Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: Slobodan Blagojevic on April 08, 2016, 11:43:54 am
-
An interesting overview of various copyright legislations (http://www.archdaily.com/785138/freedom-of-panorama-the-internet-copyright-law-that-should-have-architects-up-in-arms?utm_source=ArchDaily+List&utm_campaign=412a5b5383-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_b5a382da72-412a5b5383-411046057) around the world when it comes to buildings, interiors and art:
-
I feel that if someone puts up a structure that limits my enjoyment of a panorama, then I (and the rest of society) should be compensated for that loss. Why should they be able to fill up the sky in a manner that means I can't use it anymore?
-
Interesting and surprising about some countries (at least for me). Thanks for sharing
-
Governments seem to become more and more asinine with age. The idea that you're not allowed to make a photograph of a building from a public space approaches utter asininity. What seems even more tragic to me is the fact that street photography in France -- which for all intents and purposes is the birthplace of street photography -- is now practically impossible. Thank Heaven the U.S. hasn't yet descended into that pit. In spite of the contents of that article, in the U.S. I'm still able legally to shoot anything I want to shoot with the exception of certain military or law enforcement activities as long as I'm in a public space.
With the kind of government Europe seems to have developed, it looks as if it's time for Europeans to start over.
-
Governments seem to become more and more asinine with age. The idea that you're not allowed to make a photograph of a building from a public space approaches utter asininity. What seems even more tragic to me is the fact that street photography in France -- which for all intents and purposes is the birthplace of street photography -- is now practically impossible. Thank Heaven the U.S. hasn't yet descended into that pit. In spite of the contents of that article, in the U.S. I'm still able legally to shoot anything I want to shoot with the exception of certain military or law enforcement activities as long as I'm in a public space.
With the kind of government Europe seems to have developed, it looks as if it's time for Europeans to start over.
I think the problem's the other way around: with the kind of people many Europeans have become. Governments seem to reflect the wishes of the wussy majority that they hope will possibly elect them when it's voting time again.
What do you expect from a society that lives in a fantasy world of cellphone life and social media bullshit, tv heroes and junk food? I want to throw up every time I see them advertise food in a family "bucket" as they call it; do people not have any sense of personal outrage at being addressed like that, as akin to swine at the trough?
Rob C
-
I can't disagree, Rob. But I always hope there are a few people not invested in "trigger warnings" and "safe space," and willing to fight to restore some kind of personal dignity and general sanity. Maybe it's too late. Maybe Europe is on its way to become part of the Caliphate. If so it'll be the end of trigger warnings and safe space. I see the same European mistake repeated over and over. I missed the first one: the blind and stupid march into WW I, but I was around for the second one: the blind and stupid march into WW II. Now I'm seeing the people falling in for the blind and stupid march into. . . what???
But the problem isn't confined to Europe. The U.S. is doing its best to fall in for the same kind of blind and stupid march toward disaster. My consolation is that I probably won't be around for the catastrophe.
Yes. People always seem to get the governments they deserve.
-
But the problem isn't confined to Europe. The U.S. is doing its best to fall in for the same kind of blind and stupid march toward disaster. My consolation is that I probably won't be around for the catastrophe.
Yes. People always seem to get the governments they deserve.
Ah, the cold sober facts...makes all else seem a trifle.
Peter
-
There was no good reason to fight World War I and the Treaty of Versailles and the side agreements around it are the very reason we are up against the fight we have today. That does not excuse certain fanatical movements that are at work in today's world, there's plenty of blame for them, but World War II and the Cold War are results of the Treaty of Versailles.
Sorry. Back to the Freedom of Panorama.
-
If you consider the current hot pototo of Panama: in the UK there's a lot of media-inspired noise about PM Cameron and his relatively modest finances. The British media, press and tv, largely owned by octogenarian Australian Murdoch, who recently wed a Texan ex-leading model; ex-Stone wife; ex-etc.) started and continues a hunt for absolutely anything that can be used, rightly or simply by implication, to fan the fires of class hatred and envy. The funniest thing is to hear the tv people say something is perfectly legal, but, well, not "morally" correct (yep, that's tv talking: the bastion of every morality and higher ethic there ever was)... indeed, Cameron was rash enough to use that false yardstick himself on somebody else's back a while ago, but the people doing it today are fucking with the stability of a nation's government, not to mention its possible ramifications regarding the state of the wider Europe.
