zlatko

Lives in United States United States
Has a website at www.zlatkobatistich.com
Joined on Oct 5, 2001
About me:

I'm a wedding photographer and portrait photographer based in New Jersey.

Comments

Total: 290, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

mxx: Canon fans, note the astronaut uses a Nikon camera!

/trolling

They use Canon in space but for video:
http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/education/technical/outer_space_with_the_eos_c500.do
and
http://highsierraworkshops.org/canon-joins-nikon-hasselblad-as-nasas-camera-of-choice/
Canon videocams were also used in space decades ago. I believe there are some examples at the Udvar-Hazy museum in VA.

Link | Posted on Jul 19, 2017 at 02:39 UTC
In reply to:

silentstorm: I came to appreciate the difficulties in doing astro photography when I bought the 20mm F1.4 Sigma. These are very inspiring!

Me? Oh epic fail multiple times... LOL!!!

Could be difficult, depending on where you live. Sky is not clear everywhere.

Link | Posted on Jul 18, 2017 at 16:54 UTC
In reply to:

zlatko: Believe it or not, PETA's official position is "monkey owns copyright":
https://www.peta.org/blog/peta-appeal-monkey-selfie-case-grounds-monkey-owns-copyright/
Copyright protects an author's exclusive right to make copies. That's why it's called copyright. But how exactly is the monkey going to MAKE copies of the photo? How does the monkey distribute copies, exhibit copies, sell copies, license copies, derive copies, inspect copies, approve copies, sign copies, publish copies, promote copies, limit copies, etc.? When, where and HOW is any of that supposed to happen? Did anybody think this through?

@Alec, Your argument is unconvincing because Stephen Hawking can testify as to his state of mind when creating something years ago, can make agreements and understand them, can buy & sell properties & licenses. There is no question about that. But you haven't identified any monkey that can do those things.

The past arguments for slavery are not at all "similar" as you claim. Monkeys are not people, and you can't give them copyright by likening them to very disabled people. If being a person is not a meaningful to copyright, then you have to extend copyright to any creature: spiders, bees, ants, aardvarks, crabs, snails, dogs, birds, etc. If they create any art and you copy it, they can sue you personally for infringment, and they can WIN a money judgment against you, and collect against your assets. If they somehow registered their work with the Copyright Office, you'll have to pay all of their attorneys' fees too.

Link | Posted on Jul 17, 2017 at 14:00 UTC
On article Photo of the week: Spires of the Arctic Night (21 comments in total)

Beautiful!!

Link | Posted on Jul 16, 2017 at 23:00 UTC as 5th comment

Delightful!

Link | Posted on Jul 16, 2017 at 21:10 UTC as 58th comment
In reply to:

DPPMetro: If I'm not mistaken, there is a significant part of the story no longer being discussed, particularly by DPR.

If I remember correctly, the photographer originally stated that the animal took the selfie on its own. That line is what gave it the viral push it needed. Then the crap started and then he recanted and stated he took the pic himself (because he was losing the copyright on it).

While I sympathize with him and feel he was ripped apart by ruthless parties, he made the mistake of the original claim. He could have easily said he used a remote or catch in focus, or anything. Maybe it would have had lower reach, but it's a phenomenal, timeless photo. He would have not only gotten the licensures over time, but also retained the earnings from his career.

It is very doubtful the animal took the pic itself, but the damage of the original statement was already done.

Now we lose another good photographer trying to do some good, but with poor business sense.

I'm a photographer on a photography forum, happy to support this photographer's copyright. When the response to that is rude insults about mental disabilities, that ends discussion about the actual topic. Basic civility means allowing for differing opinions without personal attacks.

Link | Posted on Jul 16, 2017 at 18:26 UTC
In reply to:

DPPMetro: If I'm not mistaken, there is a significant part of the story no longer being discussed, particularly by DPR.

If I remember correctly, the photographer originally stated that the animal took the selfie on its own. That line is what gave it the viral push it needed. Then the crap started and then he recanted and stated he took the pic himself (because he was losing the copyright on it).

While I sympathize with him and feel he was ripped apart by ruthless parties, he made the mistake of the original claim. He could have easily said he used a remote or catch in focus, or anything. Maybe it would have had lower reach, but it's a phenomenal, timeless photo. He would have not only gotten the licensures over time, but also retained the earnings from his career.

