Capture by A photoblog

Read Post

Capture: Howling at the Moon

163 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 7 Newer→ Last

  • Lilith __, in reply to JacksonP,

    if there was a way I could allay your fears in posting your best pictures on here without them being pilfered, I would gladly do it.

    Jackson, you're a sweetie. I've thought a bit more about this, and about online sharing in general.

    I launched into commenting here because a particular discussion came up and I had things I really wanted to say. I was in a hurry that day and I chose the first pseudonym that came to mind. I also added some underscores in place of a surname because the form validation didn't seem to want to accept me without a surname (I think this was actually just a random glitch or my being in a hurry!) So if you've wondered why the underscores, now you know...if I could take them out, I would!

    And I post words and pictures here because I want to share and connect, not because I want to show off my work. I take pictures all the time, some of them are careful and considered and a lot are just snapshots or visual note-taking. Certain types of shots I reserve for commercial use or for my own purposes. But there are a lot of quite nice incidental shots that I'm happy to post online if the occasion suits. The visual conversations here are awesome, and the sharing gives me a real buzz.

    I guess it's like the conversation we were having about putting up pictures of ourselves, Jackson. I think it depends what the reason is. If you're building a reputation or brand for yourself, then that's entirely appropriate, although obviously not compulsory!

    But not everything has to be public.

    Dunedin • Since Jul 2010 • 3419 posts Report Reply

  • Ian Dalziel, in reply to Hebe,

    Light fingered...

    (or shoplifting)

    we have a new crime then - shotlifting
    (or possibly picpocketing)

    Christchurch • Since Dec 2006 • 4678 posts Report Reply

  • Ian Dalziel, in reply to JacksonP,

    It is very much a grey area....

    ahem... whoops, not a Jafa but a mag from Yaffa
    ; - )

    Christchurch • Since Dec 2006 • 4678 posts Report Reply

  • Hebe, in reply to Ian Dalziel,

    shotlifting

    On the button.

    Christchurch • Since May 2011 • 2575 posts Report Reply

  • Steve Barnes, in reply to Hebe,

    Were I to do this from Ballantyne’s it would be called theft (or shoplifting).

    Only if you permanently deprived the copyright holder use of their own work.
    Personally I get a bit pissed off with the whole concept of ownership, how the hell can you really own an image? are you going to gouge out the remaining parts of my brain because I might remember something created by someone else?.
    What does it profit a person if they own the world but can't pass wind in front of a camel?.

    The wireless north ;-) • Since Dec 2006 • 4670 posts Report Reply

  • Steve Barnes,

    Attachment

    Anyway, here's the Moon, the same one others claim as their own', note tsunami in background.

    The wireless north ;-) • Since Dec 2006 • 4670 posts Report Reply

  • Steve Barnes,

    More Moon...

    The wireless north ;-) • Since Dec 2006 • 4670 posts Report Reply

  • JacksonP, in reply to Steve Barnes,

    Anyway, here's the Moon, the same one others claim as their own', note tsunami in background.

    Trust you to bring us back to Earth. I didn't want the whole of the moon...

    Auckland • Since Mar 2011 • 2120 posts Report Reply

  • Fooman,

    What I am curious about is the appropriate of digital images (scans) of images that are out of copyright, e.g. any photographs taken in NZ before 1944 had no copyright (expired after 50 years) when the 1994 Copyright Act was passed – this legislation did not re-instate such copyright.

    Copyright is held in (amongst others) artistic works, such as photographs, where there is obvious skill or labour in the production of a original artistic work. Russell’s snap of a sign may fall under this definition. Or he may not – if the photo lacked sufficient originality.

    Online libraries, for example, may claim copyright on scanned out-of-copyright images, but given that they repoduce, with some fidelity (due to the skill and labour of the person doing the scanning), the original, thereby creating a facsimile, with little or no originality, that claim may be invalid. It appears that such claims have never been tested in common law, unlike a most recent case involving different photographs of the same thing.

    This always leads me in a big circle – if I photograph a photograph, and apply a magnitude of artistic change, who owns the copyright? A recent example failed to test this in (US) court. If I copy a digital copy (using my own skill and labour) of a digital copy of an out-of-copyright work, who has copyright – them, me or no-one? If a copy is made of an out-of-copyright image, via an automated process (e.g. a semi-automated desktop transparency scanner), is putting film on a bit of glass and pressing a button sufficient artistic effort to claim copyright?

    Meh.
    FM

    Lower Hutt • Since Dec 2009 • 87 posts Report Reply

  • Lilith __, in reply to Fooman,

    I think you might be conflating 2 meanings of "original": "original" as in "made by me", and "original" as in "innovative".

    Surely a recognisable copy is still a derivative work no matter how many iterations of copying it may have been through.

    Isn't the threshold for re-using someone else's photo 10%? ie. up to 10% of your picture may be borrowed from another image?

    If Russell's photo was solely of something someone else had made, then it might not meet the test of being an original. At least I think that's how it goes.

    And don't libraries and museums often retain the copyright in their collections, even if it's more than 50 years old?

    Dunedin • Since Jul 2010 • 3419 posts Report Reply

  • Jackie Clark, in reply to Lilith __,

    I have to pull myself up sometimes and remember that the community that we have all built is not just us, but thousands of others who never say a word. I think I once compared it to being at a party in a group, and there's another group on the other side of the room who just watch. A little creepy if you look at it like that. And I'm not saying that everyone who doesn't join in the conversation is less than. It's just pertinent when, like me, you are prone to sharing everything. Well, not everything, but enough to be unseemly.

    Mt Eden, Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 3123 posts Report Reply

  • David Hood, in reply to Fooman,

    What I am curious about is the appropriate of digital images (scans) of images that are out of copyright, e.g. any photographs taken in NZ before 1944 had no copyright (expired after 50 years) when the 1994 Copyright Act was passed – this legislation did not re-instate such copyright.

    Broadly, I would agree with you however, as I understand it the test for orignality (being copyrightable) is (in New Zealand, which differs from the U.S. law that most discussion is based on) from the "independent labour and skill" of the artist, evidenced by:
    (a) "very fine work involving a high degree of concentration, skill and care";
    (b) work "of great delicacy and intense application";
    (c) "remarkable" work; or
    (d) work of a "high standard".
    So, in a legally untested kind of way, it is quite possible that a careful reproduction of archival material attaches a copyright to the reproduction, where the original was public domain.

    More pragmatically, most people that have a need to use archival material, have an expectation that they will need to have an ongoing good relation with the archive into the future, so have not been inclined to push matters.

    Lilith also asked:

    And don't libraries and museums often retain the copyright in their collections, even if it's more than 50 years old?

    Short answer no, long answer they hold the original work and so control access to it in conditions of use, which can boil down to a very similar effect.

    Dunedin • Since May 2007 • 854 posts Report Reply

  • Lilith __, in reply to David Hood,

    (a) “very fine work involving a high degree of concentration, skill and care”;
    (b) work “of great delicacy and intense application”;
    (c) “remarkable” work; or
    (d) work of a “high standard”.

    Is this the actual legal wording? Because if it is, it sounds like if I create something quickly, or it’s not very good, it’s not covered by copyright…

    Dunedin • Since Jul 2010 • 3419 posts Report Reply

  • Jos,

    Attachment

    Interesting reading jac, not surprised by any of it of course.

    here's my measly attempt, lacebark tree in the foreground.

    Whakatane • Since Jan 2012 • 853 posts Report Reply

  • Jos,

    Oh the mast pic especially good1

    Whakatane • Since Jan 2012 • 853 posts Report Reply

  • Hebe, in reply to Jackie Clark,

    there's another group on the other side of the room who just watch

    I try on PA to under-share because my life and thinkings, while intensely interesting to me, are eclipsed by many others who think it and say it so much better.

    Christchurch • Since May 2011 • 2575 posts Report Reply

  • Hebe, in reply to Steve Barnes,

    Only if you permanently deprived the copyright holder use of their own work.

    So I can borrow an umbrella or a coat from Bally's, as long as I return it soon after? Doesn't sound right to me.

    how the hell can you really own an image?

    I don't believe a person can "own" an image but s/he owns their interpretation of that image and the work (accrued creativity, skill, education) that has led to the production of that image.

    Christchurch • Since May 2011 • 2575 posts Report Reply

  • Lilith __, in reply to Jos,

    lacebark tree in the foreground.

    Oh Jos, that's really creepy!!

    Dunedin • Since Jul 2010 • 3419 posts Report Reply

  • Jackie Clark, in reply to Hebe,

    I've heard that a lot. I still like to hear everyone's perspectives!

    Mt Eden, Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 3123 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha, in reply to Hebe,

    borrow an umbrella or a coat

    Digitally, you're leaving a perfectly usable coat or brolly behind. It's no longer a zero-sum game.

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 16489 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha, in reply to Jackie Clark,

    another group on the other side of the room who just watch. A little creepy if you look at it like that.

    Those people all have other conversations outside here, drawing on what's shared. Everyone contributes in their own way, just like the rest of life. Perhaps less 'creepy' if you think of it like that.

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 16489 posts Report Reply

  • JacksonP, in reply to Jos,

    lacebark tree in the foreground.

    It is kind of creepy, but also kind of awesome. Werewolf material. ;-)

    Also, cheers for comment. Seemed a different angle to capture it from.

    Auckland • Since Mar 2011 • 2120 posts Report Reply

  • Lilith __, in reply to Jackie Clark,

    I still like to hear everyone's perspectives!

    +1

    Dunedin • Since Jul 2010 • 3419 posts Report Reply

  • Sofie Bribiesca,

    Attachment

    So I was looking at the moon Friday evening but hadn't really noticed it since

    here and there. • Since Nov 2007 • 6007 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown, in reply to Jos,

    here's my measly attempt, lacebark tree in the foreground.

    Super! My first thought was photo-collage. But no!

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 18709 posts Report Reply

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 7 Newer→ Last

Post your response…

Please sign in using your Public Address credentials…

Login

You may also create an account or retrieve your password.