james_oneill

I would simply ask them "If I were your client would you advise me to do such a thing".

 

In most parts of the world just by taking the photo, you own the copyright whether you say so explicitly in the contact or not. I would suggest that if they want you to change your terms, you will have to increase your fee to cover the cost of consulting your own lawyer.

 

If they want to buy the copyright from you, name a sensible price.

Funny Gerry should mention Rembrant, someone gave me a book of lists for Christmas. One of them was people who hated portraits of themselves, one of them was five members of the cloth makers guild who rejected Rembrant's painting of them. Now considered to be a great painting.

Does look like the contrast and saturation are turned up higher on the Canon than the Nikon. I'd wouldn't be happy with the exposure on either, the Nikon looks under and the Canon over.

OK. I'm probably thinking about this backwards or upside down compared with everyone else.<p>

 

If you take a Picture from the same spot with a 50mm lens and 80mm lens, and then crop the 50 picture to have the same angle of view as the 80; it will have the same perspective. The absolute focal length doesn't matter - the angle of view does. Jeff et. al. will say that's because the distances to all the objects in the photo are the same. <p>

 

If you want to shoot two headshots with the same framing with these lenses, the wider angle of the 50 forces a closer distance... I choose the focal length and choose the framing, and adjust distance to get it - with the knock on effect on perspective. So I think of angle being more important than distance. If I thought of distance as more important, I would choose where to stand (fixing perspective), and choose the framing and then zoom to get it. <br>

If I want to give the <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/2988292">appearance of longer legs</a> I use a wide angle lens and move in close. Some would say the key bit is moving in close, (I changed the lens because I moved) but I think of the key bit is changing the lens. (I moved because I changed the lens)<br> In reality for a particular framing, distance and angle are totally co-dependant: so I was wrong when I said "Perspective is really a function of angle of view" oops. Sorry for kicking off an obtuse thread.<p>

 

Provided you understand the relationship between focal length/angle , framing and distance/perspective it really doesn't matter which ones you think of as being chosen, and which as varying to fit.

Boris. As far as the law on copyright is concerned, you haven't shown that I have given out any misinformation. Your examples were (a) someone threatened with Legal action paid up rather than go to court, and (b) [small] damages do get paid.

You think the courts would award Michele any substantial damages, fine. I don't.

 

You said "James, almost everything you say about UK/Euro copyright is incorrect." My post of the 23rd broke down what I said into 6 points on copyright and one on the award of damages.

 

Now I'll invite you either, withdraw that statement, or show that 4 or 5 of the 6 copyright points are incorrect. (that's "almost everything" in my book). Anything else you say is just trolling.

I shouldn't answer trolls but.

 

Boris, what the act says is

"The court may in an action for infringement of copyright having regard to all the circumstances, and in particular to?

(a) the flagrancy of the infringement, and

(b) any benefit accruing to the defendant by reason of the infringement,

award such additional damages as the justice of the case may require."

 

You decide what they would award Michele. A nominal ?1 plus costs would be my guess, but I'm not a high court judge. (Most days of the week I deal with issues of ownership of intellectual property and it's licensing - what license fee would you expect an amateur painter to pay an amateur photographer ? Maybe they'd award that, or double it. But it's small change)

 

As for the NUJ a major reason my wife was a member was they fund members legal cases (in particular against employers). Just because they pay lawyers doesn't give them expertise in IP law.

?5000 would have been far, far less than the legal bill for the case, which had he lost could quite well have bankrupted the photographer in question.

 

Damien Hurst, well cheaper to cough up than pay the legal bill, and probably whatever the work sold for on top. Instead of spending time in court, he can produce something to offset the cost.

 

What you said was

"James, almost everything you say about UK/Euro copyright is incorrect."

Actually all you've been able to argue is that how damages are set in some cases means my expectations of an award in a case like Michele's are too low. As far as what I've said about copyright law you haven't found a fault.

Nomex suit on....<p>

 

<b>Ilkka</b> and <b>Jeff</b> if interested. Work through the following thought experiment. <br>

Find a long piece of (closed) straight road with a white line down the middle. Take two boxes a meter square with you. Put one box so it touches the line on the left, the other so it touches the line on right, 5 meters behind the first. So far so good. Now place your camera so it is pointing down the line and move it forward or back until the edge of near box fills its half of the frame. The smaller the far box appears in the image, the stronger the perspective effect right ?<br>

Lets say you put a 28mm lens on a 35mm camera, it has an angle of view of 75 degrees. <br>