It is very doubtful the animal took the pic itself, but the damage of the original statement was already done.

Now we lose another good photographer trying to do some good, but with poor business sense.

It's great that so many people on DPR discuss interesting topics in photography without resorting to ugly insults of other people's reading skills and intelligence. Unfortunately, one person can instantly drop the discussion down to that level.

Link | Posted on Jul 16, 2017 at 15:10 UTC
In reply to:

DPPMetro: If I'm not mistaken, there is a significant part of the story no longer being discussed, particularly by DPR.

If I remember correctly, the photographer originally stated that the animal took the selfie on its own. That line is what gave it the viral push it needed. Then the crap started and then he recanted and stated he took the pic himself (because he was losing the copyright on it).

While I sympathize with him and feel he was ripped apart by ruthless parties, he made the mistake of the original claim. He could have easily said he used a remote or catch in focus, or anything. Maybe it would have had lower reach, but it's a phenomenal, timeless photo. He would have not only gotten the licensures over time, but also retained the earnings from his career.

It is very doubtful the animal took the pic itself, but the damage of the original statement was already done.

Now we lose another good photographer trying to do some good, but with poor business sense.

That's an ultra-rude reply. So ugly, mean and insulting. And you obviously mean to be very, very insulting. That's a totally inappropriate way to address people and you know it. I would have more to say about the photographer in question, what he said or should have said, what may have been true or false, etc., but I won't have any such discussion with you.

Link | Posted on Jul 16, 2017 at 14:26 UTC
In reply to:

Alec: While the monkey was somehow savvy enough to use a camera that may be intimidating to some humans, the photographer doesn't seem to display the same flexibility. He could have milked the fame arising from the photo and opportunities arising from the fame; he could have created derivative works etc. - instead he'd fought a losing battle that cast himself in a bad light and lost it all.

Not sure he'd make a good dog walker either - if a dog pulls on the leash (vs. him doing it) I think he'd lose it.

The Richard Prince example only works if you are that Richard Prince, a big name in the art world. It doesn't work for regular people. And part of his notoriety is that his method says, in effect, "I copied someone else's photo without permission, resold it for a ton of money, and got away with it!" David Slater is in very much the opposite situation, having created an original photo, and not being ultra-famous as a bad boy of the art world.

As for Slater writing an opera about his monkey photo, I suppose that's an option ... but sad if that were the way he had to capitalize on it. He'd have to be skilled at writing opera, first of all ...

Link | Posted on Jul 16, 2017 at 14:18 UTC
In reply to:

zlatko: Believe it or not, PETA's official position is "monkey owns copyright":
https://www.peta.org/blog/peta-appeal-monkey-selfie-case-grounds-monkey-owns-copyright/
Copyright protects an author's exclusive right to make copies. That's why it's called copyright. But how exactly is the monkey going to MAKE copies of the photo? How does the monkey distribute copies, exhibit copies, sell copies, license copies, derive copies, inspect copies, approve copies, sign copies, publish copies, promote copies, limit copies, etc.? When, where and HOW is any of that supposed to happen? Did anybody think this through?

@Alec You're talking about a person who can create brilliant art, despite having a mental impairment. Of course. Because they are a person. Now let's talk about a monkey that can testify as to their state of mind when clicking a camera several years ago, or that can make legal agreements, or buy & sell properties and licenses. Which monkey can do that? If you know of such monkey, then we can talk about copyright for the monkey. The question is not whether a monkey can click a shutter. The question is whether they can have legal capacity to own a copyright.

Link | Posted on Jul 16, 2017 at 02:51 UTC
In reply to:

cosinaphile: if peta hada logical focus instead of an attitude they would have helped mr slater monetize the image on the understanding that the proceeds be shared by offering food and medical care to that macaque and presumably family or monies donated to protect the environment where he lives or to plant beneficial plant species in his environ ....etc

that way everyone would have won slater the human... the macaque naruto... and the lawyers , the darkness and slime that pollutes all it touches and should be sequestered in or near the Marianas trench

postscript because of the lawyers everyone lost

Thanks very much!

Link | Posted on Jul 15, 2017 at 21:34 UTC
In reply to:

cosinaphile: if peta hada logical focus instead of an attitude they would have helped mr slater monetize the image on the understanding that the proceeds be shared by offering food and medical care to that macaque and presumably family or monies donated to protect the environment where he lives or to plant beneficial plant species in his environ ....etc

that way everyone would have won slater the human... the macaque naruto... and the lawyers , the darkness and slime that pollutes all it touches and should be sequestered in or near the Marianas trench

postscript because of the lawyers everyone lost

Oops, my reply got cut off. Here's the full reply ...
@cosinaphile You make some good points. PETA has far more important & pressing battles to fight than this one. They have noble goals, but who ever thought that animals need copyrights? Animals have much more pressing needs and much greater threats. This seems to be a roundabout and silly way of trying to get some kind of legal "personhood" for animals, giving them full legal access to copyright. What's next ... giving animals the right to run banks, run for office, build highways, etc.? Are those meaningful rights for animals? And will they provide a legal defense when animals cause harm? If a monkey interferes with a photo shoot, can the photographer sue PETA as the representative of the monkey? Will they put their assets on the line to pay any judgment?

Link | Posted on Jul 15, 2017 at 21:33 UTC
In reply to:

cosinaphile: if peta hada logical focus instead of an attitude they would have helped mr slater monetize the image on the understanding that the proceeds be shared by offering food and medical care to that macaque and presumably family or monies donated to protect the environment where he lives or to plant beneficial plant species in his environ ....etc

that way everyone would have won slater the human... the macaque naruto... and the lawyers , the darkness and slime that pollutes all it touches and should be sequestered in or near the Marianas trench

postscript because of the lawyers everyone lost

@cosinaphile You make some good points. PETA

Link | Posted on Jul 15, 2017 at 21:12 UTC
In reply to:

zlatko: Believe it or not, PETA's official position is "monkey owns copyright":
https://www.peta.org/blog/peta-appeal-monkey-selfie-case-grounds-monkey-owns-copyright/
Copyright protects an author's exclusive right to make copies. That's why it's called copyright. But how exactly is the monkey going to MAKE copies of the photo? How does the monkey distribute copies, exhibit copies, sell copies, license copies, derive copies, inspect copies, approve copies, sign copies, publish copies, promote copies, limit copies, etc.? When, where and HOW is any of that supposed to happen? Did anybody think this through?

Humans can testify as to their state of mind when creating, can make legal agreements, can buy & sell properties & licenses, can understand what copyright is, and more, etc. One problem with PETA's argument is that it depends on proving the monkey's state of mind. But they can't prove that.

They don't have the monkey's testimony as to what it was thinking that day. The photos themselves don't prove state of mind. They show an animal playing with a camera, perhaps reacting to the reflection and/or the shutter noise. PETA can't prove that the animal was thinking, "I'm creating a selfie".

PETA says the monkey "saw himself in the reflection of the lens, drew the connection between pressing the shutter release and the change in his reflection". That doesn't make sense! Pressing the shutter doesn't change the reflection. It closes the aperture blades and releases the shutter, but doesn't change the reflection. PETA's theory is weakened by their own mis-description of the camera.

Link | Posted on Jul 15, 2017 at 17:50 UTC
In reply to:

Alec: While the monkey was somehow savvy enough to use a camera that may be intimidating to some humans, the photographer doesn't seem to display the same flexibility. He could have milked the fame arising from the photo and opportunities arising from the fame; he could have created derivative works etc. - instead he'd fought a losing battle that cast himself in a bad light and lost it all.

Not sure he'd make a good dog walker either - if a dog pulls on the leash (vs. him doing it) I think he'd lose it.

But if you suggest, for example, the David Slater could write a fabulous original OPERA that uses the monkey photo, then you have a point. He would have the exclusive copyright to the opera and could profit from it, if it were any good. :)

Link | Posted on Jul 15, 2017 at 16:05 UTC
In reply to:

Alec: While the monkey was somehow savvy enough to use a camera that may be intimidating to some humans, the photographer doesn't seem to display the same flexibility. He could have milked the fame arising from the photo and opportunities arising from the fame; he could have created derivative works etc. - instead he'd fought a losing battle that cast himself in a bad light and lost it all.

Not sure he'd make a good dog walker either - if a dog pulls on the leash (vs. him doing it) I think he'd lose it.

Alec, I addressed the proposal to put the monkey photo on a mug or t-shirt. If the image is declared public domain, then clearly anyone can make the same mug or t-shirt without paying David Slater a dime.

You're talking about something else entirely. Software that uses open source libraries as a component is different. Try selling just the open source libraries themselves under your own name and in your own package — that's more like the image on a mug or t-shirt example. Good luck making much money with that.

Your Richard Prince example proves the exact opposite of the point you're trying to make. He steals other people's images and sells them for much more than anyone would pay to the original artist. The originals are near worthless compared to Richard Prince's "appropriations". Prince trades on his own notoriety, not the notoriety of the images he steals. It's a completely different situation. He literally sells replicas, not originals.

Link | Posted on Jul 15, 2017 at 15:59 UTC
In reply to:

Alec: While the monkey was somehow savvy enough to use a camera that may be intimidating to some humans, the photographer doesn't seem to display the same flexibility. He could have milked the fame arising from the photo and opportunities arising from the fame; he could have created derivative works etc. - instead he'd fought a losing battle that cast himself in a bad light and lost it all.

Not sure he'd make a good dog walker either - if a dog pulls on the leash (vs. him doing it) I think he'd lose it.

Creative derivative works of public domain image is very different than creating a derivative work of a copyright-protected image. He could sell a t-shirt or mug with the image, and 10,000 other people in the world can sell the exact same t-shirt or mug for $3 less, thus squashing that "significant money" you claim he could earn.

Link | Posted on Jul 15, 2017 at 13:52 UTC
In reply to:

Cian3307: If it is found that the monkey owns the copyright, how is anyone going to get permission to use the photo? Or do you use the photo and then get sued by the monkey? How does the monkey prove he/she is the monkey in the photo? Is that particular monkey still alive? If it is dead, how long before the copyright expires? The whole idea of an animal owning copyright is ridiculous. What planet do PETA live on? Haven't they got better things to be doing? I'd better be careful how I use all the shots from my camera traps. All those foxes, pine martens and hedgehogs might haul me into court.

@Music Hands Actually, PETA does think that animals should own copyright. That is their official position. It's right on their web site.

Link | Posted on Jul 15, 2017 at 13:33 UTC
In reply to:

imsabbel: This guy in an absolute IDIOT.

He is broke because he just couldn't deal with the fact that his original "Look at the image the ape took by itself" announcement underminded all his copyright claims and ruined himself trying to enforce them.

Notably, the only really remarkable part of this image is the backstory of it being an ape selfie, not the content. He could have used the publicity to get his name attached to it and better known, instead he tried to fight windmills.

David Slater is the "film studio". A monkey happened to click the shutter, but it's Slater's production entirely.

Link | Posted on Jul 15, 2017 at 13:29 UTC
In reply to:

DPPMetro: If I'm not mistaken, there is a significant part of the story no longer being discussed, particularly by DPR.

If I remember correctly, the photographer originally stated that the animal took the selfie on its own. That line is what gave it the viral push it needed. Then the crap started and then he recanted and stated he took the pic himself (because he was losing the copyright on it).

While I sympathize with him and feel he was ripped apart by ruthless parties, he made the mistake of the original claim. He could have easily said he used a remote or catch in focus, or anything. Maybe it would have had lower reach, but it's a phenomenal, timeless photo. He would have not only gotten the licensures over time, but also retained the earnings from his career.

It is very doubtful the animal took the pic itself, but the damage of the original statement was already done.

Now we lose another good photographer trying to do some good, but with poor business sense.

@DPPMetro I read your comment fully. A responded to your blaming the photographer for what he originally said. My point is that telling the truth about how the photo came to exist (monkey clicked the shutter) doesn't damage David Slater's claim to copyright. David did everything but click the shutter, enough to retain copyright.

It is notable that you're suggesting he could have protected his copyright by telling a complete falsehood. It "warms my heart" that some people equate good business sense with telling complete falsehoods. Actually, it doesn't warm my heart.

Link | Posted on Jul 15, 2017 at 13:23 UTC
Total: 290, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »