«

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 23:58:07 -0400, PeterN
<> wrote:

>> http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Animal...1-30-09-X2.jpg
>>
>> http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Animal...8_5f4WL-X2.jpg
>>
>
>We have a difference in style. I would have isolated and taken three
>different shots of those guys. They all look interesting, but are not
>relating to each other. One of my shots destined for the SI will
>illustrate my point. As I said you are not wrong in what you do, I just
>prefer isolation or relations.

I actually do more of that "isolated" than you might think. Here's
one from the dog track series, but it's too soft.

http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Animal...1_SgTzk-X2.jpg

I do quite a few bikers in that style:

http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Photog...02-15-1-X2.jpg

http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Photog...11-28-1-X2.jpg

and people in general:

http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Photog...-057cam-X2.jpg

http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Photog...7-14-68-X2.jpg

But, my primary interest is "street", and in "street" I try to capture
the people in the setting. Think of it as theatre photography where
you have head shots for the cast, and scene shots with the cast in
place on the stage. I do the scene shots.

What you like is more in the portrait category. I can't pass up a
close-up of an interesting character's face, but I usually draw back
and try to capture the person in a setting that says why they are
there.

We look at images differently in the "street" forums. You might have
shot that girl in the last link above up close and isolated and think
of the dog and the other lady and the red shirt behind her as clutter,
but in "street" she's OK as part of a crowd.

And, sometimes I go for a shot where there is a crowd, but one person
in the crowd has something special about them:

http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Other/...08-04-1-X2.jpg







--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 01:13:14 -0400, tony cooper
<> wrote:

>http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Photog...7-14-68-X2.jpg

Sent an early version of this one that's too "blue". That's been
changed, but you get the picture.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On 18/08/2012 12:50 AM, Savageduck wrote:
> On 2012-08-17 07:27:48 -0700, otter <> said:
>
>> On Aug 17, 1:43 pm, Alfred Molon <alfred_mo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> I need to get a good compact for use in places where "professional"
>>> cameras are not allowed. Happened to me today in a cafe on the 56th
>>> floor of a skyscraper in Jakarta, Indonesia (the Skye cafe in case you
>>> are interested). There was a view of Jakarta, not a great one, but at
>>> least some view not through glass. Took a shot with a DSLR and was
>>> immediately approached by some clerk who told me that DSLRs are not
>>> allowed and pointed to board where it was written that "professional
>>> cameras are not allowed...".
>>>
>>> In other words you were not allowed to take a photo of the view of
>>> Jakarta from this cafe if you were using a professional camera.
>>
>> That's amazing. It would be interesting to know where this rule came
>> from. Maybe they think they own the rights to the view?
>
> Well, you couldn't get the view without them.
>


Hire a helicopter that should do the trick - cost effective?

On 8/18/2012 1:13 AM, tony cooper wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 23:58:07 -0400, PeterN
> <> wrote:
>
>>> http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Animal...1-30-09-X2.jpg
>>>
>>> http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Animal...8_5f4WL-X2.jpg
>>>
>>
>> We have a difference in style. I would have isolated and taken three
>> different shots of those guys. They all look interesting, but are not
>> relating to each other. One of my shots destined for the SI will
>> illustrate my point. As I said you are not wrong in what you do, I just
>> prefer isolation or relations.
>
> I actually do more of that "isolated" than you might think. Here's
> one from the dog track series, but it's too soft.
>
> http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Animal...1_SgTzk-X2.jpg
>
> I do quite a few bikers in that style:
>
> http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Photog...02-15-1-X2.jpg
>
> http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Photog...11-28-1-X2.jpg
>
> and people in general:
>
> http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Photog...-057cam-X2.jpg
>
> http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Photog...7-14-68-X2.jpg
>
> But, my primary interest is "street", and in "street" I try to capture
> the people in the setting. Think of it as theatre photography where
> you have head shots for the cast, and scene shots with the cast in
> place on the stage. I do the scene shots.
>
> What you like is more in the portrait category. I can't pass up a
> close-up of an interesting character's face, but I usually draw back
> and try to capture the person in a setting that says why they are
> there.
>
> We look at images differently in the "street" forums. You might have
> shot that girl in the last link above up close and isolated and think
> of the dog and the other lady and the red shirt behind her as clutter,
> but in "street" she's OK as part of a crowd.
>
> And, sometimes I go for a shot where there is a crowd, but one person
> in the crowd has something special about them:
>
> http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Other/...08-04-1-X2.jpg
>
Nicely done. The subjects are obviously relating to each other. I am not
against crowd shot, just that I feel they should be relating in some
fashion, or forming an abstract pattern.


--
Peter

On 8/18/2012 1:18 AM, tony cooper wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 01:13:14 -0400, tony cooper
> <> wrote:
>
>> http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Photog...7-14-68-X2.jpg
>
> Sent an early version of this one that's too "blue". That's been
> changed, but you get the picture.
>

I still like it. Sorry you told me it was too blue. I like it as sent.

--
Peter

On 8/18/2012 12:45 PM, Alfred Molon wrote:
> In article <502ebd9a$0$6468$>, PeterN
> says...
>>> They may. If someone puts up a huge building in front of them, they
>>> could sue because of the lost view, "enjoyment of their property" or
>>> loss of "patron's enjoyment." It's been done before. But today,
>>> businesses are ravenous to protect any possible form of income stream,
>>> physical, intellectual, etc.
>>>
>>
>> Wrong. At least in NY there is no such thing as an easement for light
>> and air. I think, but do not know, as you seem to, there are similar
>> laws on most States.
>
> In Munich (Germany) you can't just build a house of whatever size you
> want wherever you want. I'm not an expert but I have heard that such
> things as an obstructed view for people who own an already existing
> house matter. One reason that the centre of Munich has no skyscrapers is
> that no building may be taller than a certain church. The local
> government does it to preserve the city landscape.
>

Which proves that one cannot make a valid legal generalization about
property laws.

