Canadianguy

Lives in Canada Toronto/Ontario, Canada
Joined on Jun 28, 2004

Comments

Total: 18, showing: 1 – 18
In reply to:

G Sciorio: Looks promissing. I'd like to point out that Binded is not a govermental copyright. Per their FAQ:

"To win statutory damages in a lawsuit in America, you need an official U.S. copyright registration. In many other countries registration is not necessary in most cases."

This is very important for users of the service to understand. You will still need to register your work with your govermental agency.

Also their language of they Binded prevents someone from uploading some elses work is a big vague:

"We care deeply about preventing fraud. It's no easy task. To combat fraud, we are building smart fraud detection tools using machine learning. Also, the blockchain is a built in fraud deterrent.

We have other plans on how we will deal with fraud long-term. We'll share more information in the future."

Hopefully we'll get more info on this soon.

Aren't they settled privately because there is the big stick of the statutory damages - without that leverage - there is really no incentive for the offending party to settle.

I think the big value add would be registration with the LOC when uploaded to the service - that would make me sign up today!

Link | Posted on May 26, 2017 at 21:01 UTC
In reply to:

noflashplease: First off, Benjamin Von Wong is a "Sony Artisan of Imagery," so this is essentially a product placement for Sony. Second, I think that the elaborate setup has taken precedence over any redeeming social message. The end product is less about discarded plastic bottles polluting the oceans and more about a heavily sponsored photographer's risque mermaid photoshoot and lots of free gear from Sony.

Actually, I was replying to noflashplease.

But it is interesting that some people look at that series of photos and see an ad for Sony but not an ad for Broncolor or an ad for the Tomra Systems ASA or an ad for Mermaid Tail designer - Cynthia Brault or the MUA Tamsen Rae or the model Clara Cloutier or even an ad about Conservation...guess its all in our individual perspectives.

If you read his blog: http://blog.vonwong.com/mermaidplastic - Sony isn’t mentioned anymore times than any other person or company that has helped him – so why the focus on Sony?

Again – the end message is what you want to read into it just like any piece of art.

Link | Posted on Dec 14, 2016 at 22:19 UTC
In reply to:

noflashplease: First off, Benjamin Von Wong is a "Sony Artisan of Imagery," so this is essentially a product placement for Sony. Second, I think that the elaborate setup has taken precedence over any redeeming social message. The end product is less about discarded plastic bottles polluting the oceans and more about a heavily sponsored photographer's risque mermaid photoshoot and lots of free gear from Sony.

The end message is what you read into it.

Funny how the only thing you read into it was an ad for Sony because they gave him a camera to use.

Did you know that he is also a Gen Next Photographer for Broncolor? His lights are provided for free by Broncolor.

The TV he used was borrowed from Costco for free.

He also bough in all these other people and companies to complete the project. I am guessing they worked for free as well.

Cinematography: Jordan Hamelin
Bottles: Tomra Systems ASA
Warehouse: Power Dekor
Model: Clara Cloutier
Makeup: Tamsen Rae
Bodypaint: Jean-Michel Cholett
Mermaid Tail: Cynthia Brault
Rigging: Guillaume Briand
Producer: Didier Kaade
Patterns: Allison Blue Visionary Art

Test model: Marielle Chartier Hénault

Plus all the assistants

This is what he is know for - bringing people together to complete a project for little to no money. How many people can you bring together to get something done?

So - funny how the only thing you read into it was an ad for Sony..

Link | Posted on Dec 14, 2016 at 20:09 UTC
In reply to:

jadot: I like this FWIW - it's a lifestyle curiosity more than anything else where the BTS becomes as much a part of the success of the images as the images themselves.
That's OK, I suppose - it's what people are doing today to go the extra mile publicity wise. I'm all for it.
The images aren't really my kind of thing, but I like number 2. It has to be said that with a bit of a set build and some smoke bombs this could probably have been achieved in a car park at midnight, but that's not the point is it?

LOL - Of course if you can get your client to pay for your Journey - that would be best but most clients want the cheapest and fastest way to the Destination.

Link | Posted on Oct 20, 2016 at 14:59 UTC
In reply to:

jadot: I like this FWIW - it's a lifestyle curiosity more than anything else where the BTS becomes as much a part of the success of the images as the images themselves.
That's OK, I suppose - it's what people are doing today to go the extra mile publicity wise. I'm all for it.
The images aren't really my kind of thing, but I like number 2. It has to be said that with a bit of a set build and some smoke bombs this could probably have been achieved in a car park at midnight, but that's not the point is it?

The age old question: What is more important the Journey or the Destination?

Von Wong is obviously of the Journey camp and that's what these BTS videos are all about - to show you his journey and the importance to him of his path to get to his end product.

If you are of the Destination camp - you would have just composited the model shot in a studio into the lava scene in PS and it may have even looked better as a finished image. Add the moon he talked about wanting to have or even dragons flying around breathing fire.

It just depends on what your view of life is about - the jorney or the destination...

Link | Posted on Oct 20, 2016 at 13:58 UTC
On article Field Test: Shooting action with the Nikon D5 (118 comments in total)
In reply to:

O_O: Will there be a big difference using a D500 instead? Many people cannot afford the price for a D5.

Wait - are you saying that the AF systems are different between D5 and the D500? No dedicated CPU for focus?

That's not what Nikon has been saying in their marketing materials:
http://www.nikonusa.com/en/about-nikon/press-room/press-release/iihiz234/Pro-Pedigree%2C-DX-Agility%3A-The-New-Nikon-D500-Establishes-a-New-Era-of-DX-Format-Performance.html

"To keep pace with the action, the D500 is fitted with the same AF system as the Nikon D5, the Multi-CAM 20K AF sensor module, with a separate dedicated processor for AF function. On the D500’s DX format sensor, the 153-point AF array fills the frame from side to side, letting users flawlessly track and lock-onto subjects from the edges of the viewfinder. Like the D5, the D500 utilizes the new 180K RGB Metering system and Advanced Scene Recognition System to help ensure balanced exposures and fantastic color rendition in nearly any shooting situation."

Link | Posted on Sep 12, 2016 at 20:35 UTC
In reply to:

MikeDPR: This case notwithstanding, why do people here hate Getty so much? I ask because whenever I see a non-monopolistic company being treated as evil like this, it makes me pause and think: why don't people take their business elsewhere? You know, people who get paid by Getty and people who buy from Getty. Surely some of you can found a new competing company and offer something much better for those poor souls, no?

@Bobthearch - Hightree wasn't the client. Its the people paying Alamy that were the clients and the service they got was protection from other companies demanding license fees. Now you can argue that service is worth zero because the images were in the public domain but its buyer beware in a free market economy.

Now I look at sending demand letters as taking the bluff a little too far. Its one thing to sell public domain items for a fee but another to bluff someone into paying for a settlement for actions that an informed person would know will never happen.

Hightree's lawsuit appears novel as she is using the DMCA provisions on Integrity of copyright management information. It will be interesting to see what the court decides if it gets that far.

Link | Posted on Aug 2, 2016 at 14:41 UTC
In reply to:

Sacher Khoudari: Let's see the facts: Someone claimed copyright for public domain photos. Whoever did this, made a huge mistake. It is not known, how many pictures this one claimed and how much people had to pay without actually having to (=were damaged).

I don't know if Getty is this one who made this big mistake or they were just fooled by someone else. But if Getty was just fooled, then they have to fight "vigorously" against this one instead of defending pathetically themselves. They owe it to Mrs. Highsmith.

@Bobthearch - if you read the letter carefully - everything is implied by the reader. Its never stated that the image they are talking about is the infringing photo.

"We have seen that an image or image(s) represented by Alamy has been used for online use by your company.
...
Although this infringement might have been unintentional, use of AN IMAGE without a valid license is considered copyright infringement in violation of the Copyright Act, Title 17, United States Code. This copyright law entitles Alamy to seek compensation for any license infringement."

They say you don't have a valid license for the image - which in 99% of cases is true. Of course, images in the public domain don't require licenses...

They say the copyright law entitles them to seek compensation for violation of the law - which is true.

What they don't say is that the image in question violated the law because that's for a court to decide. They also never claim ownership of copyright.

Link | Posted on Aug 2, 2016 at 07:55 UTC
In reply to:

MikeDPR: This case notwithstanding, why do people here hate Getty so much? I ask because whenever I see a non-monopolistic company being treated as evil like this, it makes me pause and think: why don't people take their business elsewhere? You know, people who get paid by Getty and people who buy from Getty. Surely some of you can found a new competing company and offer something much better for those poor souls, no?

@MikeDPR - I am with you on this one.

A company licensing public domain images is like a software company selling open sourced software to me. The buyer is paying for convenience because they are too lazy to research and study what is public domain vs. rights protected work. If anything goes wrong - they just go back to the company to take care of it. They are providing a warranty that the rights you licensed will be backed by Getty. That's what they are paying for as a buyer.

If I was a photographer represented by Getty - I would want them to go after every user who was using my work without paying the license fee.

Wouldn't you as a photographer?

Link | Posted on Aug 2, 2016 at 03:33 UTC
In reply to:

Sacher Khoudari: Let's see the facts: Someone claimed copyright for public domain photos. Whoever did this, made a huge mistake. It is not known, how many pictures this one claimed and how much people had to pay without actually having to (=were damaged).

I don't know if Getty is this one who made this big mistake or they were just fooled by someone else. But if Getty was just fooled, then they have to fight "vigorously" against this one instead of defending pathetically themselves. They owe it to Mrs. Highsmith.

They never claimed copyright for the photos. They claimed they the user didn't have a license for the photos. People just download anything they can find on the Internet these days and just use it however they want it. If a user actually researched what is public domain - they wouldn't fall for a letter like that.

But if I was a photographer that was represented by Getty - I would want their legal department getting every last dime they can from people who steal my work. That's why photographers use an agency - to do the dirty work for them.

But charging money for public domain items isn't new - look at all the different distributions of Linux you can find out there. Its open source but people are still charging money for it.

According to the Library of Congress, those photos in question are in the public domain.
http://www.loc.gov/rr/print/res/482_high.html

Lesson here - if you want money for your photos - don't put it out into the public domain.

Link | Posted on Aug 2, 2016 at 03:08 UTC
In reply to:

wcbert: In Facebook's "Proposed Updates to our Governing Documents" there is mention of "We are proposing this update as part of a settlement in a cout case relating to advertising"

Does anyone know what the court case was about?

Original Lawsuit:
http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/candce/5:2011cv01726/239253/115/

Here is the story about their settlement of that lawsuit:
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/technology/2013/08/facebook-reaches-settlement-sponsored-stories/68752/

Link | Posted on Sep 9, 2013 at 17:22 UTC
On article Robotic Nikon cameras capture Wimbledon 2013 (25 comments in total)
In reply to:

thinkfat: Um, haven't we seen that history making revolutionary invention once or twice already? Just recently at the Olympic Games in London, using 1DX cameras on robotic mounts? Like, there:

http://blogs.reuters.com/photographers-blog/2012/07/04/robo-cams-go-for-olympic-gold/

Hello, Nikon. Glad you made it to the party, late.

You mean like these:
http://blogs.afp.com/correspondent/?post/2012/07/23/Robotic-cameras-have-bird%E2%80%99s-eye-view-of-Games

Just some PR person - recycling old news as new news. DPR should not have fallen for it.

Link | Posted on Jul 14, 2013 at 08:01 UTC
On article Robotic Nikon cameras capture Wimbledon 2013 (25 comments in total)

Old news - these were already used in the London Olympics - they just recycled the same gear.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9eED6Uot0Yw

Link | Posted on Jul 14, 2013 at 07:56 UTC as 11th comment
In reply to:

Macx: This would probably make a good security camera. :)

This is a very specialised piece of equipment. There are probably a lot of broadcasters and TV and YouTube production crews (essentially reality-based TV and video) who will have use for a low-light camera of high quality, but it's limited resolution is going to limit it's longevity and it's usefulness.

"Canon Marketing Japan Inc. will be exhibiting a prototype camera that incorporates the newly developed 35 mm full-frame CMOS sensor and sample footage captured with the camera at SECURITY SHOW 2013 (www.shopbiz.jp/en/ss/)"

Its not targeted at the consumer - most likely Military / Security applications...

Link | Posted on Mar 4, 2013 at 22:59 UTC

Nothing changes for clients and photographers who had/have agreements in place.

Whatever is in the agreement still stands!

Link | Posted on Nov 9, 2012 at 14:50 UTC as 19th comment | 1 reply

As usual, the news release is missing the details.

This is the famous section 13(2) of the old CANADIAN copyright act:
"13 (2) Where, in the case of an engraving, photograph or portrait, the plate or other original was ordered by some other person and was made for valuable consideration, and the consideration was paid, in pursuance of that order, in the absence of any agreement to the contrary, the person by whom the plate or other original was ordered shall be the first owner of the copyright."

The changes made included the elimination of section 13(2) from the act.

The key statement from the old act was this: "in the absence of any agreement to the contrary" - Canadian photographers could always retain their copyright if they had an agreement to the contrary.

Now the status quo is Canadian photographers retain copyrights unless THERE IS AN AGREEMENT TO THE CONTRARY - so the situation can always be changed if there is an agreement in place.

Link | Posted on Nov 9, 2012 at 14:46 UTC as 20th comment | 1 reply

This is what is coming out of the Nikon/Canon camp

http://blogs.denverpost.com/captured/2012/08/01/2012-london-olympics/

Compared what is being shown by Panasonic - not even close.

They need to play to their strengths and fast action sports is not it.

Link | Posted on Aug 3, 2012 at 05:35 UTC as 12th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

DB Custom: I also felt that Olympus was on a serious downward spiral, initially. Then I found out that the camera industry is only about 15% of the company, they're very well known for their endoscopes, medical grade surgical instruments and highly acclaimed for that...a great many hospitals use Olympus endoscopes daily. This alone will fairly easily keep Olympus afloat and new management may actually help the camera side of things start turning a profit...after many years of multi-million dollar losses with consumer grade cameras.

Or they could just dump the consumer camera business.

No other corporation wants their consumer camera business.

Link | Posted on Feb 16, 2012 at 21:21 UTC
Total: 18, showing: 1 – 18