Pages: 1 2 [3] 4   Go Down

Author Topic: Freedom of Panorama  (Read 14398 times)

RSL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 16046
    • http://www.russ-lewis.com
Re: Freedom of Panorama
« Reply #40 on: April 12, 2016, 11:55:42 am »

Quite true Bart. Without payment for a product the product is doomed, but without a product the whole argument is meaningless.
Logged
Russ Lewis  www.russ-lewis.com.

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18090
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: Freedom of Panorama
« Reply #41 on: April 12, 2016, 12:13:21 pm »

Three pages off-topic. Not unusual, though.

I was thinking how can one connect such a diverse discussion and bring it back on topic, which is, supposedly, copyright of buildings, art and interiors when it comes to photography? How can one find a common roof for such disparate things as Trump-land and McDonald's, 99+1 percenters, buildings and corporations, rich and poor, rags to riches?

But despair not, my friends, I think I can encapsulate it all in one single image:

 :)


Rags to Riches
by Slobodan Blagojevic, on Flickr

P.S. For those not familiar with Chicago, the building in the center is the Trump Tower.

Robert Roaldi

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4763
    • Robert's Photos
Re: Freedom of Panorama
« Reply #42 on: April 12, 2016, 01:19:22 pm »

Golden arches hugging Trump! Didn't Trump copyright the colour gold? :)    I bet he meant to.

The only point I was trying to get at in my initial response to this thread (3 pages ago) was that something is being taken away from us (or someone is trying to), visual panorama, view, call it what you like, by entities who did not have to pay us for the privilege. Those entities have power and deep pockets, and the power to do that to us seems skewed to me.

Whether it's incorporated entities or rich one percenters who do that is neither here nor there, and I don't know why we were taken on that pointless tangent, it was certainly irrelevant. No one called them nasty, or I didn't anyway. It just the way things evolved because systems of laws and regulations were in place that allowed it to evolve that way.

More generally, might it not be part of a push to privatize everything, as if every facet of human interaction is a commercial one that needs to be negotiated in some market or other. I know someone would like to charge me to have a view, but just because they want that, and they're rich and powerful, doesn't mean that it's a good idea for us (the general us) that it be the case. Commerce was something our culture invented to provide certain goods and services because it was deemed the best way to provide those. That does not mean that everything should be provided that way. Commerce is subservient to the surrounding culture, it is not the dominant principle. There were nations and economies and empires and wars and progress and invention long before the notion of an incorporated company was codified.
Logged
--
Robert

Zorki5

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 486
    • AOLib
Re: Freedom of Panorama
« Reply #43 on: April 12, 2016, 02:08:35 pm »

But despair not, my friends, I think I can encapsulate it all in one single image:

That was stylish, Slobodan. In several different ways.
Logged

jeremyrh

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2511
Re: Freedom of Panorama
« Reply #44 on: April 12, 2016, 02:24:57 pm »

And those 99% of the population wrote, collectively, in their whole life, including homework assignments while in school, checkbook balancing, etc., less than the 1% of successful writers did in just one tome of their opus. So?

So they're gonna need a new word for "gibberish" after that little outburst!
Logged

Zorki5

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 486
    • AOLib
Re: Freedom of Panorama
« Reply #45 on: April 12, 2016, 02:30:44 pm »

Can it, is it ever, thought offensive by a beautiful person if that person attracts cameras in public places? I don't refer to celebs, just ordinary (extraordinary) people blessed with great looks.

Great looks not... always come with great reasoning, so you can expect all sorts of reactions, I guess.
Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18090
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: Freedom of Panorama
« Reply #46 on: April 12, 2016, 03:04:01 pm »

So they're gonna need a new word for "gibberish" after that little outburst!

Yes, it can be frustrating when you don't get something.

RSL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 16046
    • http://www.russ-lewis.com
Re: Freedom of Panorama
« Reply #47 on: April 12, 2016, 03:25:13 pm »

Sounds like the on-line translations I see from my Chinese granddaughter-in-law's posts.
Logged
Russ Lewis  www.russ-lewis.com.

David Eckels

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3526
  • It's just a camera.
    • Website
Re: Freedom of Panorama
« Reply #48 on: April 12, 2016, 07:17:15 pm »

I like your photograph, Slobodan ;D

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18090
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: Freedom of Panorama
« Reply #49 on: April 12, 2016, 07:48:44 pm »

I like your photograph, Slobodan ;D

Good. Nothing to be embareassed about  :P

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10365
Re: Freedom of Panorama
« Reply #50 on: April 12, 2016, 11:57:25 pm »

Perhaps what is lacking in this thread is an analysis of the fundamental reasons why such laws exist. The following points in the article, which I've highlighted in bold, provide a strong hint.

"Copyright law protects the rights of property owners to make money and otherwise protect the reputation of their intellectual property, and limits the rights of others to associate their own property with it.
That’s why the Port Authority of New York was able to make a serious case, in 2014, that dinnerware being sold by a New York store featuring images of the World Trade Center twin towers was harmful to the Port Authority’s reputation."


Most of us are very concerned about our reputation and appearance, but some more than others. I've noticed over the years that certain people, friends and associates, sometimes object to some of my shots I've  taken of them when they were not 'posing' or not aware that I was taking a photo.

Sometimes such people were perhaps not smiling, were looking a bit sad, or a bit disgusted, or perhaps I'd taken a shot from a certain perspective which had highlighted the size of a lady's bottom.

What has surprised me is that some of those people not only get angry when I show them the photo, but demand that I delete the photo from my records. (I usually oblige, deleting the jpeg for display, but not the RAW image. ;) )

A classic example of this principle that appearances and reputation trump all, is the painting of Winston Churchill at the age of 80, by Graham Sutherland. The portrait was funded by donations from the British parliament.

The portrait portrayed Churchill as a rather grumpy, sad and scowling personality. Both Churchill and his wife were very displeased. The painting was torn into pieces and burned. Here's a link to the details for those interested.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/winston-churchill/11730850/Secret-of-Winston-Churchills-unpopular-Sutherland-portrait-revealed.html

What's interesting is that some years previously, during WWII, Yousuf Karsh had taken a similarly unflattering photo of Churchill, which became very famous. Perhaps his grumpy and scowling appearance was accepted at the time because we were in the middle of a war, and such an appearance was considered to be more appropriate.

Of course, I'm above such petty concerns of my reputation in the mind of others, and my appearance in the mind of others. I understand that opinions exist only in the mind of the beholder. I'm more concerned with 'truth'. (And I'm very humble as you can see.  ;) )

To emphasise my point I'll attach a photo of me at a dinner (taken with my camera and processed by me).

Can you recognise me? Notice that I did not delete this photo.  ;)
Logged

Zorki5

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 486
    • AOLib
Re: Freedom of Panorama
« Reply #51 on: April 13, 2016, 01:12:11 am »

Perhaps what is lacking in this thread is an analysis of the fundamental reasons why such laws exist. The following points in the article, which I've highlighted in bold, provide a strong hint.

Thanks, Ray, but I'd argue that those "fundamental reasons" are well understood; there's nothing new.

The issue is that, instead of fighting abuses, government take an easy route of implementing the broadest possible (== currently tolerable by the majority) bans. And it all worsens every day.

Granted, it's way easier today to share an image. But it is also similarly easier to shoot down a published image that is actually abusive. In fact, technically, it is way easier today to find [nearly] all published images of a particular person and/or property -- and those who're really concerned about their reputation/IP can do it, no problem; there are specialist companies for that. For the rest of us, there's that "complain" button.

Another issue is that the very definition of "abuse" broadens all the time, while the population of official or self-appointed idiots willing to "protect general public" does not show any signs of shrinking. So we have what we have.

I think the fact that Britain is still in the "green" zone on that map in the article that Slobodan shared is largely because it has case-based law system -- something I wish was more widespread.
Logged

Zorki5

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 486
    • AOLib
Re: Freedom of Panorama
« Reply #52 on: April 13, 2016, 01:55:40 am »

But it is also similarly easier to shoot down a published image that is actually abusive.

Another issue is that the very definition of "abuse" broadens all the time

The only hope is that, for those who don't get what real "abuse" is, there's that Streisand effect  :)
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10365
Re: Freedom of Panorama
« Reply #53 on: April 13, 2016, 02:40:43 am »

Abuse is another issue. If someone deliberately attempts to produce unflattering photos of some person or some property with an agenda to harm someone's reputation, then that is clearly unethical.

However, if someone is merely capturing the moment because it's interesting or unusual, or expressing a personal opinion of a situation or scene, in photographic terms, then that process should not be illegal in a democratic society.
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: Freedom of Panorama
« Reply #54 on: April 13, 2016, 04:03:13 am »

Does anyone else get the impression we are all running out of steam?

Vitality seems lost; we appear to be throwing around ever more tired and inconsequential concepts, both literary and visual.

;-(

Rob C

GrahamBy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1813
    • Some of my photos
Re: Freedom of Panorama
« Reply #55 on: April 13, 2016, 07:35:52 am »

Which brings up the interesting thing about beauty. Can it, is it ever, thought offensive by a beautiful person if that person attracts cameras in public places? I don't refer to celebs, just ordinary (extraordinary) people blessed with great looks.

I'll step around the socialism vs capitalism debate and return to this: my surprised finding is that many exceptionally attractive people do not think they are particularly attractive. The young actress I posted a photo of recently told me that her initial reaction to any photo she sees of herself is that it's horrible. The ones I did for her, she felt obliged to edit to remove "some pimples" which are invisible to me. Unfortunately we live in a world where women are continually told that a) their looks are their most important attributes, and b) they are encouraged to compare themselves with implausibly perfect creations of lighting, make-up and photoshop.

It effects men too... personally, I considered myself ugly a large majority of my life. One is encouraged to laugh about one's own looks and joke about looking like the back end of a truck, but a very large number of people somehow internalise that. Of course I have also met a few people who are exactly the opposite, who consider that the world should fall before their beauty... unfortunately one of those was a dentistry student who perpetrated horrors on one of my teeth. There are also a few who have a reasonably objective view, but they are surprisingly rare.
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10365
Re: Freedom of Panorama
« Reply #56 on: April 13, 2016, 08:49:08 am »

I'll step around the socialism vs capitalism debate and return to this: my surprised finding is that many exceptionally attractive people do not think they are particularly attractive.
.....It effects men too... personally, I considered myself ugly a large majority of my life. One is encouraged to laugh about one's own looks and joke about looking like the back end of a truck, but a very large number of people somehow internalise that.

We've often heard the platitude that beauty is in the mind of the beholder, but this also applies to ugliness, all opinions, and all thoughts about anything and everything. Some folks don't appear to be able to grasp this concept.
Logged

petermfiore

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2705
    • Peter Fiore Fine Art
Re: Freedom of Panorama
« Reply #57 on: April 13, 2016, 09:28:48 am »

We've often heard the platitude that beauty is in the mind of the beholder, but this also applies to ugliness, all opinions, and all thoughts about anything and everything. Some folks don't appear to be able to grasp this concept.

Individual thought...sadly exercised less every day.

Peter

Eric Myrvaagnes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 22814
  • http://myrvaagnes.com
    • http://myrvaagnes.com
Re: Freedom of Panorama
« Reply #58 on: April 13, 2016, 10:42:16 am »

To emphasise my point I'll attach a photo of me at a dinner (taken with my camera and processed by me).

Can you recognise me? Notice that I did not delete this photo.  ;)
I give up, Ray. The bearded guy on the right looks just like me, but I don't remember being at that dinner. So you must be one of the others.

Eric
Logged
-Eric Myrvaagnes (visit my website: http://myrvaagnes.com)

GrahamBy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1813
    • Some of my photos
Re: Freedom of Panorama
« Reply #59 on: April 13, 2016, 11:12:02 am »

We've often heard the platitude that beauty is in the mind of the beholder, but this also applies to ugliness, all opinions, and all thoughts about anything and everything. Some folks don't appear to be able to grasp this concept.

My point was that it's difficult to be objective about oneself, except in the case of objective measurements. And even then : anorexics see themselves as fat, whatever the scales say. There is some interesting data from the Women's Health Study where in some cases there is actual weight recorded, along with self reported categories like "underweight", "normal", "overweight" and "obese". One might expect some self-flattery, but in fact the response is U-shaped: the more overweight, the more likely to report normal or even underweight. In a self-reported dietary database of 500K people I have access to, the largest proportion of people reporting insufficient caloric intake to support life are the most obese.

So there is a lot of self-delusion... and self delusion usually correlates with hyper-sensibility, since deep down you *know* that at 120kg you're not underweight, so you certainly don't want to see a photo that shows you have a big gut.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4   Go Up