The distance to the near box is 1/Tan(37.5) = 1.3m which means the distance to the far box is 6.3m. The angle to the edge of it is arc tan (1/6.3) = 9 degrees, so it appears to be roughly 1/4 the size (9/37.5)<br>

Lets say you change to a 100mm lens: it has an angle of view of 24 degrees. <br>

The distance to the near box is 1/Tan(12) = 4.7m which means the distance to the far box is 9.7m. The angle to the edge of it is arc tan (1/9.7) = 5.9 degrees, so it appears to be roughly 1/2 the size (5.9/12)<br><p>

 

Want to argue that it was change of distance that caused the change of perspective ? Sure! But why did you have to change distance ? Wasn't it the angle of view that forced it on you ? ! <p>

 

Of course if you swap back from the 100mm to the 28mm lens the near box is still ocupying and arc of 12 degrees, and the far box 5.9 degrees. So their relative sizes stay the same irrespective of focal length. Effectively distance and angle of view are locked together. <p>

 

<b>Mike</b>

Jeff first took issue with the idea that there is a right perspective (and I'd agree that you can't call the perspective right or wrong - but there is such a thing as "standard" which was the initial question), but he then said <i> perspective is a function of distance from the camera, ... [one can't] pick a focal length ... that would allow for the proper distance, i.e., perspective for an arbitrary [framing of a] portrait.</i><p>

 

In other words IF there is such a thing as the "perfect perspective" (and I think we're all saying there is NOT), then it is acheived at a "perfect" distance. So how much sitter and background are in the frame is then a matter of angle of view / focal length. <p>

 

If the idea that you fix the camera in one place and change focal length to get the framing (instead of walking) seems absurd (and it does) it acts as a proof that the "perfect perspective" is a fallacy.

 

I think we're saying all distance, perspective, angle of view and framing are flexible. But I would still say for the range of framings we think of as "Standard" for a portrait, and the perspectives we think of as "Standard" there is a corresponding range of angles of view (focal lengths) and distances that seem "Standard" - and very roughly it's 80-135mm used from between 1 and 3 meters - which would be the "standard" distance, this will allow you to take "Standard" portraits. (the ones which bore Jeff)

I was taught that although you can use anything, the optimum lens for portraits - to give a flattering perspective

<I>This assumes that a) one subscribes to the theory that portraits have to have a certain look, i.e., a generally boring way of shooting, and b) that a portrait needs to flatter. Neither of these is a particularly compelling argument for a certain focal length.</i><br>

 

When someone asks "What would be considered a standard portrait lens " you've got to start with the may most people expect a portrait to look. You can attack that as boring (because it's what see most of), or argue for unflattering portraits of you want. I posted a link to six pictures made with a 50mm lens. People can decide if my choice of lens rendered them boring.<p>

 

<i>Also, perspective is a function of distance from the camera, not focal length. </i> <br>

Perspective is really a function of angle of view, but since to get a given subject size with a fixed angle given by the lens you must be a specific distance it's pretty much the same thing. <p>

 

<i>Since portaits can be everything from a very close face shot to an environmental portrait with a lot of surrounding information, it's hardly the case that one can pick a focal length range (other than 12-500) that would allow for the proper distance, i.e., perspective for an arbitrary portrait.</i><br>

I think what your suggesting is that the perspective on the face would be identical whether in close-up or environmental. That would mean that if you cropped the image down to just the face it would look the same at both ... but cropping narrows the angle of view and gives the effect of a longer focal length. And to get the same perspective with the same angle of view, you need to be the same distance. <br>

So what you're arguing, is in effect that all portraits would have an optimum distance, and the focal length needs to vary to give close-up or environmental. I think there's a grain of truth in that, that a wide angle is better for an environmental, and a longer tele is better for an extreme close-up. But again for the face/head and shoulders/half length shot the range of perspectives you get from the 35mm equivalent of 80mm-135mm feels about right.

I was taught that although you can use anything, the <i>optimum</I> lens for portraits - to give a flattering perspective - is between 2x and 3x "standard", and that "true standard" on 35mm was actually 43mm, so you're looking at 86-129mm - so a 135 is the long end and an 80/85 is the short end. <p>On my Pentax DSLR (1.5 crop factor) I use a 50mm f/1.4 lens and have found it just brilliant. <a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=465557">most recent examples</a><br>

Theory says at 75mm equivalent it is a whisker short of "optimum", but on the canon with it's 1.6 crop factor the corresponding Canon lens should be just right, at 80mm equivalent. (I think when this came up before canon do a reasonably priced 50mm f/1.4) A fast lens has the advantage of being able to use shallow D.o.f and/or work by natural light as well. If you have other suitable lenses up to about 85mm they'll be fine.

Yes I read it, although I read it here on photo.net. Go to the home page and it's in the bottom right corner. Good piece all the same.

<b>Boris</b>, where do you beleive I am incorrect ? <p>

 

I said <i>There isn't a single EU law on copyright</i>

(Do you read that as "there isn't any law", rather than what I meant that "the EU has not unified the law"). In the UK the law is governed by Copyrights Designs and Patents act 1988, if you type that into google you can read the text of it at Her Majesty's Stationary Office. Italy has it's own law, so does each country of the EU. If you think there is a Europe wide law do tell.<p>

I said <i>most of the world subscribes to the Berne Convention which gives similar rights everywhere. </i> So you're saying only a minority of countries have signed up, or the rights it give vary from place to place ?<p>

 

<i>In English Law, yes you own the copyright in the photo</i>You're saying she doesn't ? <p>

<i>painting is a work derived from it</i>You're saying it isn't ? Because the painter said it was when he posted on Michelle's site

Venica asserted that "street scenes are essentially public" - which might be true for a view of the doorway - the painer could go and set up an easel and paint, but the man and his Lunch were only there when Michelle took the picture. Are you saying my argument is wrong ? <p>

 

I said<i>In England you could stop him publishing,</i> she can go to court, explain her copyright has been breached and get an injunction to ban publication. Why do you think a judge would rule what the painter has done does not amount to a copy (as defined in Section 17.2 and 17.3 of the act ?)

 

I said<i>you would not get paid damages because you have not suffered a loss</i> So, do you think Michelle has suffered a loss, or do you think English courts award punative damages to the plaintiff. Or do you think a court following sections 96 and 97 of the act would behave differently ? <p>

 

My comments on the chair were direct quotes form sections 4,51 and 52 of the act. If you think I've misread the law, do tell me on what basis.<p>

 

Oh, and by the way, I know the NUJ as my wife was a member until recently. I doubt their knowledge of this aspect of law is much greater than the intellectual property lawyers where I work. Thanks to them I am on nodding terms with the UK law. I don't think you are, but if you would like to prove me wrong go ahead.

<b>Venicia</b><p>

<i>Sam designs and builds a unique and beautiful wooden rocking chair. ... Does Sam have copyright on his chair?</i><p>

 

Under English law, if it is "a work of artistic craftsmanship" and I'd say you've defined one there, then it is an Artistic work, which exactly the same category as a photo.<p>

 

However the law also says <p>

where an artistic work has been exploited, by or with the licence of the copyright owner, by<br>

(a) making by an industrial process articles falling to be treated for the purposes of this Part as copies of the work, and<br>

(b) marketing such articles, in the United Kingdom or elsewhere.<br>

[Then, after] 25 years from the end of the calendar year in which such articles are first marketed, the work may be copied by making articles of any description ... without infringing copyright in the work.<p>

 

I.e. if Sam "hand manufactures" the chair, starting aged 20 then people can start copying it when he is 45. With a photo copyright runs until 50 years after his death (in the United Kingdom).<p>

 

For this reason you can buy a kit car which is an EXACT copy of the Original Porsche 911, or Lambourgini countach (except for the badge, which is a trade mark), and because the designs are over 25 years old it's 100% legal.

I'd go with Jeff's advice ... biggest possible softbox - when it's possible window light is the easy route.

 

I was in a (borrowed) studio yesterday and someone had removed the softbox attachment from one of the flash heads. Since I've been using a flash at home bouncing off the ceiling, I thought I'd try bouncing the flash off a white painted wall and that worked quite well. (see the portraits in my Red Lilly VI folder if interested).

Michele I think you're in Italy ? So some of the advice from the US is invalid ... <p>

 

There isn't a single EU law on copyright (Ellis): but most of the world subscribes to the Berne Convention which gives similar rights everywhere. <p>

 

In English Law, yes you own the copyright in the photo, the painting is a work derived from it. [Venicia's comment <I>Street scenes are essentially public and it doesn't matter that a painter used your photograph as a reference of a public scene.</I> is wrong in this context: it isn't a scene which the painter could go and see, because it only existed when you took the picture.] The acuracy with which the "painting" follows the photo makes me think he has printed the photo, and then applied paint to it (his copy of Yuri Bonder's is less accurate. And he has confessed on your web site :-) <p>

 

In England you could stop him publishing, but you would not get paid damages because you have not suffered a loss. <p>

 

Things you might want to do (as well as those already suggested)<br>

1. Ask him to credit you as the source of the idea for the painting and link to your web site. <p>

 

2. Contact his Internet service provider and tell them the picture is the subject of a copyright dispute (his site will be taken down)<p>

I know about the clean up, but the count of ratings should agree on both pages. It does now ... so I can only guess it was some passing gremlin.

