Joined on Nov 12, 2011


Total: 47, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »
In reply to:

mokara: I don't think you need a model release in situations were someone is incidentally in a larger picture. This photograph as shown in reports appears to be part of a much larger image, as judged by the lack of detail and grain in the image.

Also, the person in the image is not identifiable. This woman will have to prove that she is the person in the image, and that will be really hard given that it is essentially a vague shape of a face. She also claims that the hair was "digitally altered", meaning that she did not actually look like that at the time. She claims that she was approached by someone looking like the photographer.....who the hell remembers the appearance of someone they incidentally encountered 8 years ago? This claim does not have a whole lot of credibility.

What about a photo of a crowded street scene anywhere in the world? Does the photographer have to get a release from each of the hundreds of people shown?

Link | Posted on Jan 11, 2017 at 14:27 UTC
In reply to:

Edgar_in_Indy: Anybody have a link to the photo?

If that is the photo, give her a prepaid Chipotle gift card and call it even.

Link | Posted on Jan 11, 2017 at 14:24 UTC
In reply to:

vscd: Don't forget to bring back the developing machines, too. Especially in europe. It would be a shame that I know it's available again but I can't develop it in the EU. Great news, anyway.

The same goes for elsewhere. If I recall correctly, the equipment for processing Kodachrome is quite a bit more elaborate than for other films.

And Kodachrome retains the throne as having the most faithful reproduction of colors ever made in such a product - despite its "slow" speed of ASA 25.

Link | Posted on Jan 11, 2017 at 13:31 UTC
In reply to:

Peiasdf: It is just some glitch with the SONY camera module. By design it shouldn't over heat and from experience, it won't. I recorded 50 minutes straight of my father making dinner last week and no overheating issue. That's 4K with OIS in a warm kitchen and my hand(s) holding the phone.

Peiasdf: Are we to conclude that you have the only one that works properly?

Link | Posted on Jan 5, 2017 at 12:51 UTC
In reply to:

wetsleet: All phones get warm. But no screen, that takes courage. Of course Apple will claim they were the first with this, but we photographers know that Leica beat them to it!

Hey, maybe super-patent-troll Apple will figure out how to get this patented. That would prevent anyone else from using it, and if they were unfortunate enough for this to happen on their product, Apple could sue their pants off, Huge win-win for Apple.

Link | Posted on Jan 5, 2017 at 12:38 UTC
On article Pulse: Extreme weather in black and white (56 comments in total)

Nature is fantastic - ranging from sheer beauty to its incredible destructive ability.

Link | Posted on Jan 5, 2017 at 12:21 UTC as 8th comment

Why does Yahoo wait 2-3 years to inform their customers of these problems?

Could it be because they run out of excuses to hide them at the corporate board meetings?

Link | Posted on Dec 20, 2016 at 12:13 UTC as 2nd comment

+This is scary.

Technology can be wonderful if used for the right purposes, and it can be awful otherwise.

A friend told me about while in Richmond VA several years ago, using standard issue +radar equipment at the time radar cops timed "something" at over 130 mph on a residential street. They never saw anything, but they were sure it was not caused by aircraft.

I can imagine these being used by unscrupulous police departments for speed monitoring, and if anything goes wrong - i.e. something like the above happens - they will still pin a charge on innocent, unsuspecting drivers.

Then they will have to spend their own money to defend themselves in court, without recourse to recover their legal fees. You do know that is the law in most jurisdictions nowdays, don't you?

Or maybe your insurer gets their hands on the data and jacks your rates through the roof.

Link | Posted on Nov 23, 2016 at 11:22 UTC as 1st comment

I figured it was just a matter of time before someone used a 'phone to prove they are up to the task.

Thanks for sharing your pics, they look fine to me.

Link | Posted on Nov 23, 2016 at 10:54 UTC as 27th comment
On article Getty Images sued again, this time by Zuma Press (66 comments in total)

Apparently the only misconception involved is that Getty has somehow been honest in its business dealings.

Look for more plaintiffs now that someone had the courage to go after them in court.

Link | Posted on Aug 11, 2016 at 04:31 UTC as 8th comment
In reply to:

AbrasiveReducer: Interesting explanation. (1) If an image is in the public domain, anyone is free to use it (no doubt, for any purpose). (2) If an image is available for free, its ok to charge people money for something that is in fact, free.

This second item seems like a stretch, but one might argue that if you are stupid enough to pay for something that's free, that's your choice.

AR: If in fact an image is in the public domain - and I'll assume there are no strings attached such as copyright, etc - and then Getty provides the same image to anyone for a service or provider fee, that's one thing.

But if Getty sues the person for further distributing it, or posts it online, or does anything else legal with it, Getty is barking up the wrong tree. They have no legitimate claim to prosecute the person for doing anything they want to with it.

Nobody can claim any higher level of ownership or protection than they are already entitled to. They cannot increase the validity of their claim no matter how badly they want to.

Link | Posted on Aug 4, 2016 at 17:14 UTC
In reply to:

Cortland: I'd like to see her accounting for claiming $1 Billion in damages; it's unlikely that any photographer, anywhere, ever made that much money in her entire life.

I doubt the $1B is just compensatory (what was actually lost due to defendant's wrongful action) damages. It likely includes a hefty amount for the "don't do it again" charges, called punitive, added for punishment.

This reminds me of the shyster lawyer, in the big apple I believe, who made a habit of suing everyone over next to nothing. In one instance he went after the dry cleaner, who either damaged or lost a pair of his pants, for thousands.

Link | Posted on Aug 4, 2016 at 17:01 UTC
In reply to:

Favorable Exponynt: Now for the put it back together video.....

jonBush: One screw and a handful of larger unknown parts.

Link | Posted on Aug 4, 2016 at 16:51 UTC

And people wonder why it costs an arm and a leg for repairs on electronic, photographic, and other very specialized items.....

Link | Posted on Aug 4, 2016 at 16:44 UTC as 12th comment
On article Behind the Shot: Shredded (90 comments in total)

And all this time we've been completely satisfied with nothing better than the results available with a point-and-shoot.

Link | Posted on Jul 27, 2016 at 20:15 UTC as 8th comment
In reply to:

justmeMN: Our (USA) suburban City Council is very supportive of drones. They like their usage for construction project proposals, and construction project updates. I suspect that a system like this would be good for that type of commercial usage. When you are dealing with multi-million dollar projects, a $26,000 drone would be just a drop in the financial bucket. In the long run, It's probably cheaper than repeatedly doing aerial photography by plane too.

A drone can easily and economically be repositioned or reused to get exactly the shot desired - if it is within the capability of the equipment used, i.e. camera, lens, drone, and weather conditions, whereas to keep manipulating a chopper is far more expensive.

This also assumes the operators are both well-qualified.

Link | Posted on Jul 14, 2016 at 03:58 UTC
In reply to:

mydpname: The negative comments amaze me. Here's a portrait studio that survived for 176 years in a cool old building, and the "experts" here are bashing the place based on their own distorted opinions. Wow.

How's that old phrase go about having no taste at all if it wasn't in their mouth?

Link | Posted on Jun 22, 2016 at 01:19 UTC

I don't always understand (appreciate?) all the technical details of such as this, but I love the beautiful photography.

Thanks for sharing the experience.

Link | Posted on Jun 22, 2016 at 00:47 UTC as 5th comment
In reply to:

noflashplease: Aerial photography has been greatly depreciated by the hobby drone phenomenon.

dmanthree: And don't forget the possibility of a sightseeing chopper crash. In April this year five were killed in such a crash near the Smokies.

Link | Posted on Jun 22, 2016 at 00:38 UTC
In reply to:

dan1e: While I have no love for Google, and I think they are wrong, I also think it's a bit rich of Getty Images to talk about a monopoly.

Why do you think it is called a "monopoly"?

Getty is just like any other corporate leach out there - take all they can get any way they can get it - while pointing their finger at everyone else daring to keep them from doing so.

Link | Posted on May 5, 2016 at 08:54 UTC
Total: 47, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »