Peggy Bair

Lives in United States KS, United States
Works as a fulltime professional photographer
Joined on Oct 3, 2002

Comments

Total: 11, showing: 1 – 11

I have one of these lenses. Besides being a sharp, fun lens to shoot with, it's rendering is also quite lovely. For the Minolta legacy lens collector, this one is a must to own.

Link | Posted on Feb 17, 2019 at 18:59 UTC as 1st comment
On article Kenko launches new premium Teleplus HD Pro converters (80 comments in total)
In reply to:

Mark K: Having three Kenko at my hand, I can only wish they will eventually come out with optically superior products...

Tokina lens users will be very happy.

Link | Posted on Feb 14, 2019 at 04:40 UTC
On article Kenko launches new premium Teleplus HD Pro converters (80 comments in total)
In reply to:

lickity split: All for the low price of $19.95 or two for $30 :))

More like $550 for the pair.

Link | Posted on Feb 14, 2019 at 04:36 UTC
On article Kenko launches new premium Teleplus HD Pro converters (80 comments in total)
In reply to:

vesa1tahti: Compatibility with Sigma lenses?

No. Compatible with Nikon, Canon EF (not EF-S) and Tokina lenses.

Link | Posted on Feb 14, 2019 at 04:35 UTC
In reply to:

ozturert: Wth..
This copyright thing is blown out of proportion now. You can't even use your own photo on your own account.

You can't use a photo of yourself that you didn't take, no, if a professional photographer is involved. And she was a professional photographer at that time, so - I agree with people who are saying that BM should have asked permission. Just be respectful, dude. Otherwise, you are sending the message that photographers can take your music and use it on their accounts/slideshows, etc. Copyright applies to music/copyright applies to photographs.

Link | Posted on Nov 29, 2017 at 00:08 UTC
In reply to:

cosinaphile: i get that mars used it without permission .... i don't see that as wrong as , it is "him".... however as a celebrity , his image is a marketable commodity .... both parties should enter into an agreement hammered out by a disinterested party to compensate for usage and or work out a schedule for use or sale to mars ... he should be happy a that such a music themed toddler portrait of himself exist and say a sincere thank you when the financial side of this matter is concluded

and its in black and white ,so there's that...

so depending on what bruno mars does with the rest of his life , and how hes remembered it might even be seen as iconic one day

I take pictures of people all the time...but they don't get to use those pictures any way they want just because the picture is of themselves. BM used the photo for self-promotion when he used it on Instagram.

Link | Posted on Nov 29, 2017 at 00:05 UTC
In reply to:

lightandaprayer: This is an excellent example why photographers should retain copyright and register their copyrights. You never know when an image may become valuable, sometimes very valuable. Often it is a portrait of someone who becomes famous.

Every time a copyright-related article appears on DPR you can rest assured that some people will question the validity of copyright. I'm sure this one will too. . . Of course, they probably aren't making a living as an independent photographer.

Copyright is determined by who clicks the shutter at the moment the shutter is clicked. It does strengthen some aspects of an infringement case if it is registered...and it may very well be registered. Regardless, if she owns copyright, BM should have asked permission and given her some kind of compensation.

Link | Posted on Nov 29, 2017 at 00:01 UTC
In reply to:

Suave: I am no expert, but won't she be asked to produce a release?

Not if she shot this while working as a contract photographer for Village Voice back then - which she was.

Link | Posted on Nov 28, 2017 at 23:58 UTC
In reply to:

A And: There is a difference between commercial use and editorial. You can photograph almost any one in public or privately (in some cases) for publication in a newspaper without their permission or even approval - I believe the same goes for artists work.
Commercial work is a total different story; you have to have a model release if the picture is used for any kind of commercial.

"You can photograph almost any one in public or privately (in some cases) for publication in a newspaper without their permission or even approval" - Not quite. Non-public people have privacy protections that public officials and celebrities don't have. She still has grounds. It would have been very simple for BM's agent to have asked permission. #respect

Link | Posted on Nov 28, 2017 at 23:57 UTC
In reply to:

Tim Reidy Productions: if bm used the cropped photo then the photographer is dead right.

If he used an uncropped photo, then I would say the issue is wishy washy.

I shoot musicians, I only want a cut for promotional use, and am not picky about archival use.

but when you crop out a watermark you are now misusing a photo, it is sad to see such things

Name is clearly cropped out when you look at the original image with her name across the top.

Link | Posted on Nov 28, 2017 at 23:54 UTC
In reply to:

mosc: Where did McGann get the copyright to the image she posted on instagram? That needs to be covered before you can debate this don't you? If the copyright is legit then yes, this is infringement. If the copyright is just typing a name at the top of a pic that got edited to taste, then no. Which is it?

She was a contract photographer with Village Voice back then, according to her bio - and if she wasn't work-for-hire, it's her image. You click the shutter, you own the image. It looks like deliberate infringement since the original image has her name on it and the instagram has the name cropped out. It would have been respectful and correct for Mars' agent to have asked for permission.

Link | Posted on Nov 28, 2017 at 23:52 UTC
Total: 11, showing: 1 – 11