From the newspaper baron's perspective, you can discern revenge for his own closing-down of the newspaper that did so much to soil his reputation due to 'phone hacking journalism. After all, it led to him having to re-arrange temporarily his own family dynastic order, though son is now back in top chair. So billionaire fights mere millionaire. Hilarious is the sight of frantic and frenetic little woman with microphone pogoing to a crown of idiots waving Socialist Worker placards... credibility stops right there, I'm afraid, yet they don't see that; that might be just as well.
What a tragic, miserable little world of envious and useless people. No wonder it's bound to end in self-induced disaster: deserves little else, desìte the many better heads that will inevitably roll as unavoidable consequence.
I heard this morning that the Moon holds benefit for future space travel, because it can be mined for material to power steam-driven space journeys. Good idea: let mining render the Moon lighter, and our Earthly tides will change! I always suspected my terrace will one day be transformed into a mooring.
Incidentally, what happens to the subterranean holes that oil, coal, gas, all mineral mining creates? Will our seas amd lakes vanish within? Will entire countries sink into their own sinkholes? If we do surive, it will render every existing school atlas redundant. Do I see a new business opportunity for someone?
Rob C
-
Don't under-estimate the level of corruption in France: the politicians all have inexplicably luxurious lifestyles, all come out of the same school and have systematically shut down campaigns for transparency of their finances, we have miserably poor anti-tobacco legislation and education; there is the huge scandal of subsidizing diesel over petrol in order to save Peugeot, resulting in some of the most foully polluted air in Europe. Yes, partly this is because of of unrealistic fantasy about left-wing utopia, and there is a chicken and egg situation: an incredibly arrogant upper class who don't bother to hide their contempt for the poor, and a fantasist left that feeds fantasies about industry existing as a sort of extended charity. The massive mis-use of the state of emergency legislation after the 13 November attacks is just another example.
So... there is actually quite liberal legisaltion here about the right of artistic expression, and I have the right to take photos of whoever I like, assuming they are not doing something excessively embarrassing. Most people don't realise this...and citing the legislation will not help if someone wants to punch me in the face, but that is very rare. The sticking point is if I should want to make money from the resulting images. It's the same with monuments, where the government has acted to protect some corporate friends... hence the copyright on the lit (but not unlit) Tour Eiffel.
-
I'm not sure I follow some of these arguments. It seems to me that the copyright/trademark limitations in public photography have more to do with corporate lobbying and big pocket litigation that anything else.
-
Yep.
-
Oh those nasty corporations.
-
PM Cameron and his relatively modest finances.
Stopped reading here. Apparently our conceptions of what words such as "relatively modest" mean are so far apart as to render communication impossible.
-
With the kind of government Europe seems to have developed, it looks as if it's time for Europeans to start over.
Residents of Trump-land don't really get to make comments on other folks' political landscape.
-
Stopped reading here. Apparently our conceptions of what words such as "relatively modest" mean are so far apart as to render communication impossible.
Almost. Just different spectrum of realization of the broader reality.
Before I came to live here (Spain) I had no idea how poor I really was. A brief walk through the marina, which I do every day, not out of a love of masochism or simple pursuit of photographic subjects (which may be a manifestation of masochism), but for circulatory system problems, shows me more millions of pounds tied up in tiny spaces than I ever imagined existed outwith a bank... and there's a waiting list: costs you £ 23,000 to join the club, and then a subscription every year. Berths were once available to purchase on long-lease, but now these exchange hands for hundreds of thousands of pounds. Multiply that demand by all the full marinas everywhere along the Med coast, as well as in the Caribbean, the US coast etc. and you can hardly avoid the conclusion that there is a huge number of wealthy people in this world. Branding them all corrupt or charlatan does very little to make the rest of us, the poor or pretty poor seem wonderful. Rather does it make me think we screwed up the opportunities life presented to us.
