Capture by A photoblog

Read Post

Capture: Howling at the Moon

163 Responses

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

  • Hebe, in reply to Sacha,

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

    But not a perfectly saleable "only you have this particular coat/photo" digital image. Exclusivity confers value in many markets -- how much would someone have paid for The Scream if there were 20,000 Screams instead of three or four.

    As a creative type, I cannot understand why it is okay for a picture or an idea I might make to be taken over by another person for their gain or pleasure, when it would not be okay for me to take over something with a more physical presence (coat, brolly, car) that someone else wishes to sell.

    Christchurch • Since May 2011 • 2553 posts Report Reply

  • Lilith __, in reply to Hebe,

    But not a perfectly saleable “only you have this particular coat/photo” digital image. Exclusivity confers value in many markets – how much would someone have paid for The Scream if there were 20,000 Screams instead of three or four.

    Intellectual property is different from physical property. As Sacha says, intellectual objects can be infinitely copied without physical loss, but that doesn’t mean there’s no loss of value.

    With regards to The Scream, it would be worth a lot less as an object it it hadn’t been so widely reproduced! But a text, or a digital photo, which in a sense has no original, and can’t be reduced to a physical object, still has an author and a value. It’s just more complicated to price, sell, and to prevent unauthorised use.

    Dunedin • Since Jul 2010 • 3411 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown, in reply to Hebe,

    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.

    As Sacha notes, you haven't deprived them of it in the first place. You've created a copy. They still have the original.

    The lines in any reasonable view of copyright are very fuzzy. We've all watched infringing YouTube videos and laughed at viral pictures. Important images of war and peace always transcend their copyright status.

    The copyright maximalist world would be a horrible one, and out of step with reality. Several submitters to the last round of copyright law amendments were still trying to limit the right to make temporary copies -- i.e.: load a web page in one's browser.

    Some news companies have tried to demand permission for bloggers to quote -- or even link to -- their content. The TV show I present relies heavily some weeks on the "for purposes of criticism and review" part of the Copyright Act.

    A case like Jackson's rests more, I think, on things around being a good internet citizen.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 18512 posts Report Reply

  • Hebe, in reply to Russell Brown,

    The copyright maximalist world would be a horrible one, and out of step with reality.

    Agreed. I admit to a certain amount of Devil's advocacy here; but the property one is a duality I have not yet reconciled in my own head.I'm glad that my first love is creating gardens; a snip here, a twig there and a pocketful of seed don't injure my garden, my pocket, nor my feelings.

    Christchurch • Since May 2011 • 2553 posts Report Reply

  • Jonathan Ganley,

    But many of our friends do try to make a living out of it. And several have had their images taken and re-used by profit-making media outlets without even a credit

    A good first step is to always protect your work by putting your copyright and contact details in the metadata of the image. I don't post any image anywhere without this information in place. When I started my blog in 2009 I bought an application called Metamachine to do the job, but also found it could be done to some extent with Adobe Bridge and other free applications such as Reveal. This metadata information is locked into place by Metamachine and survives the upload/download process of images to and from Blogger, Tumblr, Twitter and Public Address for example. However, I found it was removed by Flickr.

    The New Zealand AIPA site (Advertising & Illustrative Photographers Association) has some useful resources, including guidelines for licensing and copyright prepared by the law firm Clendons in 2006. After reading up on the meaning of terms such as 'one use only' and 'exclusive' and 'non-exclusive' licences, look under contracts and forms and download the editable Licence and Order confirmation PDF form that all New Zealand photographers can use, not just members of the AIPA. Fill this out and present it to your client, even if they are only giving you a credit, and hopefully there will be no argument.

    Maungawhau • Since Dec 2006 • 169 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha, in reply to Hebe,

    Exclusivity confers value in many markets

    Digital ushers in a big shift from scarcity to adundance, so the traditional value equations - and some business models - don't tend to survive.

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 16277 posts Report Reply

  • Lilith __, in reply to Hebe,

    I admit to a certain amount of Devil’s advocacy here;

    That’s just as well; if you got caught lifting things at Bally’s, you’d get banned from the store, and how would you hold up your head in polite company then?! ;-)

    Dunedin • Since Jul 2010 • 3411 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha, in reply to Lilith __,

    With regards to The Scream, it would be worth a lot less as an object it it hadn’t been so widely reproduced!

    Exactly. Popularity, recognition and relevance are modern currencies. Well, unless you're a hipster :)

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 16277 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha, in reply to Jonathan Ganley,

    Thanks, Jonathan. From a non-profit view, can I also take recommend Creative Commons Aotearoa. The assumption there is that you'll license how you want people to *share* your works, rather than forbid that.

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 16277 posts Report Reply

  • JacksonP, in reply to Russell Brown,

    A case like Jackson’s rests more, I think, on things around being a good internet citizen.

    I think you could leave out the 'internet' bit, cause this is real life, as Ladyhawke says. ;-)

    Auckland • Since Mar 2011 • 2107 posts Report Reply

  • Steve Barnes,

    Attachment

    Still on topic I see, Howling at the moon an all that.
    Anywho. My sister sent me this pic, nothing to do with moons or copyrights but an image of London's "preparations" for the "Games"
    She captures it well I think.

    The wireless north ;-) • Since Dec 2006 • 4613 posts Report Reply

  • Hebe, in reply to Steve Barnes,

    My sister sent me this pic, nothing to do with moons or copyrights but an image of London's "preparations" for the "Games"

    10 thousand words

    Christchurch • Since May 2011 • 2553 posts Report Reply

  • JacksonP, in reply to Steve Barnes,

    She captures it well I think.

    And how. I heard a discussion about the way the Olympics is being used as some kind of anti-terrorist whipping boy. Seems they might be right.

    Auckland • Since Mar 2011 • 2107 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown, in reply to Steve Barnes,

    She captures it well I think.

    That's an extraordinary picture.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 18512 posts Report Reply

  • nic.wise, in reply to Steve Barnes,

    @Steve, you missed the rocket launchers on the apartment block roofs. I am NOT kidding.

    Wired

    About 20 mins walk from our old place in E14. Glad we dont live over there now. Just don't mention "olympic", "2012", "London", "Games" etc in ANY context in print (or billboards, or shop displays, or pub signs) or the copyright police will take you away.

    OK, that one is a bit of a joke. But only in that they will fine you - a LOT - not take you away.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 83 posts Report Reply

  • DeepRed, in reply to nic.wise,

    @Steve, you missed the rocket launchers on the apartment block roofs. I am NOT kidding.

    And to think that Montreal 1976 was paranoid in the wake of the Munich Massacre.

    The southernmost capital … • Since Nov 2006 • 4060 posts Report Reply

  • Chris Waugh, in reply to Ian Dalziel,

    Mt Albert is Mt Vic’s consort, and thrusts up over Newtown/Berhampore, kinda behind the zoo,

    Indeed. About hereish. The two green rectangles are the hockey stadium I spent a lot of time at during high school. Friends of mine were in the 1st XI. Not that any of that is in anyway relevant to the discussion...

    Beijing • Since Jan 2007 • 1964 posts Report Reply

  • Ian Dalziel, in reply to nic.wise,

    the rocket launchers on the apartment block roofs.

    I guess they have an acceptable level of urban collateral damage that they will tolerate, just what does become of any plane they shoot down over a densely populated area?
    I wouldn't wanna be in Rahm Emanuel's Chicago over the next few weeks either! I suspect it will be way worse than Daley's Democratic convention craziness, back in the day....
    Hey, let's build a big conference centre and attract that kinda business to Auckland or Chchch....

    Christchurch • Since Dec 2006 • 4555 posts Report Reply

  • Ian Dalziel, in reply to Russell Brown,

    You’ve created a copy.
    They still have the original.

    bootleg brolley anyone...

    Christchurch • Since Dec 2006 • 4555 posts Report Reply

  • Lilith __,

    bootleg brolley anyone?

    Sounds uncomfortable! ;-)

    Dunedin • Since Jul 2010 • 3411 posts Report Reply

  • Fooman, in reply to Lilith __,

    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?

    10%, as far as I know, is not enshrined in legislation or common law.

    FM

    Lower Hutt • Since Dec 2009 • 86 posts Report Reply

  • Fooman, in reply to David Hood,

    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.

    The Copyright Act 1994, Section 14, would appear to disagree with you:

    A work is not original if—

    (a) it is, or to the extent that it is, a copy of another work; or

    (b) it infringes the copyright in, or to the extent that it infringes the copyright in, another work.

    (a) suggests that if the work is a copy of another work, it is not original. Even if it is a copy of a public domain image (e.g. a image out-of-copyright), and the intention is to make a close-as-to-exact copy of the work, I don't see how that could be defined as an original work, in terms of the Act.

    It seems obvious to me that faithful reproduction of images, either copyright, or not, are not in themselves copyrightable (this actually makes sense, otherwise copyright would turn into a joke - I could claim copyright on anything I copied if "sweat of the brow" was involved)

    Some libraries have this sorted out, and simply ask for acknowledgement as the source of the image. Others claim copyright on faithful copies of public domain images. Which doesn't sit well with me.

    FM

    Lower Hutt • Since Dec 2009 • 86 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown, in reply to Fooman,

    Some libraries have this sorted out, and simply ask for acknowledgement as the source of the image. Others claim copyright on faithful copies of public domain images. Which doesn’t sit well with me.

    Me neither, although there has been a strong commons culture at the National Library in recent years.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 18512 posts Report Reply

  • Steve Barnes, in reply to nic.wise,

    @Steve, you missed the rocket launchers on the apartment block roofs. I am NOT kidding.

    Nah, I missed nothing, my Sister lives in London and she took the shot. I heard abut the Missile Launchers the other week. In all the UK Govt. is spending over 1 billion Pounds on defence for the Games.

    The wireless north ;-) • Since Dec 2006 • 4613 posts Report Reply

  • Steve Barnes, in reply to Jos,

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

    I thought that were a Dragon passing in the night.

    The wireless north ;-) • Since Dec 2006 • 4613 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.