--
Peter

tony cooper <> wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 07:27:48 -0700 (PDT), otter
> <> wrote:

>>On Aug 17, 1:43Â*pm, Alfred Molon <alfred_mo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> I need to get a good compact for use in places where "professional"
>>> cameras are not allowed. Happened to me today in a cafe on the 56th
>>> floor of a skyscraper in Jakarta, Indonesia (the Skye cafe in case you
>>> are interested). There was a view of Jakarta, not a great one, but at
>>> least some view not through glass. Took a shot with a DSLR and was
>>> immediately approached by some clerk who told me that DSLRs are not
>>> allowed and pointed to board where it was written that "professional
>>> cameras are not allowed...".

>>> In other words you were not allowed to take a photo of the view of
>>> Jakarta from this cafe if you were using a professional camera.

>>That's amazing. It would be interesting to know where this rule came
>>from. Maybe they think they own the rights to the view?

> They certainly own the rights to what you do when you are standing in
> their property.

?

If I wrote a novel in their cafe, would they own the rights to
the novel?

At best they could put up a sign "no novel writhing here" or
throw me out and don't allow me to come back if I wrote one,
but own the rights? I don't think so ...

-Wolfgang

Alfred Molon <> wrote:

> In Munich (Germany) you can't just build a house of whatever size you
> want wherever you want.

Zoning plan. Doesn't nearly every city have one?

> I'm not an expert but I have heard that such
> things as an obstructed view for people who own an already existing
> house matter.

Not really. If the zoning plan allows you to build a 2 story house
with a steep roof, you can build it. You cannot build arbitrarily
near the border of your lot (and how close depends on height),
because neighbours might want *some* light in their rooms.

> One reason that the centre of Munich has no skyscrapers is
> that no building may be taller than a certain church. The local
> government does it to preserve the city landscape.

Simply a zoning plan. No skyscrapers. Just like "no heavy
industry" in a residental area.

-Wolfgang

Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

> Pebble Beach Company on 17 Mile drive, have the "Lone Cypress" as a
> registered trade mark and is part of their logo.

Trademarks and logos are quite different from copyrights.

> They hold commercial
> rights to the image.

That's what they claim. Doesn't mean it's true, or completely
true. (Think about a shot from a boat on the ocean.)

-Wolfgang

On 8/20/2012 11:38 AM, Savageduck wrote:
> On 2012-08-20 04:30:06 -0700, Wolfgang Weisselberg
> <> said:
>
>> Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Pebble Beach Company on 17 Mile drive, have the "Lone Cypress" as a
>>> registered trade mark and is part of their logo.
>>
>> Trademarks and logos are quite different from copyrights.
>
> They have been successful defending that copyright from infringement in
> the US Courts, where it counts.
>
>>> They hold commercial
>>> rights to the image.
>>
>> That's what they claim. Doesn't mean it's true, or completely
>> true. (Think about a shot from a boat on the ocean.)
>>
>> -Wolfgang
>
> They are not concerned with casual use of the image or graphic
> representation of the image, but commercial use.
>
> "Only where commercial use of the photos (such as advertising) suggests
> some sponsorship by or connection with the Pebble Beach Co. could the
> company invoke the Federal Trademark (Lanham) Act. Among other things,
> this may require the company to prove that the public regards the Lone
> Cypress as their corporate symbol and not merely a popular tourist sight. "
>
> ...and
> "The first reported reference in the Monterey Cypress (newspaper) on
> January 19, 1889 was written by R. Fitch.``Rounding a short curve on the
> beach, we approach Cypress Point, the boldest headland on the peninsula
> of Monterey. Down almost to the water grows the cypress, and on the
> extreme point a solitary tree has sunk its roots in the crevices of the
> wave-washed rock, and defies the battle of the elements that rage about
> it during the storms of winter.''
> Early pictures of the Del Monte Hotel show reference to the Lone Cypress
> Tree in the 1880s.
> In the 1980s, businesses began to appreciate the financial value of
> trademarks beyond just recognition. Federal registrations of trademarks
> were shown to add to an owner's rights in protecting a trademark from
> unauthorized use. Accordingly, Pebble Beach Company began registering
> many of its trademarks, including images of the Lone Cypress Tree. In so
> doing, the company was also able to demonstrate and record their first
> use of the Lone Cypress Tree as a trademark in 1919. The Pebble Beach
> Company, in a compilation of assets listed with the Monterey County Tax
> Assessor in 1992, valued the trademark logo and goodwill intangibles,
> which include the Lone Cypress Tree, at $100 million. ``People can take
> photos of the tree,'' says Hoteling, ``but they can't use them for
> commercial or promotional purposes. The only other business licensed to
> use the Lone Cypress Tree as a logo is the Monterey Peninsula Chamber of
> Commerce.''
> From 1999:
> < http://www.montereycountyweekly.com/.../lone-justice/ >
>
The Lanham Act deals with trademarks and service marks, which are
different from copyrights.
We have a common law copyright in every original image we produce. If
you use the term "Duck photos" in connection with marketing your images
in interstate commerce, you can register the phrase "Duck photos" under
the Lanham Act.


--
Peter
Playing Tony Cooper