Irony: when this club was being built, I was offered life membership for £ 240. I turned it down because I had realised I wasn't buying any boat: anything I could afford was too small to be of any earthly use to me. A ski boat is the last place in which you want to spend a day in the Med sunshine. Buying a berth, which I could have done, boat owner or not, would now be providing me with a decent pension. Instead, I thought I'd remain true to my job, and keep my pension hopes in photographic images. Idiot. Digital did for me exactly what it did for Kodak et al.
So don't let personal perspectives of what wealth means blind you to the greater reality out there. But of course, you'll have stopped reading, won't you? Which is a pity, because now you won't be able to tell me why the lower common denomination is supposedly holder of the moral high ground.
Ah well...
Rob C
P.S.
For those of you who have seen The Night Watchman: parts are shot up here in Puerto Pollensa in a place called La Fortaleza, a beautiful little peninsula on the northern edge of the town. It was built years ago by an Argentinian; taken over and ransacked by troops during the Civil War; once owned by an English guy who runs a waste company, and recently bought by another Brit, to the tune of €40,000.000. Yes, forty million euros, according to the Spanish press. You can find all this if you google The Night Watchman. So measuring others by one's own bank balance is pretty daft.
-
Residents of Trump-land don't really get to make comments on other folks' political landscape.
Oh yes they do, exactly as you feel able to call it Trump-land.
Goose, ganders etc.
Rob C
-
The funniest thing is to hear the tv people say something is perfectly legal, but, well, not "morally" correct (yep, that's tv talking: the bastion of every morality and higher ethic there ever was)...
Funny indeed: it is perfectly legal to stop one from talking certain type of images, and yet that person calls is not correct etc...
Or what would you say? That that situation is of course completely different? Yeah, right.
It is ridiculous not everyone shares your views...
P.S. I'm not saying Cameron is wrong with anything, I have no opinion on that. If pressed, I might even say he didn't do anything wrong indeed, legally or morally. Just admiring your way of thinking.
-
Residents of Trump-land don't really get to make comments on other folks' political landscape.
Those other falks have that landscape thanks to residents of Trump-land ...otherwise they would have had a landschaft.
-
Residents of Trump-land don't really get to make comments on other folks' political landscape.
Well then, next time Europe's political configuration allows itself to be invaded we'll just wave.
-
Funny indeed: it is perfectly legal to stop one from talking certain type of images, and yet that person calls is not correct etc...
Or what would you say? That that situation is of course completely different? Yeah, right.
It is ridiculous not everyone shares your views...
P.S. I'm not saying Cameron is wrong with anything, I have no opinion on that. If pressed, I might even say he didn't do anything wrong indeed, legally or morally. Just admiring your way of thinking.
It's a gift...
;-)
Rob C
-
I'm puzzled how a large, diverse country can be assigned the moniker, Trump-land, because one bloviating reality star with a pile of money uses it to jump into politics. I'm quite sure Europe has never had anyone like that, wink, wink, nod, nod.
-
I'm puzzled how a large, diverse country can be assigned the moniker, Trump-land, because one bloviating reality star with a pile of money uses it to jump into politics.
It's not that he jumps in - it's that he gets a load of people to vote for him.
-
For those of you who have seen The Night Watchman: parts are shot up here in Puerto Pollensa in a place called La Fortaleza, a beautiful little peninsula on the northern edge of the town. It was built years ago by an Argentinian; taken over and ransacked by troops during the Civil War; once owned by an English guy who runs a waste company, and recently bought by another Brit, to the tune of €40,000.000. Yes, forty million euros, according to the Spanish press. You can find all this if you google The Night Watchman. So measuring others by one's own bank balance is pretty daft.
Perhaps, but that's not what I'm doing, I'm measuring by the bank balances of 99% of the population.
(Night MANAGER, by the way)
-
... I'm measuring by the bank balances of 99% of the population.
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?
-
Oh those nasty corporations.
But seriously, qui bono? Who benefits from all that cr@ap?
OK, general public are mindless sheep, and governments simply reflect that. But somebody must have pushed for those laws, and until those groups are named here, we'll be barking at the wrong tree. Or simply lamenting the situation (which, in my book, isn't any better).
-
Qui bono? Politicians bono. Politicians tell people that with laws like these they're protecting them from those nasty corporations who'd instantly steal their livelihood without protection by politicians. Most of the people who vote these people in haven't a clue what a corporation is, but because of the extent of left-wing BS they know corporations are bad -- even though, if they checked, they'd probably find a corporation is the reason they even have a job.
-
Perhaps, but that's not what I'm doing, I'm measuring by the bank balances of 99% of the population.
(Night MANAGER, by the way)
Glad you're paying attention! ;-)
Just shows you: nobody is willing to let the humbler ones have a meaningful rôle, even in fantasy fiction.
99%. So who owns all the fancy cars such as BMW, Mercedes, Jaguar etc. clogging up many of our cities? That 1% must be a helluva large one percent. Frankly, I don't trust any of these 'percentages' wheeled out to prove points, either way.
My bottom line is that in life you get what you deserve. From way back the belief was that what you sow you reap. That makes sense. (Naturally, one shouldn't try to sow wild oats unless one is a gentleman farmer and can afford it - only fair on the rest of the taxpayers that one retain responsibility for the harvest to follow such a sowing.)
Rob C
-
Qui bono? Politicians bono. Politicians tell people that with laws like these they're protecting them from those nasty corporations who'd instantly steal their livelihood without protection by politicians. Most of the people who vote these people in haven't a clue what a corporation is, but because of the extent of left-wing BS they know corporations are bad -- even though, if they checked, they'd probably find a corporation is the reason they even have a job.
Not to mention a company car, company membership to a variety of clubs, company pension contributions etc. etc.
I have long been of the opinion that everyone should have to be self-employed for at least one year. The experience would wean millions from the belief that the world owes them, or anyone else, a living. Never mind the extreme test of self-employment; just having to be a salesman on the road for a year would suffice.
Rob C
-
Qui bono? Politicians bono.
I like politicians no more than you do. Quite probably, even less; I suspect that you could name a few "decent" politicians (Reagan? Thatcher?), while I think they are all cr@p. If not, ok, that's not the point...
The point is, people have names. In Russia, if a controversial IP-related law was passed, I'd suspect that Nikita Mikhalkov would have something to do with it (and in 90+% I'd be right). This guy runs a fund "aggregating" various IP-related payments, and keeps a percentage of that as a "managing" fee.
So who exactly benefits from the laws we're discussing here, and how? So far, alas, I regard my question unanswered.
-
I like politicians no more than you do. Quite probably, even less; I suspect that you could name a few "decent" politicians (Reagan? Thatcher?), while I think they are all cr@p. If not, ok, that's not the point...
The point is, people have names. In Russia, if a controversial IP-related law was passed, I'd suspect that Nikita Mikhalkov would have something to do with it (and in 90+% I'd be right). This guy runs a fund "aggregating" various IP-related payments, and keeps a percentage of that as a "managing" fee.
So who exactly benefits from the laws we're discussing here, and how? So far, alas, I regard my question unanswered.
I'm not sure that anyone actually does; perhaps it's simply an inevitable confusion of various different cases where copyright has been affected/violated, and the lawmakers are just throwing them into a pile and producing forms of blanket legislation to cover all the bets.
It seems fairly obvious when copyright is really being infringed, and when similarity between two (or more) works might be accidental. However, as the world has so many thieves in it, perfectly willing to steal whatever they can grasp, the inevitable reaction is to over-protect, that is, if any legal protection is even available in that particular instance. In a sense, it's like those cases where compensation/damage payment awards are of themselves an abuse by the nature of their magnitude.
The thing about 'street' photography is really quite an interesting one, if only because the same people can hold conflicting views on it. As I do. On the one hand I see it as a fairly harmless form of photographic sport, capable of producing really interesting and lively imagery, yet I also understand - and have felt - indignation at having a camera pointed in my direction. I suppose that it's the feelng of violation of privacy that rankles. As to whether or not privacy should be regarded/respected in public, if it is even a realistic expectation - who can honestly tell? On the whole, I think street photography, if its discovered by the 'subject', is at the very least, annoying. And that on purely personal, instinctive grounds, nothing to do with being incriminated in some illicit doings such as messing about with the wrong partner, in which case, serves you bloody well right! That said, I absolutely draw the line at anyone photographing the down 'n' outs of this world. Whether self-inflicted or not, they have enough against them already. By all means, buy them a coffee or pass a buck or two, but don't expect that to be a model release.
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.
Rob C
-
It's a small point, but corporations don't give us jobs. Its employees generate the corporation's profits. And yes, unfortunately, some corporations have done nasty things.
-
The only reason there are "employees" is because there's a corporation.
-
The only reason there are "employees" is because there's a corporation.
--- and without 'employees' to purchase products and services, what's the use of corporations? ;)
But that's all not very much about the topic of Copyright law, and related 'freedom of Panorama'.
Cheers,
Bart
-
What is a corporation really? It's a group of people bound together by common ownership in an enterprise that has some legal protection against liability. So really when people rail against a corporation, you might as well just replace the name, corporation, with people. There are good people and there are bad people. People bring those attributes into the enterprise they're involved in. So really we can just stop using corporation and start using people. Now, where were we?
-
Hi Bartvander,
I don't know how things work in the Netherlands but for those who don't understand these things, let's look at the history of McDonald's.
McDonald's started out as a one-man food stand in California selling hot dogs and hamburgers. Later it became a single fast food restaurant run by the McDonald brothers, sons of the founder. I won't go into the details of what followed; as Casey said, "You could look it up." But nowadays McDonald's is a corporation with about 35,000 restaurants worldwide and 1.7 million employees. It would have been impossible for the McDonald brothers to expand much, even inside California, without incorporating and bringing in other stockholders (people willing to risk their butts to make a buck on a promising company.)
It's that simple. McDonald's now is an outfit big enough that politicians are bearing down on it, hoping to rip off a buck or two they can spend to buy votes. In California we see them playing to the suckers (according to Barnum there's one born every minute) with a $15 an hour minimum wage. Of course the result is going to be even fewer youngsters able to find an entry-level job. But that's just basic economics, which ought to be taught in grade school, but isn't, so most people haven't a clue.
"Employees" don't start companies. Risk-takers like the McDonalds do that, and they're the people who end up with corporations able to hire employees. It's basic economics. You could look it up.
-
--- and without 'employees' to purchase products and services, what's the use of corporations? ;)
But that's all not very much about the topic of Copyright law, and related 'freedom of Panorama'.
Cheers,
Bart
Strange argument: it's people working for other corporations that buy the products of the first corporation, otherwise, only Ford employees would be buying Ford... on the other hand, perhaps inside knowledge makes them buy BMW when they can. Who knows? So what I'm saying is that all depend on the other: interdependence; nothing stands in a vacuum for very long. I don't see where anyone wrote that employees were not necessary - at least to some degree. What one objects to is the notion that big business is inevitably evil, an idea which smacks of so much basic leftie thought and cradle-dogma as to be a joke. Were it not so dangerous.
What I do know, is that with too much mechanisation, the time will come when nobody is employed and making the money to shift the goods being made by the robots. I forsee an international sit-down of capi dei capi to figure out just when enough robotics is enough. They better plan for it soon. At least before China is sole steel producer, on the last man standing principle.
Rob C
-
"Employees" don't start companies.
Hi Russ,
Employees are also customers, either for the same company or for other companies (who in turn are customers to other companies). Without customers, there is no viability for a company.
It's basic economics. You could look it up.
Indeed.
Here (http://techonomy.com/conf/te14/future-revolutions/owns-future/)'s something more on topic (professional photographers are referenced at 9min:47sec) to chew on, by Jaron Lanier (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaron_Lanier) (and don't let looks deceive you, he was named one of TIME's 100 most influential people in 2010). At about 19 min, he concludes why the system is not sustainable, "there aren't gonna be any customers to buy your stuff eventually."
Cheers,
Bart
-
Yes, without customers there's no business for companies or for independent operators. But without stuff to sell there are no customers. Stuff to sell has to come first -- before the word "customers" even can be coined. Considering that not all that long ago, except for those who had superior weapons, people lived almost entirely on the results of their own farming labor you realize that "customers" are a fairly recent development. The first step away from that situation was independent enterprise, but for any enterprise to be more than a local guild or a local store you need the means to ramp up production and distribution. That ramping up has led to employment for "the masses," as any good Socialist would say, before suggesting that the government take over the "means of production" created by the ramper. Again, it's basic economics. You can learn about it here: http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/3023.Basic_Economics
-
Yes, without customers there's no business for companies or for independent operators. But without stuff to sell there are no customers.
It takes two to tango ... Sometimes the need for a solution is leading, and someone will find a solution, sometimes someone finds a solution for which a need or a market has to be invented. But without someone supplying the fuel, i.e. payment for, and consumption of, product or service, it's doomed.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Quite true Bart. Without payment for a product the product is doomed, but without a product the whole argument is meaningless.
-
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:
:)
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1547/25631487864_06770c7972_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/F3Y5my)
Rags to Riches (https://flic.kr/p/F3Y5my) by Slobodan Blagojevic (https://www.flickr.com/photos/slobodan_blagojevic/), on Flickr
P.S. For those not familiar with Chicago, the building in the center is the Trump Tower.
-
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.
-
But despair not, my friends, I think I can encapsulate it all in one single image:
That was stylish, Slobodan. In several different ways.
-
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!
-
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.
-
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.
-
Sounds like the on-line translations I see from my Chinese granddaughter-in-law's posts.
-
I like your photograph, Slobodan ;D
-
I like your photograph, Slobodan ;D
Good. Nothing to be embareassed about :P
-
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. ;)
-
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.
-
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 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect) :)
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
Back to the topic. There are two sides of this issue in which photographers have an interest. First we don't want to do anything to weaken copyright law. In the USA there is a movement to weaken copyright law to allow non-creators the right to benefit from the work of creators. We must protect our protections if we hope to be able to earn a living from our craft. The second issue is that we have to be able to take photographs if we are photographers hoping to earn a living. There is a well-known statue/sculpture here by a now dead Native American artist. The sculpture is copyrighted and his estate owns that copyright for many years. It is frequently photographed. It has been determined that a photograph that includes the sculpture as part of a larger composition is legal and the photographer can sell prints and license images. However, if the photograph is ONLY of the sculpture then that is a violation of his copyright and cannot be sold. I was once told by an attorney that I could create a product and call it Lifesaver as long as it wasn't a round candy with a hole in the middle. I don't know how true that is today in our litigious society and I'm not suggesting anyone take that as legal advice. But copyright and trademark law exists to protect something you have created and from which you should be able to benefit. With that said if I take a photograph of a skyline, I should have the legal right to benefit from my work. However if I take a photograph of a building in order to build a similar building, that would cross the line and be a violation of the creator's copyright.
-
... However if I take a photograph of a building in order to build a similar building, that would cross the line and be a violation of the creator's copyright.
Well, I think that a copyright protection for a building is meant to prevent someone else constructing a similar building, not to prevent taking a photo of it. However, if the photo where the copyrighted building is the main and dominant subject is meant for commercial use (say advertisement), I believe the architect should have the right to enjoy the fruits of his labor. Similar to your sculpture example. Now, in the U.S., there is usually a narrower definition of "commercial use" as advertisement. Which would mean one can sell a picture of a building in a gallery, art fair or online. Then again, I am not a lawyer.
-
But it doesn't matter, Slobodan; knowing the law isn't what it's about: what it's about is winning legal games. Were it a straight case of yes or no, a lawyer would tell you before you take any expensive steps whether or not you had a snowball's chance of success. It's a game of mutual aid: for the legal profession, in my opinion. Both side's lawyers do well; only one client side comes out on top.
I hired a lawyer once: cost me a packet and I lost an advertising agency client as consequence. No, it wasn't complex: it was about the difference between being or not being the principal contractor, and who can hire whom on whose say-so. Had my legal guy explained that I was wrong, I wouldn't have gone any further. I didn't even suspect those differences existed: I thought everyone on a job was working to the same end. Innocence of youth. And then I get slammed for a slight cynicism...
Sheesh.
Rob C
-
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
;D ;D I'm glad I don't always look like that. Just posing for the camera of course. ;D
-
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.
That's extraordinary, and is certainly a classic example of self-delusion. From my own conversations with overweight people, I get the impression they are often in denial about the fundamental principle that one cannot become overweight without eating too much. They tend to believe that they are overweight simply because of their genes. They can't seem to grasp the point that the body naturally produces fat from surplus food which is not needed to sustain their normal activities.
But I guess this is getting a bit off-topic. But never mind, it is the Coffee Corner after all. ;)
-
That's extraordinary, and is certainly a classic example of self-delusion. From my own conversations with overweight people, I get the impression they are often in denial about the fundamental principle that one cannot become overweight without eating too much. They tend to believe that they are overweight simply because of their genes. They can't seem to grasp the point that the body naturally produces fat from surplus food which is not needed to sustain their normal activities.
But I guess this is getting a bit off-topic. But never mind, it is the Coffee Corner after all. ;)
And to avoid a similar fate, refuse the biscuits!
Rob
-
And to avoid a similar fate, refuse the biscuits!
Exactly :) In fact one of the investigators (it's huge thing spread over nine centres across Europe) did an analysis which showed that self-reported consumption of cookies and cake was protective against diabetes in over-weight women. That didn't make him very popular with the steering committee.
Men were different of course: for them it was beer ;D
-
Well, I think that a copyright protection for a building is meant to prevent someone else constructing a similar building, not to prevent taking a photo of it.
One would think so. I guess that means the image rights for the lighting on the Eiffel Tower are to prevent someone else lighting their own Eiffel Tower in the same way 8)
-
Nice to see from the map that my country is in the same cathegory as the freedom-loving USA (and Russia).
From a pragmatic standpoint, how do you separate the cases of:
1) Someone taking holliday snaps while in Manhattan, publishing them on Facebook (should clearly be legal)
2) Someone doing a photographic reproduction of a painting, selling copies on Ebay (should probably be illegal)
Where I live, you can (with some restrictions) buy and fly a drone, but you cannot sell the images that you produced. So what if I capture the image of a lifetime while doing recreational flying in a small drone?
-h
-
And to avoid a similar fate, refuse the biscuits!
Rob
Actually, I rarely eat biscuits, Rob, and I watch my diet carefully. For a number of years I was aware that I was overweight but didn't consider it a problem because I was quite healthy and did a reasonable amount of exercise, including some trekking in Nepal occasionally which had the effect of temporarily reducing my weight.
Then one day I came across the concept of the BMI calculator which consists of dividing one's body mass in Kg by the square of one's height in metres, and discovered that I was 'officially' about 20kg overweight, which surprised me. I had imagined that I was about 10kgs overweight.
20 kg is about the weight of my suitcase when I travel overseas. The thought that I was carrying that unnecessary weight, although spread fairly evenly over my body, with every step that I took, all day long and every day, seemed ridiculous. I felt I had to do something about it, and I did.
After I'd reduced my weight to within what is considered to be a normal and healthy range, I decided to test myself by trekking a particular route in Nepal which I'd previously avoided because it involves crossing a pass which is 5,400 metres high (the 'Thorong La' pass). Many people don't make it and turn back. Some people, usually the ladies, hire a horse to take them over the pass. Sometimes an obdurate male presses on, even though he's not up to the task, and dies.
I was rather pleased that I crossed the pass with little difficulty, at the age of 71. I think I would have had great difficulty if I had been carrying a 20kg load of excess fat. ;)
However, it's a rather desolate place up there at 5,400 metres, as the attached photo shows. I wonder if I should introduce a couple of nude kathoeys into the scene to give it more zest. ;D
-
Not any sort of a doc, so take this idea with more than a soupçon of salt, but if you made 71 without heart hitches, then I'd hope you're fairly safe from associated problems. Mine came bundled with my UK pension... but that's so long ago I'm hardly able to remember much about the details beyond the surprising state of calmness that I do remember.
Walking to the chemist today to pick up part of my prescription (they never come together and give me a month at a time, despite the Beatles), my mind wandered to school days and chemical arithmetic and I thought: does one beta blocker equate with and cancel out one Viagra? I forgot to ask the chemist, so throw it out here to a wider team of experts... not that I've any pressing use for Viagra, of course.
Rob C
-
From a pragmatic standpoint, how do you separate the cases of:
1) Someone taking holliday snaps while in Manhattan, publishing them on Facebook (should clearly be legal)
2) Someone doing a photographic reproduction of a painting, selling copies on Ebay (should probably be illegal)
As I understand, it's quite straightforward that a copyright period should apply to all works of art (paintings, photographs, literature, music, sculpture etc), and after that copyright period has expired, which is usually 50 or 70 years after the death of the creator, one is free to sell copies of the work.
This is why we can have that wonderful site, Project Gutenberg, which makes available all the great works of literature throughout history, for free.
However, there seems to be a problem with regard to works of art which are still under copyright but are displayed in a public place, such as a painting adorning a wall, or a sculpture set in a park or a city square.
It seems, as I understand it, that to photograph and sell an exact copy of such painting or sculpture, when the painting or sculpture is clearly the main focus of interest rather than part of an interesting background, is illegal.
However, here is where things can get silly. Who determines what is the main focus of interest? If I crop off the surrounding background from a photo of a painting on a wall in a public place, so that only the painting is shown and nothing else, then it's quite obvious that the painting is the main focus of interest.
But suppose there happened to be a large butterfly that settled on a part of the painting, perhaps on the nose of a person depicted in the painting, then presumably I could sell my photo of the painting. But not necessarily.
Perhaps the painter who had the copyright could take me to court on the grounds that the presence of the butterfly was incidental, and that his painting was still the main focus of interest. We are then into the realm of pure opinion, existing only in the mind of the beholder. I could counter by claiming that I would never have bothered photographing the painting if the butterfly had not landed on it, and that the butterfly was much more beautiful than his painting...and so on.
Likewise, the same situation could apply to a sculpture in a botanical garden; even more so because a sculpture is a 3-dimensional structure and always has a visible background when presented within a rectangular frame, unless such background is rendered completely out of focus.
There could be a play of light and shadow creating an interesting pattern. The photographer who took the photo of the sculpture could claim that he would never have bothered taking the shot had it not been for the unusual lighting which made the shot interesting. The lighting was the main focus of interest and the sculpture was merely the background on which the lighting effects were displayed... and so on. ;)
-
Likewise, the same situation could apply to a sculpture in a botanical garden; even more so because a sculpture is a 3-dimensional structure and always has a visible background when presented within a rectangular frame, unless such background is rendered completely out of focus.
There could be a play of light and shadow creating an interesting pattern. The photographer who took the photo of the sculpture could claim that he would never have bothered taking the shot had it not been for the unusual lighting which made the shot interesting. The lighting was the main focus of interest and the sculpture was merely the background on which the lighting effects were displayed... and so on. ;)
It cost he United States Postal Service $540,000 to learn that your hypothetical photographer's "main focus" argument wouldn't be met with much success. Although, to be fair, it was probably the snow on the sculpture and not lighting that drew the photographer's interest.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/federal-eye/wp/2015/02/10/court-upholds-540000-judgement-against-usps-for-korean-war-stamp/
tom
-
It cost he United States Postal Service $540,000 to learn that your hypothetical photographer's "main focus" argument wouldn't be met with much success. Although, to be fair, it was probably the snow on the sculpture and not lighting that drew the photographer's interest.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/federal-eye/wp/2015/02/10/court-upholds-540000-judgement-against-usps-for-korean-war-stamp/
tom
Interesting case, Tom, but there's no mention in the article that the photographer was sued. The article does mention that there is only one nationally recognized Korean War Memorial, which includes these sculptures as a main feature, and the postage stamp itself even has the title printed at the bottom, "Korean War Veterans Memorial". Also there is no doubt that the stamp was issued to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the end of the Korean War, so it would be difficult (and even ludicrous) for the US Postal Service to claim that the statues depicting a squad of soldiers on patrol were not the main focus of interest.
However, lets imagine that this war memorial is situated further south than Washington DC and that the statues had never been subjected to snow before. Let's suppose that the purpose of the stamp was to bring to the attention of the public the dangers of climate change. Instead of the title, "Korean War Veterans Memorial', the title on the stamp might have been, "The Hazards of Climate Change".
I think then the court ruling would have been different and Frank Gaylord would not have had a case, even though the image of his sculptures was the same. ;)