"Don't say I don't contibute" BAS Report

June 1996 BAS Report Summaries. The actual test pages were

too many to scan. Hope you'll be happy with these.

next...

BAS tests of many lenses were published in the 1980th in the german 'fotomagazin'. If I remember correctly, they called all lenses with

optical and mechanical quality at 9.0 and above "super"; about one third of all the lenses were "super" including Vivitars, Tamrons, Tokinas etc.... For the Tamron 180/2.5, they first have given it a low score, but a year later (this lens had gotten rather good reviews from other magazins), it also was "super". I doubt whether they tested a new sample. I do have no confidence in these BAS "tests". From those lens tests I have seen, I trust most the ones published in Chasseur d'Image.

Kristian, this material looks useful; but it also looks like it is someone else's copyrighted material. Do you have permission to post this? If not, I'm afraid it violates the photo.net Terms of Use and I will need to delete this thread.

So what are you waiting for?

I don't trust it either. Why would the 24mm Elmarit-R be rated higher that the 60mm Macro-Elmarit-R?

Why is that, Brian? It's just referenced, not quoted directly or copied into photo.net. I don't believe referencing a work violates its copyright. Just curious.

Rob:

 

I think Brian may be correct. They aren't links to Schultze's web site, but are pages from the Report Summaries that were scanned & "copied" (uploaded) into photo.net. Posting excerpts could be considered "fair use" of the copyrighted material, though.

Kristian, I was waiting for you to say that you have permission to post these scans from the BAS report. They are not links (which would be fine) but uploaded scans of the original report.

 

I'll leave this thread a little longer so that you and others who have posted to it will not be left wondering what happened to it.

 

I appreciate your interest in providing something useful to the forum, but we need to respect others' copyrights.

Just to add another point to this to this, I also posted links to my scanned BAS report pages last May. I prefaced the links with my narrative about my attempts to locate and get permission from the author, and my inability to do such. I made a comment about the copyright belonging to the labs, and marked the links as "reference only". In the replies, a reader mentioned that the lab is no longer operating due to the death of the author of the report.<P>

 

After some slowing down of people accessing the reports, I removed the scans from the site, rendering the click-able link inert.<P>

 

<a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=002pz0"> From the archive </a>

This situation isn't clear. It seems like a valuable resource, and it would be nice to have these reports available on-line. It seems like it would be a helpful if somebody could track down the owners of this material (the BAS heirs, perhaps) and obtain their permission to have it here.

It is "fair use" if you selectively quote from the copyrighted work as part of your own work but is copyright infringement if you merely reproduce it and publish it without the prior permission from the copyright owner. Copying means scanning it onto your harddrive and publishing means providing a link to Photo.net where it can be downloadable to the public. Legally there is not much difference between this and clicking a link to watch the latest pirated Austin Powers movie on your computer. Hey I didn't make this up so don't flame me :)