craig_gillette

<p>It's really a matter of style. I used only an NEX-6 and 16-50 on my trip to Italy. I would have liked the 10-18 or similar range adapted. (As an aside, my daughter was in Florence for 10 months for school and I asked her if she'd seen a decent camera store - she'd never really looked, the students typically having brought their camera gear with them and no one lost a camera, etc, so they never shopped for them, I guess.) I could see using a longer lens. But it's a matter of interest and style. It's not like there aren't tons of architectural and artistic details out there for the grabbing. Whether it's "portraits" of the statues, intricate details on buildings, etc. you could find applications for a long lens. But a 100-400 is just likely to be a drag and add weight and size to your "kit." So I guess if you felt like it, then maybe the 70/200/4.</p>

<p>It's likely to be pretty hard to argue a use is editorial if your blog purpose is promoting your business. So let's assume that you do intend to use images in ways that promote your business. I'd expect that you'd need releases. As noted above, different states have different laws on this so competent local legal advice addressing the specifics of your blog uses is always a good idea. </p> <p>Note that neither the picnic company nor the corporate clients can provide releases for the individual attendees, so you'd need to somehow get about getting releases while working. Awkward at best. And there could well be individuals or customer companies not interested in their images showing up on a promotional blog for a vendor's vendor. And you are right, neither the picnic company nor their customers might be interested in this use of their customer/employee images.</p>

<p>You need proper legal advice as to what the contract(s) you signed may or may not protect. </p> <p>As a doctor, I'd expect you to be reasonably familiar with the legal issues regarding patient privacy. You need permission to divulge patient info. Photographers, while holding copyright, must still be respectful of the subjects privacy/publicity rights. So like medical providers, they will often incorporate "release" provisions into their contract documents. These releases could have the language that would allow uses that the subject would otherwise have control over in the areas of privacy and publicity. This opens up added revenue paths. Perhaps to use for their own promotional uses or for sale to other end users with other uses in mind. This might explain why the lawyer thought it seemed like the kind of document provided to a professional model. Other photographers, dealing with the sensitivities of their customers do not seek out this kind of release and are careful in the handling, storage and copying of images that aren't supposed to get broader distribution.</p> <p>The problem you could run into is that once the pictures are taken, even with reasonable contract protection and permanent undying goodwill on the part of the photographer, there are circumstances where the images could get out. (Much like extreme controls being placed on celebrity medical records, there are periodic incidents where unauthorized individuals access them or authorized individuals mishandle/divulge records).</p> <p>The ultimate problem is that, if divulged, for whatever reason, there is little you can do to "unring the bell."</p>

<p>Assuming you can get the images and the questionnaire in a timely fashion (both photographers having deadlines as it were to deliver their products and brides having honeymoons and family things and thank yous, etc.), you want to know if brides will pay you regularly enough to make money on something that seems to be at least somewhat popular when provided for free?</p> <p>I think you may find some interested in the publishing from the vanity standpoint but not sure you'll find enough to make it profitable. It seems to me that most of the people interested in the wedding (story) were already a part of it. But there may be those who plod through wedding magazines, etc., that might find it "interesting," so maybe you can get enough hits to monetize it but... It might be like paid obits, you don't see a lot of them and they seem to come from a narrow range of demographics as opposed to a broad base of society as a whole.</p>

<div></div>

<p>"No problem here seeing thoughtful regulations put in place. A major accident caused by a malfunctioning drone will likely speed that up."</p> <p>No, I am, like some others, not confident that our legislators nor the almost completely unfettered bureaucratic regulators, nor the White House, will likely respond to a major accident with thoughtful regulations. Thoughtful regulations should be being developed in a timely fashion now. A major accident will be a much more likely trigger of needless or burdensome yet ineffective regulations.</p> <p>Personally, I think there are several camps with important stakes in this. One is the recreational RC model aircraft world. The advance in the area of stable helicopter like devices is indeed impressive. But rc aircraft with the ability to fly around and hurt people accidentally or even to take pictures isn't a new development, just one that hasn't been all that exploited in ways that might have privacy implications. A perfect storm, perhaps, video and digital photography equipment is a lot more effective and a lot smaller than similarly capable technologies of even just a few years ago. I'd expect responsible rc modelers don't want to be caught up in a regulatory firestorm, either. </p> <p>What this technology may be doing is redefining or clarifying "reasonable" expectations of privacy. I recall the conflict over the coastal helicopter photography project that shot the whole California coast and greatly annoyed at least one very wealthy mansion dweller on the coast. What I don't think most people have known or thought through is that it's been possible for police or other aircraft, within reason and regulations to fly over anyone's property. Yet even so, the idea that one could be secure behind a wall or fence was also an idea in the laws. But local police departments probably didn't make (many) images of local folks sunbathing in their backyards and then proceed to publish them, either. Again, technology has advanced greatly recently. </p> <p>The recent flap over images shot through open windows of apartment dwellers reminded people that windows were, windows. Now we have a technolgy that might make it easier to view through more windows than was easy or practical before.</p> <p>OTOH, that, as in any number of other areas, technology has outstripped regulation and it's not going to be easy or possible to roll back the clock. Maybe we need common sense registration of drones. that should help.</p>

<p>I'm not sure it's problematic that he asks the "pro" still photographer for images to use for a wedding dvd. Maybe not here but I'm pretty sure I've seen some fairly heated forum discussions about "the video guy" (or DJ, etc.) taking stills "at my wedding" type threads. Instead he's asking the pro for an image to use for their mutual customer's DVD cover. Not sure what the downsides might be.</p>

<div></div>

<p>Yeah, I'm pretty sure you'll get precise and confident suggestions even without much information to support them.</p>

<p>I'd suggest checking around the B&H website. Besides photo gear, there is a lot of gaffer type gear used in video for mounting lights, booms for microphones, etc. </p>

<p>I took my daughter's RX100 to Disneyland (actually Disney California Adventure) to try one evening. I took a number of shots in the Cars Land area which emulates the old Route 66 and has a number of "classic" neon signs. As it was twilight and I still had a fair amount of ambient light for the most part, I had isos from 125 to 800. It did fine. You also have a couple of jpg scene modes that take multiple shots and stack them to reduce noise, etc. I think I had a couple of higher iso shots that evening but even later in the evening, there was enough generic light to not need to go higher. No flare or glare type problems that I noticed. It can be set for manual focus but I didn't try that. The II is somewhat better than the first model but I'd think the faster lens on the III should be a substantial advantage in general terms and I'd appreciate the wider 24mm equivalent focal length as well. Although it's going to take getting deliveries and user reports to see how the lens performs, etc.</p>

<div></div>

<p>It's the use of the image that determines the issues. The courts won't say "releases are needed." They will say that a particular use of a particular image infringes the rights of the owner of a particular piece or item of property. Another end user will decide that they want to avoid that problem by having permission to do that same kind of use or a similar use. etc. They don't want to do the legwork so they want to "buy" an image that comes with permission.</p> <p>The photographer wants to sell to the agency, the agency wants to sell to the end user. The farther apart the owner, photographer and end user are, the more it seems like a really general release makes sense. OTOH, the more general or broad a "release" is, the more difficult it might be to get someone to sign it.</p>

<p>You'll probably want to consider this: </p> <h2><a name="120"></a>§ 120 . Scope of exclusive rights in architectural works^{<a href="http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#1-63">63</a>}</h2> <p>(a) Pictorial Representations Permitted.—The copyright in an architectural work that has been constructed does not include the right to prevent the making, distributing, or public display of pictures, paintings, photographs, or other pictorial representations of the work, if the building in which the work is embodied is located in or ordinarily visible from a public place.</p> <p>That said, there may be some copyright issues when it comes to ownership of the copyrights that you shot on company time/money. However, when it comes to releases, the owner would need to sign a release if the use impacted any of the owner's rights. But simply selling images you've taken of architectural works that meet the above shouldn't require a release. The point of the exception was to not negatively impact the business of selling post cards, panoramas, cityscaps, etc.</p>

The view is a lot more notable from the other direction.<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>