doady
Senior Member
People spend too much time and effort trying to discredit photographers that get any attention and undermine their accomplishments. You guys are worse than Tony Northrup.
Last edited:
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Prize winning photo is a staged portrait made during an unplanned event during a photo tour.
- Thread starter Ellis Vener
- Start date
What the bleep are you spouting off about ?!
New Day Rising
Veteran Member
What Sadiq Khan actually said was:
“Part and parcel of living in a great global city is you’ve got to be prepared for these things, you’ve got to be vigilant, you’ve got to support the police doing an incredibly hard job. We must never accept terrorists being successful, we must never accept that terrorists can destroy our life or destroy the way we lead our lives.”
He did not say terrorist attacks are part and parcel of life in a global city; being prepared for them is. Which is quite different from what you said.
JRP64
Senior Member
The only problem with this I see is that there are other photographers taking pictures of the same lady and child. I not too hard to phantom that more than photographer snapped the exact pose. The only differences being post-processing and the person entered the photo contest where the others probably didn't.
Ellis Vener
Forum Pro
Erwann Loison
Leading Member
Well... Their angle of view in this case could be different only for a physical space reason, photographers don't overlap
To me this photo is very average not particularly striking and even less knowing they had all the time they wanted to take it.
Call me jealous or envious (which isn't true but whatever) but the word 'art' has taken a really convoluted meaning in photography. I see way too many contests (in which i didn't participate in case somebody would want to call me jealous there too) won by photograph that didn't deserve it, especially looking at contenders.
Last edited:
Ellis Vener
Forum Pro
that is obvious. What isn’t obvious is what they were seeing and that depends on who they are as persons. We all carry our own psychological, emotional, and intellectual baggage when we photograph.Well... Their angle of view in this case could be different only for a physical space reason, photographers don't overlap
This is true. We might have been focused on the woman, if my wife were there and a bunny or squirrel hopped across the scene she would have been focused on the animal. No prize for her but she would have a photo that meant something to her.that is obvious. What isn’t obvious is what they were seeing and that depends on who they are as persons. We all carry our own psychological, emotional, and intellectual baggage when we photograph.Well... Their angle of view in this case could be different only for a physical space reason, photographers don't overlap
Here's a copyright question.
What, if anything, did the photographer add to the design and creative aspects of the photo?
Makeup? No
Lighting? No
People in the photo? No
Clothes? No
Body posture? No
Facial Expression? No
Since it appears that the women in the photo did all of the above, how much of the copyright should she have?
I'm just curious of peoples opinions here, I'm not expecting a legal answer.
Here's a recent example. The paragraph here is from a lower court ruling, later reversed by a higher court ruling, as described in the article.
"The Paris civil lower court (Tribunal de Grande Instance) had foundin May 2015 that a photograph of Jimi Hendrix taken in February 1967 by British photographer Gered Mankowitz was not protected by French copyright (droit d’auteur) because it was not an original work of art. The court reasoned that the photographer had not shown which elements of the work protected by copyright were an imprint of his personality (traduire sa personnalité)."
http://www.maw-law.com/copyright/pa...rix-original-thus-protected-french-copyright/
Also there's the photo caption. Perhaps she could sue for slander and/or libel since the caption says she is "speech impaired". Is she? Is she any of the things the photographer ascribe to her? What do people think? Again, not expecting a legal answer just peoples thoughts
Also, maybe the photographer should share a large part of the prize money with her. What are people's thoughts on that?
Some more copyright cases
"The 10 Most Famous Copyright Cases In Photography"
https://www.pixsy.com/10-cases-that-show-how-complicated-copyright-law-really-is/
What, if anything, did the photographer add to the design and creative aspects of the photo?
Makeup? No
Lighting? No
People in the photo? No
Clothes? No
Body posture? No
Facial Expression? No
Since it appears that the women in the photo did all of the above, how much of the copyright should she have?
I'm just curious of peoples opinions here, I'm not expecting a legal answer.
Here's a recent example. The paragraph here is from a lower court ruling, later reversed by a higher court ruling, as described in the article.
"The Paris civil lower court (Tribunal de Grande Instance) had foundin May 2015 that a photograph of Jimi Hendrix taken in February 1967 by British photographer Gered Mankowitz was not protected by French copyright (droit d’auteur) because it was not an original work of art. The court reasoned that the photographer had not shown which elements of the work protected by copyright were an imprint of his personality (traduire sa personnalité)."
http://www.maw-law.com/copyright/pa...rix-original-thus-protected-french-copyright/
Also there's the photo caption. Perhaps she could sue for slander and/or libel since the caption says she is "speech impaired". Is she? Is she any of the things the photographer ascribe to her? What do people think? Again, not expecting a legal answer just peoples thoughts
Also, maybe the photographer should share a large part of the prize money with her. What are people's thoughts on that?
