gkanitz

gkanitz

Lives in Spain Spain
Joined on May 16, 2007

Comments

Total: 10, showing: 1 – 10
In reply to:

Hugo600si: If an animal triggering a camera using a light trap is a photographers copyright, or if it is on a timer, why is this different for a pressure triggered trap? and what is this pressure point is as small as the camera button? Completely absurd this case and it keeps reminding me of the movie Idiocracy.

1. It doesn't
2. Yes there is to the extent I mentioned. There is no way of proving Slater's intention. The whole thing could be an accident; not possible in your example.
3. Correct it could fall off, etc. but a) it would still be a direct consequence of the original intention (that can be proved) and b) the copyright of that part of the video could be up for grabs, just like Slater's image.

Link | Posted on Jul 19, 2017 at 14:00 UTC
In reply to:

Hugo600si: If an animal triggering a camera using a light trap is a photographers copyright, or if it is on a timer, why is this different for a pressure triggered trap? and what is this pressure point is as small as the camera button? Completely absurd this case and it keeps reminding me of the movie Idiocracy.

I assume your are talking about video. Even in those cases there is more than just the idea. There is implicit framing in the decision of where the camera will be attached and which way it will be pointed. There is a decision on when to start and stop filming. Just for arguments sake, in Slater's case the image could have resulted from the monkey "stealing" the camera from him, something not possible in the example you give.

Link | Posted on Jul 19, 2017 at 09:21 UTC
In reply to:

Hugo600si: If an animal triggering a camera using a light trap is a photographers copyright, or if it is on a timer, why is this different for a pressure triggered trap? and what is this pressure point is as small as the camera button? Completely absurd this case and it keeps reminding me of the movie Idiocracy.

You are correct, I oversimplified and expressed myself incorrectly. What I was getting at is that under no circumstance should the image caused him to go broke. Slater had the idea and should be able to capitalize it even if he does not have exclusive use of the image. The PETA case should not be even admitted in court. As for his claim to copyright, he has no case because it amounts to copyright of an idea. Moral of the story: make sure you control at lease one of factors of the image creation... in this case a wireless remote would have done the trick.

Link | Posted on Jul 18, 2017 at 07:49 UTC
In reply to:

Hugo600si: If an animal triggering a camera using a light trap is a photographers copyright, or if it is on a timer, why is this different for a pressure triggered trap? and what is this pressure point is as small as the camera button? Completely absurd this case and it keeps reminding me of the movie Idiocracy.

Even though I think the whole thing is nuts, and Slater should be given rights to the picture, I do see a slight difference between a laser triggered image and Slater's case. In the former everything (i.e. framing) except the moment of the shot is of the author's making. In Slater's case nothing about the image is of his making except the un-proven decision of giving the primate his camera.

Link | Posted on Jul 17, 2017 at 08:07 UTC
On article DPReview Asks: What was your first camera? (766 comments in total)

First camera: 1977 Nikon AE-1. First digital: 2001 Minolta DiMAGE S404. First DSLR: 2004 Nikon D100

Link | Posted on Nov 4, 2016 at 12:31 UTC as 634th comment | 1 reply

Is DPR so hard up for content?

Link | Posted on Oct 31, 2016 at 10:52 UTC as 9th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

Benoz: My niece's husband is a cameraman employed by a television station.
Who holds the copyright to his work...the cameraman or the TV station?
We all know the answer to that!
The monkey took the shots with the photographer's camera already set to take those pictures.
IMO the photographer has the rights to the images.
The monkey wouldn't have the ability to just pick up a camera, switch it on, set it up and take selfies! :-)
Whether there is any benefit or not by requesting the image to be deleted is irrelevant.

It is not the same, the station pays the cameraman and all actions of the cameraman are intentional following orders or directives given by the station. This case was an accident, totally different.

Link | Posted on Aug 7, 2014 at 07:08 UTC
In reply to:

mrmut: This is rude. I would sue, and request reparations.

The same situation is if a remote IR trigger is set, which would result in a photo when an animal snap it. If not for a photographer, the image would not exist.

Your example is incorrect. The IR trigger analogy would be valid if the camera had INTENTIONALLY been give to the monkey. But is was an accident and no one can claim rights to an accident.

Link | Posted on Aug 7, 2014 at 07:04 UTC

The intention of the photographer should be the determining factor here. If the photographer had purposely given the monkey the camera as part of novel way of obtaining an original perspective then the requests would be justified. But any image that results from an accident and where the photographer has had no direct or indirect intervention in the firing of the camera – this case - cannot be considered “his” image, so the request is not justified.

Link | Posted on Aug 7, 2014 at 07:00 UTC as 399th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

Russell Evans: Is "Editors Opinion" going to be attached to all like articles in the future? It would be really helpful if it were, so I could easily avoid ever clicking through one of these again.

Thank you
Russell

If you want hard facts wait for the review. That is by far the main reason I come to this site. But I still fail to see sunnycal’s and Russell’s point. If you don’t find value in the editor’s opinion of a press release don’t read it; end of story. The editor’s greatly superior experience and knowledge of the market is what makes his post different to that of the average forum poster. As for his credibility it comes years of building it and is in no way undermined if he stays transparent.

Link | Posted on Mar 5, 2013 at 09:18 UTC
Total: 10, showing: 1 – 10