photography documentaries

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by sobriquet, Jun 19, 2010.

  1. sobriquet

    sobriquet Guest

    The UDHR is very clear about the right to share and exchange
    information regardless of any spurious intellectual property claims.
    It does. Just because information belongs to the public domain, that
    doesn't mean that it can't be private property. You might own a book
    that has been published so long ago that any copyright claims have
    long been expired, but that doesn't mean that anyone can break into
    your house to obtain a copy from that book just because it belongs to
    the public domain.
    I don't have any credit card.
    You're a nazi cockroach. I have never claimed that credit card details
    don't belong to the public domain, but nobody has ever argued that
    just because some items of information belong to the public domain
    implies that you must share them with others.
    You can always keep information to yourself, even if that information
    belongs to the public domain. This discussion is only concerned with
    information that has been published by people who subsequently claim
    they get to dictate terms and conditions regarding access to that
    information.
    That's on par with people who put their pictures on the internet and
    claim that this doesn't imply that other people are allowed to obtain
    a copy from those pictures and share it with others as they see fit.
    There is a difference between random people and doctors. Doctors are
    bound by special
    constraints given the personal information they exchange with their
    patients.
    This discussion is not about confidential information. It's about
    information shared with others by its creators who subsequently claim
    they still get to impose their terms and conditions on that
    information after it has been published.
    Then it's not necessarily the person who shares it with others that is
    to blame.
    The blame lays with the individual who stole the information and it's
    that person who is accountable for any problems that arise later on as
    a consequence of that crime.
    Those laws can't be taken serious given the way the government is a
    mere extension of the intellectual property mafia.
    Just like the laws in former Nazi Germany couldn't be taken seriously
    either, given that the government was behaving in a criminal way and
    violating human rights.
     
    sobriquet, Jun 23, 2010
    1. Advertisements

  2. sobriquet

    Pete Guest

    Three genuine questions...

    1. If I make one of my photos available on a public website (as I would
    if I wanted a critique of it), have I published it and/or given up some
    of my rights?

    The reason I ask is this: if I later wish to submit the photo for
    publication or make prints available for sale, I expect to be asked
    "Has this image already been published? Is it available for sale
    anywhere?" along with other questions to establish my authenticity.

    2. If I have one of my photos published in, say, a journal or have sold
    it via a local gallery/shop or it hangs on the wall of a local coffee
    shop: would it be unkind/unfair to later put the image on a public
    website?

    My gut feeling is that the answer is yes to both questions. I realize
    the answer may depend on the pixel size of the image I put on a website
    e.g. a 200x200 pixel image is not capable producing a large print,
    which leads to:

    3. What is the maximum image size to put on a website such that one can
    still keep "ownership" of the photo? Again, I realize that an image of
    a sheet of white paper only needs one pixel to make a huge print.

    Feedback will be greatly appreciated.
     
    Pete, Jun 23, 2010
    1. Advertisements

  3. sobriquet

    sobriquet Guest

    That depends on a reasonable interpretation of 'rights'. It doesn't
    mean you get to impose arbitrary terms and conditions on what people
    are allowed to do with a picture that they encounter on the internet
    if you put your own pictures online somewhere.
    It would be silly to suppose you can dictate that they can't retain a
    copy of your picture or they can't share such a copy with others.
    That's equally silly as a painter who sells a painting and expects he
    has the right to impose arbitrary restrictions on the way the new
    owner of the painting is allowed to enjoy that work of art, like
    saying the painting is not allowed to be hung in front of a window
    where it's visible from the street or that the owner is not allowed to
    take a picture of the painting or allow anyone to take a picture of
    the painting.

    On the other hand, if people try to sell your picture or claim they
    have made it, or they use your picture in some way to make money
    without consulting the original photographer in advance about this, I
    think it becomes a different matter. That's more like a genuine rip-
    off on the creative efforts of someone else. But if you share their
    stuff with others via the internet without any commercial interests
    whatsoever, it's a different issue and you don't really infringe on
    their right or ability to make a living from their creative skills.
    A photographer or artist can always decide to show his work in a
    private venue where he obviously does have the right to prohibit
    people from taking pictures of his work in order to prevent it from
    ending up in the hands of others where the original photographer or
    artist is practically unable to impose controls on how their creative
    output is used or shared.
    You can say the picture has been available online (perhaps a reduced
    version, where you retain the original or the raw files in full
    resolution).
    Most photographers don't share their raw files online, so they always
    are able to proof they were the original creators of a picture if
    someone tries to exploit their work financially without negotiating
    the terms of such a commercial deal in advance with the original
    creator of the work (in order to allow them a fair share of the
    profits).
    I don't see how one necessarily detracts from the other. But if you
    sell pictures it does make
    sense to tell the new owner about the status of your picture regarding
    the number of copies
    that have been sold or might be sold in the future. You might agree to
    sell pictures exclusively and then it would be fair not to sell the
    pictures to others or give them away, but you can also sell them to
    everyone, just like many people can buy and enjoy the same music and
    it doesn't really detract from the pleasure that a copy of the music
    is available to many people, so it's not a somewhat more exclusive
    experience like visiting a live concert of music.
    Imagine a musician records music and he sells only a limited number of
    copies, say 100 copies, I don't see how these people are going to
    enjoy their copy more, knowing that only 100 copies have been sold or
    whether they would enjoy it to the same degree knowing that
    100.000.000 copies have been sold.
    That depends on technological developments and the way they (ought to)
    influence
    our interpretation of rights associated with the creation of digital
    content (like the right to be acknowledged for your efforts in case
    you make significant contributions to the pool of creations in human
    culture).
    I would say it's fine if an photographer would take pictures at 12 to
    24 megapixel and they share 1 to 5 megapixel versions for people to
    share online as free publicity which might motivate people to pay for
    an exhibit of new work that the photographer can later make available
    online (or at the same time if he expects people to enjoy fine quality
    prints of his work anyway and can easily make in income that way or by
    selling signed printed pictures).
     
    sobriquet, Jun 23, 2010
  4. sobriquet

    Peter Guest

    Depends on the rules you agree to by posting. On some sites you give the
    site owner an exclusive or non-exclusive right to reproduce on others you
    don't. Read the posting agreement carefully.

    Answer truthfully in accordance with the above. If you are in doubt,
    disclose and explain.

    Most people purchasing a photo do not expect a one of a kind image, unless
    you tell them that it is the only print that has been made.
    Some artists sell limited edtion prints. Again, disclose truthfully and
    there will not be grounds for complant.
    No matter what size you put on the web, you still retain ownership, unless
    you specifically grant rights. Don't rely on the "logic" of a thief/troll.
    In any event protect your rights with some form of copyright notice.
     
    Peter, Jun 23, 2010
  5. sobriquet

    sobriquet Guest

    Ownership my ass.. that's only the misguided delusion of nazi
    cockroach photographers who don't understand the basics of information
    technology.
    That's like saying you can 'create' a bitstring like
    0010110111111100000 and mention it
    in a newsgroup and then when other people mention that bitstring in
    another newsgroup, you can legally harass them because they are
    violating the imaginary terms and conditions of the bitstrings you
    publish.

    What exactly is a photographer going to do when they have put their
    picture online somewhere and they find out other people are sharing
    their picture on another website?

    Say you submitted your picture to the Canon assignment photography
    contest and subsequently you find that your picture is being shared
    here:
    http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/4193752/the_canon_challenge

    How are you going to prevent people from sharing your photo if you
    think it's your property and you don't approve of your photo being
    shared like that?
     
    sobriquet, Jun 23, 2010
  6. sobriquet

    Pete Guest

    Thanks, that's exactly what I'm trying to learn: a reasonable
    interpretation of 'rights'.

    I've said before about being very surprised to read in books "This book
    must not be lent, resold" etc. etc. Libraries lend us books and I can
    buy them in second-hand bookshops. The rights claimed in these books
    appear to be unreasonable.

    If people wanted to share my pictures with others I would be very pleased.
    Yep. I would be unhappy if one of my pictures was used in that way and
    I certainly don't have the resources to take action if it was.
    That makes a lot of sense to me. I have shared full res. JPEGs with
    members of my family and, of course, companies who have turned them
    into prints. The chance of being ripped-off is quite low. Risk
    assessment is not a term I like, but it is important. Before entering
    into a commercial contract/deal, each side must assess the risks
    (costs) of the other side not honouring the agreement.
    Yep. I expect myself to know all the answers before I do something and
    forget that I can learn the answers as I go along via discussion.
    Limited edition marketing isn't dead yet. Can't remember the name for
    this psychological technique; just wish it was history. There will
    always be a cosy feeling for "I have the only one." or "I have one of
    the only 10000."
    That is very helpful. I can experiment with shared image resolution to
    ensure it cannot match the original work. I hadn't even thought about
    the aspects of technological developments, publicity, or even signing
    my own work. This far, my work would have been rejected if it had my
    signature on the image. Something to aim for next year, perhaps.

    Thank you for taking the time to reply.
     
    Pete, Jun 23, 2010
  7. sobriquet

    Pete Guest

    Thanks Peter, good points.

    Total honesty is the best policy combined with asking questions, just
    trying to cover and discover what may come up in the future. Fighting a
    case of theft entails a great deal of expense with no guarantee of
    winning.

    It can be very difficult to protect work with a copyright notice. From
    what I have read, both the (c) and the copyright symbol are meaningless
    in many countries, as is the phrase "all rights reserved". I got the
    impression that "Copyright <year> by <author>" is the most widely
    accepted, but the slightest error renders it meaningless.
     
    Pete, Jun 24, 2010
  8. sobriquet

    sobriquet Guest

    It's meaningless anyway, as I happen to live in a country where I'm
    legally allowed
    to make a copy of a picture for personal use, regardless of any
    copyright notice.

    It might be illegal for me to share it with others subsequently, but
    in practice people
    can exchange pictures via p2p without any significant chance they will
    face legal consequences for ignoring spurious intellectual property
    claims.

    So in practice, photographers have no effective way to prevent others
    from sharing their pictures once they put them online and allow a copy
    to end up in the hands of others.
     
    sobriquet, Jun 24, 2010
  9. sobriquet

    sobriquet Guest

    If you're bothered and have the cash to sue them. Also, what will you
    do if your pictures
    are used in china or some remote place? I think it's more practical to
    accept the fact that your pictures can't really be protected once you
    have put them online unless you are working for some kind of stock
    agency that can put some serious effort in the legal hassle.
    As an individual artist, you can only show your pictures in a private
    venue to avoid them ending up in the hands of others, but that might
    also have the downside that it limits your exposure.
     
    sobriquet, Jun 24, 2010
  10. sobriquet

    sobriquet Guest

    Why share pictures at all if you are unwilling to share them at a
    decent size?
    You'll probably piss off a fair number of people who can't be bothered
    to have a look
    at your work if you screw up your pictures with jpg compression or you
    only show them
    at a very limited size.

    Also, it's kind of silly to take pictures with good DSLR equipment if
    your final
    results will look like they might have been taken with a rather lousy
    mobile phone camera.

    The only exception I can think of is when you were accidentally at the
    right place at the right time to take a picture of a unique event, so
    the picture is relatively rare and might have a rather obvious
    commercial value. Then it seems it might be a good idea to avoid
    sharing it in high resolution until you have managed to exploit the
    commercial potential of such an item.

    There might be some degree of competition between photographers to
    come up with original images and developing their own style and I
    think photographers who are willing to share their creations with
    others and allow others to enjoy their creations in some detail are
    more likely to get exposure and publicity and they might eventually be
    more likely to find a way to market their images compared to a
    photographer who is paranoid about his/her images ending up in the
    wrong hands and basically keeps them off the internet.
    There are many people who simply enjoy the sheer act of sharing their
    work with others and who like to collect the work of others for the
    simple reason that it might inspire them to create more compelling
    work themselves. Hence they enjoy a kind of synergy from the fact that
    the web provides such a powerful way to share their work where they
    can reach such a wide audience and have direct interaction with others
    who enjoy their work and might feel compelled to share their work and
    insights for the mutual benefit of people who enjoy sharing and
    creating pictures.

    People who are paranoid about sharing have failed to grasp the
    significance of information technology and they would be better off
    staying off the internet and are probably even wasting their time with
    digital photography because they only have dollar signs in front of
    their eyes and can't figure out the value of sharing information and
    the benefit of having a huge pool of shared collective culture
    available to benefit from in ways that don't necessarily translate to
    a short-term financial gain.
     
    sobriquet, Jun 24, 2010
  11. sobriquet

    Ray Fischer Guest

    That's a bald-faced lie. We already proved you to be full of shit
    with that ridiculous claim, but because you're a thief you need
    to push that lie in order to justify yoru stealing.
     
    Ray Fischer, Jun 24, 2010
  12. sobriquet

    Ray Fischer Guest

    What a pathetic excuse, hypocrite.
     
    Ray Fischer, Jun 24, 2010
  13. sobriquet

    sobriquet Guest

    ***************************************************************************
    By reading and/or replying to this usenet posting, you acknowledge
    that you have read, understood and accepted the terms and conditions
    found at:
    http://www.ibbu.nl/~nsprakel/eula.txt
    ***************************************************************************

    You're a nazi cockroach who obviously lacks the language comprehension
    skills to
    grasp the implications of Article 19 of the UDHR.

    http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#a19

    "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this
    right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to
    seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and
    regardless of frontiers."

    Freedom of expression clearly entails the freedom to receive and
    impart information through any media.

    The internet in particular as a specific kind of medium, and
    information in the context of this statement, as far as the internet
    or computers are concerned, is simply digital information in the form
    of bitstrings. Like the bitstrings people express and exchange on p2p
    networks.

    That obviously includes information that has been accompanied by
    spurious intellectual property claims.

    So if you create a picture with a digital camera, which happens to be
    a bitstring, you better think about the implications of article 19 of
    the UDHR when you put that bitstring on the internet, because article
    19 of the UDHR is applicable to such items of digital information and
    hence if you express such information by putting it on the internet,
    this article 19 actually implies that other people enjoy the freedom
    to copy and share that information with others as they see fit and
    this freedom happens to be an essential human right, regardless of
    what nazi cockroaches might claim who happen to wipe their ass with
    human rights.
     
    sobriquet, Jun 24, 2010
  14. sobriquet

    sobriquet Guest

    Ok, so show me a picture on flickr which is accompanied by the
    statement "No rights reserved".

    I bet you can't, because you're talking out of your ass again like the
    typical nazi cockroach you are.

    Will you ever learn to respect human rights some day?
     
    sobriquet, Jun 24, 2010
  15. sobriquet

    Peter Guest

    The purpose of the copyright notice is just what the words mean. To put the
    world on notice that you claim rights to the work. The instant your work is
    created you have a common law copyright. The generally accepted short form
    simply takes away a defense of accidental unauthorized use. the notice also
    makes it clear that the work has not been placed in the public domain. If
    you do not take some reasonable step to protect your rights, you can lose
    them. the notice serves that function. The form is not really important, as
    long as it is clear and unambiguous. Intellectual property litigation is
    expensive. Usually the guy with the deepest pocket wins.
    In a prior posting I mentioned that prior to posting any image I thought
    might have commercial value, I would only do so on a site with right click
    disabled.
     
    Peter, Jun 24, 2010
  16. sobriquet

    Better Info Guest

    Don't get me wrong. I agree with you and your country's premise on the idea
    of sharing information freely with all of humanity. More than you can
    imagine. I'm not denying information to others nor your desire and need to
    share information with all of humanity. But I have imposed (on myself) a
    cut-off point on the quality (and quantity) of that information that I will
    personally convey.

    Let us suppose a unique situation, in which one had the information and
    knowledge to easily and quickly perform interstellar travel. Would you
    convey that knowledge to humanity without question nor hesitation?

    You might.

    I would not. Not for one moment would I consider sharing that information.

    And here is my reasoning: Until humanity has learned to treat all life on
    earth with the respect that it deserves, I see absolutely no reason to help
    them spread their destructive and self-serving values across the stars. In
    this instance I would only let them know that such means of travel is not
    only possible, but that I can prove it (they can only hope of resurrecting
    some degrading bits on 5.25" floppies one day). I would not, however, share
    the full knowledge of that means of travel if asked. There is more
    responsibility to the sharing of knowledge than just financial gain for
    one's self. Some values go far beyond that of humanity's values. Were
    Einstein even half as smart about human behavior and the natural world as
    he was about physics, he would have destroyed more than half of his body of
    knowledge before considering sharing it.

    Or let's take a less esoteric example: Humanity has denied you the right to
    live freely and wholesomely due to some bigoted reasoning. Let's, for
    example, take the situation of a black person living in S. Africa. Due to
    having lived a lifetime of prejudicial oppression, you have been rejected
    and harassed your whole life. Yet, you are a spectacularly talented maestro
    when it comes to image capture and composition, or in music, or any of the
    arts. Are you going to better humanity through your talents? Make the lives
    of those better who have done nothing but made your own life into a living
    hell? Some might, those who have a quality of forgiveness far beyond that
    of a saint. Others would not. They might see humanity as undeserving of
    benefiting from their own life. (Aside: I don't believe in the principle of
    "forgiveness", it denies the transgressor the lessen they were meant to
    learn. "Forgiveness" is a selfish and self-serving act that is only meant
    to benefit the forgiver, and does nothing to benefit the transgressor in
    any way.)
    I'm not so insecure. I know for a fact that the equipment used means
    nothing to the intrinsic value of an image.
    Among one of many reasons. I, for personal reasons, have found that
    humanity does not deserve what I have (and can do) in my possession at this
    moment. When, and if, the time comes that humanity will change its values
    overall, then perhaps I might share more. Until then .... what I have
    documented and discovered will now die with me. The price of sharing things
    goes far beyond any financial value. In my book. In truth, financial
    incentive means little if not nothing.
    More power to them, if that be the case.
    As you must have already gleaned from my previous words, there is MUCH MORE
    to "value" than money.
     
    Better Info, Jun 24, 2010
  17. sobriquet

    Ray Fischer Guest

    The thief screeches his outrage at the truth.
    No, thief, it does not. Making up more lies to justify your thievery
    won't work.
     
    Ray Fischer, Jun 24, 2010
  18. sobriquet

    Ray Fischer Guest

    So that you can steal it, thief?
     
    Ray Fischer, Jun 24, 2010
  19. sobriquet

    sobriquet Guest

    Try and take away this bitstring: 101011110001

    If you can't, you have successfully demonstrated that you're a nazi
    cockroach
    who talks out of his ass.

    If you can, that demonstrates that bitstrings can be taken away and
    hence they
    can be stolen. I never take away any bitstrings myself though, so I
    can't possibly
    be a bitstring thief.
     
    sobriquet, Jun 24, 2010
  20. sobriquet

    sobriquet Guest

    Finally we seem to be coming to some kind of agreement. I'm glad you
    realize you're a nazi cockroach and I hope you will make an effort to
    respect human rights in the future.
     
    sobriquet, Jun 24, 2010
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.