Some more copyright cases
"The 10 Most Famous Copyright Cases In Photography"
https://www.pixsy.com/10-cases-that-show-how-complicated-copyright-law-really-is/
Last edited:
Ellis Vener
Forum Pro
You are mistaking subject for what the photographer did with the subject.
The photograph is not the thing (or people) being photographed.
A photographer decides on the framing (what to leave in and just as importantly, leave out), the composition, the timing (to capture the gestures and expression), and what he wanted the photograph to look like.
The photograph is not the thing (or people) being photographed.
A photographer decides on the framing (what to leave in and just as importantly, leave out), the composition, the timing (to capture the gestures and expression), and what he wanted the photograph to look like.
Thanks for responding.
Here's another question - if everyone in the group of photographers use the same elements - composition, framing, timing (since the subject posed and presumably didn't change posture, body language, or facial expression so no issue of timing) can any one photographer claim those aspects as unique to their photo? It'd be interesting to see what the other photographer photos looked like.
Also, according to the article, it was the women who walked over, choose her position (which impacts the lighting and background), body language, posture, and facial expression. So none of the photographers in the group made any creative input for those aspects. I think!?
Ellis Vener
Forum Pro
timing assume control over the subject - posing the mother and her children - and obviously not everyone is shooting through the same lens from the same POV, and so are not seeing the same thing trough their viewfinder or are looking for the same thing. It’s little things like that that break or make a photograph.
The aspects you list are just that - aspects, and not the whole thing.
it could be that one of those photographs is better.
we do not know what impelled her to walk over. Maybe it was the possibility of making some money from the tourists.
And again, while your position that “none of the photographers in the group made any creative input for these aspects” is valid -assuming that no one in the group said stand (or sit) here - those are only aspects and not the finished photograph.
The most fundamental creative decision a photographer makes is whether or to make a photograph in a given situation. The second most is where to point the camera.
None. She did not do those for the purpose of creating an image.
Just demonstrates the court doesn't understand photography.
It would be a nice thing, a good thing and, in my opinion the right thing. But there was no expectation or agreement and her participation was voluntary.
The law is complicated because interpretations are variable. It would be difficult to make them less so without prohibiting nearly everything.
Erwann Loison
Leading Member
True although in a crowd highly overrated as to have an impact on the photography in my opinion. More an a posteriori justification than anythingthat is obvious. What isn’t obvious is what they were seeing and that depends on who they are as persons. We all carry our own psychological, emotional, and intellectual baggage when we photograph.Well... Their angle of view in this case could be different only for a physical space reason, photographers don't overlap
Ellis Vener
Forum Pro
"a posteri" : (adj) "relating to or denoting reasoning or knowledge which proceeds from observations or experiences to the deduction of probable causes."True although in a crowd highly overrated as to have an impact on the photography in my opinion. More an a posteriori justification than anythingthat is obvious. What isn’t obvious is what they were seeing and that depends on who they are as persons. We all carry our own psychological, emotional, and intellectual baggage when we photograph.Well... Their angle of view in this case could be different only for a physical space reason, photographers don't overlap
You are right. I made my argument based on my experiences of photographing in a crowd of photographers and then comparing how I composed, framed, and exposed my photo to what the photographers on either side of me did with the same subject
You have no idea what you're talking about. Zero. Never made a portrait, have you?
By the way, it's clear you keep making new accounts from which to attack McCurry. You made this account on March 18, 2019, just 6 days ago. But the attack is the same every time. You must be deeply troubled by jealousy or something to keep making these cheap shots.
Last edited:
fucile
Forum Enthusiast
I'm beginning to think he's Tony Northrup.
The photo on the right exposing fake-photojournalism, should have been the real winner, no?The second I read 'intense humanitarian moment" it's time to ...
I'll bet the photo of the Catholic school boy emotionally compromising the aging native American Vietnam Vet would have won except the photo did not end up supporting the media's much desired narrative.
The big picture can be so darn inconvenient to fleeting heartfelt moments. Bizarre that completely unplanned a dozen middle age overweight male photographers show up simultaneously at a clearing in Vietnam.
via Petapixel
I wonder if they had a sign on the road, like in Sedona, woman with baby, take next ramp.
Chelsea just dumped her D850 for a Sony mirrorless. Looking at your Nikon gear, I can see why you'd be miffed.
Btw, check out that subscriber count.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum