Joined on Aug 7, 2014


Total: 69, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Wes: Seriously... what is the point of any animal holding a copyright? Animals cannot comprehend human abstractions like copyrights, they can't exploit or benefit them. Only humans can do this.
This is just one f-ed up group of opportunistic psycho-activists stirring the pot to paint humans as evil and get attention. It solves no pressing issue, furthers no cause, protects no animals from any real or imaged abuses.
Its pure theater.
The fact that the courts allowed this crap to go on for so long is the true disgrace in all of this. PETA and their moronic lawyers should have been summarily kicked out of court with a big fat fine and damages paid to Slater.

If Naruto holds the copyright he can support his family, neighbors and even his whole community from the proceeds. What's wrong with that?

Link | Posted on Sep 17, 2017 at 00:08 UTC


Link | Posted on Aug 11, 2017 at 06:43 UTC as 10th comment

A photographer owning, providing or setting up a camera to take a picture does not give him copyright if he did not take the picture. If his baby accidentally presses the camera button and ends up taking a great picture, who owns the copyright. If a friend or even a stranger next to him picks up his camera and presses the button who owns the copyright. The photographer does not. In either case the photographer did not 'take' the picture, someone else did regardless of whether they knew what they were doing or not. If a zookeeper sets up a canvas and provides the paint and brushes so than an elephant can create art does the zookeeper own the copyright.

Link | Posted on Jul 17, 2017 at 22:17 UTC as 29th comment | 6 replies
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 are just wasting your time, he just does not get it or just does not want to get it. Everyone is entitled to their opinion but I am seeing some very biased photographers here who are letting their emotions get the best of them instead of using common sense. It does not matter how far the photographer traveled, or how much money he spent, or that he owned the equipment, or even set it up. HE DID NOT TAKE THE PICTURE and if he did not take the picture he can not rightfully claim copyright. These guys are confused. They seem to think copyright is all about the setup and how much you spend, and where you go, etc. Copyright is about taking the picture. I wonder if they would be okay if the monkey had taken the picture in the photographers backyard with his used $50 camera that he set up first.

Link | Posted on Jul 17, 2017 at 22:07 UTC
In reply to:

wetsleet: So if I trigger a speed camera, can I sue the state for breach of copyright if they use the photo?

You do not own the copyright in the first place because you did not take the picture. You merely triggered a device. But yes you can sue the state, you can sue anyone for anything. Good luck.

Link | Posted on Jul 17, 2017 at 21:18 UTC
In reply to:

sh10453: Since they have "saved" themselves so far, and with no experience, I am going to photograph their wedding, and their late night show, but I'm bringing Dr. Ruth with me to educate them, and they better be able to pay the 2 bills :)

You will also need Dr. Phil's services for the PTSD you will develop later so you should add that to the bill too.

Link | Posted on Jul 2, 2017 at 20:39 UTC

I would like to suggest to Mr. Winters that he add small powerful motors to spin the wheels (clockwise left side, counterclockwise right side) for further improvement to the counterbalance system.

Link | Posted on Jun 9, 2017 at 06:37 UTC as 11th comment

Would this be a good choice for time-lapse photography?

Link | Posted on Apr 30, 2017 at 00:34 UTC as 3rd comment

Can it be used for birding?

Link | Posted on Apr 21, 2017 at 07:17 UTC as 11th comment
On article Olympus working on 8K video for Micro Four Thirds (216 comments in total)
In reply to:

Reactive: Has anybody here stood very close to a 4K TV and tried to see the individual pixels? Want to try 8K? Whether its a 60" home TV or a 60 ft stadium screen, 8K is pointless for human eyes. Its only purpose (just like the '3D revolution') is to give something 'new' and 'better' for manufacturers to sell us. I'd much rather Olympus stopped at 4K and devoted their R&D budget to improving image noise and dynamic range.

I agree that an 8K TV is not needed. For most viewers 1080p is more than enough. As far as 8K, I haven't seen the calculations for distance vs. screen size for 8K. An 8K 60 foot stadium screen may not be pointless.

Link | Posted on Mar 14, 2017 at 02:09 UTC
In reply to:

tkbslc: There sure seem to be some radial leaps of logic made below to equate Nikon screwing up a product line to the death of the DSLR and all compact cameras.

I believe that would be Nikanon.

Link | Posted on Feb 13, 2017 at 20:53 UTC
On article Grab a free copy of DxO OpticsPro 9 while you can (184 comments in total)
In reply to:

FBoneOne: I was looking forward to trying it but then looked at the list of supported cameras and none of mine are on there :-( well, still a nice move for those who can.

I found an easy fix for that, just buy a camera on the list.

Link | Posted on Feb 6, 2017 at 22:57 UTC
On article Grab a free copy of DxO OpticsPro 9 while you can (184 comments in total)
In reply to:

jpeterg: Yeah, screw them for giving away for free perfectly capable software that is not the latest version! Now those who don't need or want or can't afford to constantly upgrade to the latest cameras and who still use sh*tty, pre-historic, now useless models like the A6000 don't even have to pay for the software! Who do they think they are, charging $0 for not forcing anyone to download? What an outrage. Boo, DXO, boo.

Well, they could have offer a $1 for the trouble of having to download it.

Link | Posted on Feb 6, 2017 at 22:52 UTC
On article Grab a free copy of DxO OpticsPro 9 while you can (184 comments in total)
In reply to:

Christaras: It's funny when you can get something for free but you don't have enough space on your computer to download it.

I do not find that funny.

Link | Posted on Feb 6, 2017 at 22:49 UTC

I thought this camera was water resistant.

Link | Posted on Nov 16, 2016 at 06:34 UTC as 5th comment
On article Tiny marvel: Panasonic LX10 sample photos (79 comments in total)
In reply to:

angus rocks: wow... these pictures are nowhere near as good as pictures from the D810. he he.

I disagree rocks.

Link | Posted on Nov 12, 2016 at 07:43 UTC
In reply to:

Young Morris: The dog is controlled by the smart watch application. The idea is wonderful but if something went wrong means???

The dog is not real, it is a holographic projection origination from the watch (hence "Smart Watch"). I did this very same thing with mine, creating my whole family sitting on the couch in our family room when in-fact I was actually the only one home. Pretty cool for a watch Young.

Link | Posted on Nov 6, 2016 at 05:04 UTC
In reply to:

naturetech: I will never own a so-called 'smart' watch.

My 'dumb' watch has a $2 replaceable battery that can last for over 5 years.

My 'dumb' watch can survive drops, shocks and major abuse.

My 'dumb' watch will readily endure swims, showers and 200 meter plunges.

My 'dumb' watch does not seal its user in another digital bubble.

My 'dumb' watch does not become obsolete rubbish in the span of 3-4 years.

Yea but can your dumb watch take a picture of your Jack Russell Terrier while taking a selfie of yourself and combine them in camera, oops I mean in watch, so that it looks like you were in the picture with your doggy all along.

Link | Posted on Nov 2, 2016 at 23:48 UTC
In reply to:

princecody: Is Apple a sponsor of this site? I've never seen Dpreview write 10 reasons to buy a phone before. Lol

Yeah I find that pretty silly and odd just because it has a built-in camera. I'm now waiting for their 10 reasons to buy a car with a back up camera.

Link | Posted on Sep 10, 2016 at 19:15 UTC
In reply to:

xfoto: Do they still break a month after warranty expires?

NO, they are actually more efficient now-a-days. They break 3 to 4 days after the warrant expires. The sooner they break the sooner you either send it in for repair or buy a new Canon printer. It helps the economy - nothing wrong with that!

Link | Posted on Sep 7, 2016 at 15:07 UTC
Total: 69, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »