this way of doing these things - it does employ copyright lawyers. There is precedent, for instance Perfect 10 vs Amazon, which DPReview would probably be aware of.

However, this is just further evidence of your conversion of my image to your own personal use. It does not exonerate you from responsibility for the theft in the first instance.

Again John, if you think that there is 'theft' going on, it might be an idea to reflect on what has been lost. Anyway, I not we still don't have an exemplar of your work for Sergey to learn from. Would this one of yours, taken with a more modern camera, be more of what your thinking about?

And we still need from you an example of Sergey's unsharp images.

I'm sure you're keen to help Sergey improve. I feel sure that your post wasn't simply bashing, just feeling that you could add some constructive criticism. So, if you started in that vein, a  bit more constructing would help the poor guy out.

-- hide signature --

Bob

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow