PhotoKhan

Lives in Portugal Cascais, Portugal
Works as a Airline pilot
Joined on Mar 22, 2003
About me:

A good photograph shows what you saw.
A superior ones conveys what you felt.

Comments

Total: 1251, showing: 61 – 80
« First‹ Previous23456Next ›Last »
In reply to:

golfhov: Copyright battle comes up here all the time.
In all fairness the "monkey selfie" was not Slater's work and the user he went after that started this whole entanglement was wikipedia. Not some greedy megacorporation.
Then peta hi jacked the case to promote their agenda. Same as now the photographic community has now hijacked the story to promote their agenda.
TitLe of this story should be struggling photographer cannot cut it in competitive industry.
This article is better than some others bit the original Brisbane article shold be read and the title ignored to truly understand a simple tale of an interesting story involving a cast of shady and incapable characters involved in monkey business

One last thing.

You wrote, as an argument regarding my "water hole remote shooting" scenario:

"They TECHNICALLY shot it because they set the criteria for the shutter to be fired. None of those standards apply to the monkey selfies."

Did, then, the monkey turn on the camera and dialled in the appropriate settings?

Link | Posted on Jul 14, 2017 at 17:55 UTC
In reply to:

golfhov: Copyright battle comes up here all the time.
In all fairness the "monkey selfie" was not Slater's work and the user he went after that started this whole entanglement was wikipedia. Not some greedy megacorporation.
Then peta hi jacked the case to promote their agenda. Same as now the photographic community has now hijacked the story to promote their agenda.
TitLe of this story should be struggling photographer cannot cut it in competitive industry.
This article is better than some others bit the original Brisbane article shold be read and the title ignored to truly understand a simple tale of an interesting story involving a cast of shady and incapable characters involved in monkey business

"IN THIS CASE the courts have all decided the monkey created it. "

There, precisely, lies the crux and, hence, the consequential cascade of wrong doings:

There was nothing "created" because a monkey can not "create" anything, in the intellectual sense of the word.

Once that is settled and understood (...as it seems it was...) all that remains is a bunch of "O"s and "1"s that came out of his camera the very same way a physical print would have come out of a Polaroid one, should it be the type the monkey had pressed the button on.

It is not for anyone to freely grab the digital image out of David's site to do with it whatever they might fancy the very same way it wouldn't be admissible for anyone to quick grab the print out of David's hand while he was showing it in public.

No creative IP ---> no ownership to attribute.

...but...

Existing, physically tangible or electronic object ---> ownership to be attributed.

Whom to...? The owner of the camera that produced it.

Link | Posted on Jul 14, 2017 at 17:35 UTC
In reply to:

golfhov: Copyright battle comes up here all the time.
In all fairness the "monkey selfie" was not Slater's work and the user he went after that started this whole entanglement was wikipedia. Not some greedy megacorporation.
Then peta hi jacked the case to promote their agenda. Same as now the photographic community has now hijacked the story to promote their agenda.
TitLe of this story should be struggling photographer cannot cut it in competitive industry.
This article is better than some others bit the original Brisbane article shold be read and the title ignored to truly understand a simple tale of an interesting story involving a cast of shady and incapable characters involved in monkey business

Last attempt.

If a proprietary right unintentionally and ancillary derives from another consolidated and recognized one it shouldn't be up for grabs, it should be derivatively back-referred the parent proprietary right.

If it is discovered that the matzo balls you make with of your grand-mother's recipe cure a specific type of cancer, it is not for Pfizer to show up and say they own the recipe because they discovered the new use.

Link | Posted on Jul 14, 2017 at 17:12 UTC
In reply to:

PhotoKhan: Next from Screw Bar: An app featuring a rotary dial that disables all other phone functions and requires you to actually do the semi-circular movements to dial a phone number.

Yes :)

The brilliant Louis CK has a bit about it where he goes: "Didn't you use to hate those guys with many "0"s and "9"s in their numbers?"...lol...

Link | Posted on Jul 14, 2017 at 16:53 UTC
In reply to:

golfhov: Copyright battle comes up here all the time.
In all fairness the "monkey selfie" was not Slater's work and the user he went after that started this whole entanglement was wikipedia. Not some greedy megacorporation.
Then peta hi jacked the case to promote their agenda. Same as now the photographic community has now hijacked the story to promote their agenda.
TitLe of this story should be struggling photographer cannot cut it in competitive industry.
This article is better than some others bit the original Brisbane article shold be read and the title ignored to truly understand a simple tale of an interesting story involving a cast of shady and incapable characters involved in monkey business

(cont.)

Let's get this away from the animal kingdom for a while to see if I can better bring my point across:

Say my camera throws an electronic fit and suddenly self-exposes a couple spurious shots without me touching anything.

Suppose this was witnessed by several people when it occurs, so I can't claim I intentionally did it.

Suppose it so happens that one of the exposures exhibits some bizarre hypnotic pattern that people find amazing and can't live without and, because of that odd trait, suddenly starts selling like hotcakes, making millions.

Do you feel that anyone else apart from me, the camera owner, could claim the photo was theirs?

Link | Posted on Jul 14, 2017 at 16:48 UTC
In reply to:

golfhov: Copyright battle comes up here all the time.
In all fairness the "monkey selfie" was not Slater's work and the user he went after that started this whole entanglement was wikipedia. Not some greedy megacorporation.
Then peta hi jacked the case to promote their agenda. Same as now the photographic community has now hijacked the story to promote their agenda.
TitLe of this story should be struggling photographer cannot cut it in competitive industry.
This article is better than some others bit the original Brisbane article shold be read and the title ignored to truly understand a simple tale of an interesting story involving a cast of shady and incapable characters involved in monkey business

(cont)

It works like that because, once the IP case is settled, I can still make you actionable regarding the theft because, precisely, you have that legal existence.

A monkey does not have legal existence in what pertains to IP, so there are no other channels to even things out.

He is transparently non-existent, legally speaking and that it is why the courts decided the the IP was up for grabs.

In my view this is incorrect since, the photo was the result on an intentional set up and, lacking any rights from the monkey, it should be the camera's owner to retain the right's to the photo, since the photo did not appear out of thin air.

(cont.)

Link | Posted on Jul 14, 2017 at 16:44 UTC
In reply to:

golfhov: Copyright battle comes up here all the time.
In all fairness the "monkey selfie" was not Slater's work and the user he went after that started this whole entanglement was wikipedia. Not some greedy megacorporation.
Then peta hi jacked the case to promote their agenda. Same as now the photographic community has now hijacked the story to promote their agenda.
TitLe of this story should be struggling photographer cannot cut it in competitive industry.
This article is better than some others bit the original Brisbane article shold be read and the title ignored to truly understand a simple tale of an interesting story involving a cast of shady and incapable characters involved in monkey business

golfhov,

You're repeatedly missing the point, as far as I am concerned.

An animal can not the be the owner of the photo because it has no legal existence that might grant it IP rights (...and, to this extent, those who think that PETA is just cuckoo, think again...What they're clearly trying to do is establish a precedent that confers extended juridical existence to any animal so that themselves, PETA, are the ones entrusted with representation powers...Can you guess why?...Think hard...).

...but the fact that the animal cannot own the photo does not make the photo free for grabs because, next in the proprietary chain comes the owner of the equipment it was made with.

If you steal my camera and make the photo of the century with it you - the creator - still have a viable case regarding the IP ownerships because you - a legal entity - were still the one that created said photography success.

(cont)

Link | Posted on Jul 14, 2017 at 16:43 UTC
In reply to:

golfhov: Copyright battle comes up here all the time.
In all fairness the "monkey selfie" was not Slater's work and the user he went after that started this whole entanglement was wikipedia. Not some greedy megacorporation.
Then peta hi jacked the case to promote their agenda. Same as now the photographic community has now hijacked the story to promote their agenda.
TitLe of this story should be struggling photographer cannot cut it in competitive industry.
This article is better than some others bit the original Brisbane article shold be read and the title ignored to truly understand a simple tale of an interesting story involving a cast of shady and incapable characters involved in monkey business

golfhov,

So...let me see if I understood...

If you pay thousands of dollars for a trip to Africa, including travel, stay and operational expenses, set up a "photo trap" in a drink hole, somewhere in the middle of the jungle after an extremely taxing journey, said trap featuring multiple expensive cameras and optics, strobes and remote movement detection triggers to capture some nocturnal wild animal habits and end up with the photo of the decade it is OK for me to use it as I may find fit because, after all, it was the animal that, in the end, actually made the photo by moving enough for the remote trigger to activate?

Ok...I will remember that.

Now, off you go...

Link | Posted on Jul 14, 2017 at 15:16 UTC
In reply to:

PhotoKhan: PETA are the DB's we already know they are but the "douche" move by Wikipedia is as formidable as it inexcusable (...the camera was his and the photo wouldn't exist if David Slater hadn't traveled there...).

Just yesterday, I responded positively to the annual pledge made by Wikipedia's Jimmy Wales, as I have been regularly doing.

Because of this, I won't be contributing anymore.

I invite David Slater to open a pledge fund to which I will gladly contribute instead so he can, at least, recover financially or, preferably, drown PETA in their own poison.

Making use of the opportunity given by having an actionable working email, already replied to the "Thank You" pro forma email I received yesterday from Jimmy Wales, following my pledge.

I declared my intention of no longer contributing, should further investigation confirm that their behavior was a crass as it is depicted here (...there might have been other, non-referenced, mitigating circumstances...).

Link | Posted on Jul 14, 2017 at 15:04 UTC

PETA are the DB's we already know they are but the "douche" move by Wikipedia is as formidable as it inexcusable (...the camera was his and the photo wouldn't exist if David Slater hadn't traveled there...).

Just yesterday, I responded positively to the annual pledge made by Wikipedia's Jimmy Wales, as I have been regularly doing.

Because of this, I won't be contributing anymore.

I invite David Slater to open a pledge fund to which I will gladly contribute instead so he can, at least, recover financially or, preferably, drown PETA in their own poison.

Link | Posted on Jul 14, 2017 at 14:24 UTC as 268th comment | 6 replies

Next from Screw Bar: An app featuring a rotary dial that disables all other phone functions and requires you to actually do the semi-circular movements to dial a phone number.

Link | Posted on Jul 14, 2017 at 14:12 UTC as 34th comment | 4 replies

DJI rules.
All resistance is futile.
(...especially in this puzzling crowdfunding-for-something-that-already-exists format...)

Link | Posted on Jul 13, 2017 at 19:27 UTC as 26th comment
On article Canon EOS M6 with EF-M 22mm F2 sample gallery (101 comments in total)

The cat is out of the bag...

Link | Posted on Jul 13, 2017 at 13:18 UTC as 27th comment
In reply to:

CameraLabTester: THIS is where Canon is good at.

Nuff sed.

.

True.
...but not immutable.

Link | Posted on Jul 13, 2017 at 11:07 UTC
In reply to:

CreeDo: Anyone else find it sad how jaded people act about this stuff?

If I had put in the work to capture some of these shots, and the work paid off and I got footage as gorgeous as this, I'd be so overjoyed. But here we see all this "ugh drones, ugh time lapse, so boring and cliché, yawwnnnn".

Exactly !

I always find it amazing that people that wouldn't know how to do this kind stuff, or knowing how to do it would never have the stamina, perseverance and dedication required for the task then go "meh!" upon seeing things like these.

The simple lack of empathy for the physical efforts put into it, that lacking alone, is quite mind-boggling.

I am slowly arriving to the conclusion that the higher one is in the ladder that leads to these kind successful of efforts, the most appreciative one is.

I am barely in the first step of that ladder (...if even that advanced...), almost having a sore neck on account from constantly looking up and can't keep myself from being in awe at these kinds of footage.

...but, hey!, maybe I am easily impressed...

Link | Posted on Jul 12, 2017 at 17:04 UTC
On article Leica TL2 first impressions (369 comments in total)

Not a Leica fan but have to say I found the "Edited to taste" samples very, very good.

Link | Posted on Jul 10, 2017 at 19:13 UTC as 42nd comment
In reply to:

PhotoKhan: I am not an American and certainly not very well acquainted with your legal system, so I have this question:

If it has already been considered and ruled upon at Federal Court level why do cases keep being sent there?

Is it a case of repeatedly "throwing it against the wall to see if it sticks" in what concerns a possible reverse ruling?

whyamihere,

Thank you for your explanation. Much appreciated.

Link | Posted on Jul 10, 2017 at 19:00 UTC
In reply to:

PhotoKhan: I am not an American and certainly not very well acquainted with your legal system, so I have this question:

If it has already been considered and ruled upon at Federal Court level why do cases keep being sent there?

Is it a case of repeatedly "throwing it against the wall to see if it sticks" in what concerns a possible reverse ruling?

I fear I might have not made myself clear... Sorry for that.

My question is: If a higher court has already ruled on a specific matter (...many times, it seems, in this particular case...), why isn't that ruling bidding to the lower circuit court, once a "same case" is is brought before them?...Why going up the ladder just to get the same ruling, one that is not prone to change since it impacts on constitutional matters?

EDIT:...sorry...between the time of writing this and posting it, I see my question has already been addressed. Thank you.

Link | Posted on Jul 10, 2017 at 18:54 UTC

I am not an American and certainly not very well acquainted with your legal system, so I have this question:

If it has already been considered and ruled upon at Federal Court level why do cases keep being sent there?

Is it a case of repeatedly "throwing it against the wall to see if it sticks" in what concerns a possible reverse ruling?

Link | Posted on Jul 10, 2017 at 18:36 UTC as 32nd comment | 10 replies
In reply to:

T3: What a terrible tragedy and a total waste of a ship just because an idiot captain wanted to (literally) show-boat.

Francesco Schettino is, perhaps, a poor excuse for a maritime captain.

He is, however, doing jail time for the crimes he committed.

OTOH, no one is in jail for the generators that failed, the bulkhead doors that didn't work and the many lifeboats that wouldn't budge.

In this day and age it is easy to switch on to indignation mode. We must, however, never forget to also activate the "Escape Goat" detection function.

Doing so will intelligently lead us to some uncomfortable questions.

Like, for instance:

Was the "show-boating" is sole decision or rather a common practice condoned by the company for commercial purposes?

...or...

If he was so patently inept who gave and why was he given that crucial position?

Link | Posted on Jul 10, 2017 at 08:10 UTC
Total: 1251, showing: 61 – 80
« First‹ Previous23456Next ›Last »