FilmDigital

Lives in United States United States
Joined on Feb 3, 2007

Comments

Total: 4, showing: 1 – 4
In reply to:

FilmDigital: Incredibly creative? Not really. A very good eye for design and composition perhaps.

And I hate to be the one to break the news, but this has been done before by many a photographer ... some not as well, but others quite a bit better, with more "soul" and depth to the imagery.

I'm not "wet blanketing" the images or the thread. My comment has to do with dpreview characterizing the images as "incredibly creative." I don't agree. I like and enjoy and appreciate most of the images and find them whimsical for the most part. But "incredibly creative?" No. Not in my view. That doesn't diminish the quality of the images whatsoever.

Link | Posted on Jul 18, 2017 at 12:53 UTC

Incredibly creative? Not really. A very good eye for design and composition perhaps.

And I hate to be the one to break the news, but this has been done before by many a photographer ... some not as well, but others quite a bit better, with more "soul" and depth to the imagery.

Link | Posted on Jul 17, 2017 at 20:54 UTC as 15th comment | 4 replies
In reply to:

Trike: The slippery slope here is the part about how he doesn't own the copyright because he didn't press the shutter. Owning the camera, setting it up, going to the location, post-processing, intentionality versus happenstance... none of that matters, apparently.

That opens every single photo which is not manually triggered by a human to public domain. Camera traps on animal trails, self-timer shots, photos taken by household pets who accidentally push the button, timelapse exposures, the whole shebang.

That's right. The whole shebang, as per my post below. Here it is again:

"FYI: no one can copyright an idea. Section 102(b) of the Copyright Act specifically states: “In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated or embodied in such work."

In this case, it means that the photographer's "idea" to let the animals play with the gear and trip the shutter at their discretion CANNOT be copyrighted. ANYONE can use this method, if they so choose, to photograph wildlife.

Copyrights DO cover “original works that the creator fixes in a tangible form." In other words, it protects the specifics of creative works after they're published or printed or otherwise distributed.

Bottom line: nobody can steal or profit from your work without your consent, but you can’t safeguard the idea behind it.

Link | Posted on Jul 15, 2017 at 14:37 UTC

FYI: no one can copyright an idea. Section 102(b) of the Copyright Act specifically states: “In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated or embodied in such work."

In this case, it means that the photographer's "idea" to let the animals play with the gear and trip the shutter at their discretion CANNOT be copyrighted. ANYONE can use this method, if they so choose, to photograph wildlife.

Copyrights DO cover “original works that the creator fixes in a tangible form." In other words, it protects the specifics of creative works after they're published or printed or otherwise distributed.

Bottom line: nobody can steal or profit from your work without your consent, but you can’t safeguard the idea behind it.

Link | Posted on Jul 15, 2017 at 00:41 UTC as 149th comment | 7 replies
Total: 4, showing: 1 – 4