Question to Brian.

 

I was thinking that I liked things better when we saw who had rated

what and when. I was also thinking how many accusations of false

rates, complaints about 1/1s etc appear in this forum.

 

Does it actually help anyone to see the break down of scores as we

have it now ?

Would it not be easier to Just say "This picture has been rated 10

times at an average of 5 - 5 and appears on 2 users highest rated

pictures lists" (with the 2 users being a clickable link)

This allows people to see mate rating if they think it is going on,

and also lets you see who likes your work. It also means you can see

who likes pictures that you like and what their top pictures are.

 

I think it is the case that anonymity has allowed people to give

pictures low scores where they might have been afraid of reprisals,

but so what... you care about who likes your work, not who doesn't

(don't you ?). It's true that low raters pull the average score for a

picture down, but there's no prize for "Best average" anyway...

Yes A and O for ratings are silly because most of the time people tie the two together.

 

I think in skating they call the two scores "Technical Merit" and "Artisitic impression", and those are good yardsticks.

 

I use aesthetics for "Does this Picture make me stop and look" - if you use it in the sense of "is it nice to look at" then taste / liking comes into it. But there are a number of people who use it for "Is this subject matter that I like to look at".

 

I use "Originality" for "Quality of thinking" that went into the picture - as very few things have never been done before. However this score seems to be used for rating the picture A+ / A / or A- by most people... there is a link, between the two because someone who produces a picture with(out) impact has(not) put good thought into it.

 

 

There's too much inertia to change the core parts of the rating system. I think if they were starting again there would be something different.

A picture I put up for Critique about 18 hours ago has 18 ratings

when I look at the details tab, but when I click the number 18 to get

the breakdown there are only 11 listed. I thought both where near

real time... and as far as I can tell it's not a caching issue with

my browser.

 

If investigating what the database is up to needs the picture ID it's

3049755

Once you've done it once it gets easier (or so I've found).

 

Of the pictures you've posted, "Silhuette with blue and UV LEDs" is the best because you have a clear shape. I quite like the ghostly image in Model with fire as well.

 

It's clear this is experimental work: I wouldn't say the others were very successful ... except that is the whole point of experiments: some work, some don't, even the ones which don't produce the results you want teach you something.

Michael - I agree we have two opposite groups of idiots (they don't quite cancel each other out - the anti-nudes are slightly more numerous than the the pro-nudes).

If they could be identified then the site would be better off without them, but sadly there are always more idiots out there.

Michael, the extra ratings for nudes are low, not high. Nudes I've posted in the since things were changed are getting lower scores.

 

I actually logged every single score before the system changed. I had just under 1900 at an average of 5.16 / 5.23. Since the change I have had 1200 scores at 4.99 / 4.70. If there are people false scoring the nudes up, then there are more false scoring them down - enough to bring my originality down by half a point.

 

Some observations.

(a) Making ratings anonymous was supposed to cure the abuses of revenge and mate rating; instead abusive raters have secrecy.

(b) The sop to the "Make a nudes ghetto" brigade or "Philistines who can't tell Michaelangelo from Larry Flint" as I prefer to call them of making a nudes category was a waste of time. Firstly the nudes were getting many scores because there weren't that many put up for critique so each had longer getting scores from visitors to the nudes category. Secondly it gives those who want to manipulate scores the chance to do so.

Any sensor has a natural ISO, and increasing the ISO is done by analogue amplification of the voltages before conversion to digital (which is where the noise comes from). The Natural ISO of the Sony sensor used by Pentax and Nikon is 200. Neither Pentax nor nikon saw the need to cut the voltage back to give ISO 100 or less.

This is the second time you've started a thread in recent days complaining about nudes vs non-nudes.

 

Funnily enough I post nudes, and where prior to the nudes category being created a picture would get 10 ratings and then go quiet, now my pictures are getting 20 or 30 ratings, and a much larger proportion of 3s and 4s. I can only conclude there are people who visit the nudes area of p.n. with the express intention of lowering the average of the pictures found there.

 

Personally I'm fed up with all the petty gripes about ratings. Anyone who cares about that that much needs to get a life, or a hobby. Such as photography.

<i>I do have a basic model release form for people to sing</i><p>

 

I normally get them to say "cheese", or "Smelly sausages". Do you find singing works better ? Isn't a model release rather long ?

<i> The ban will take effect as soon as the Metropolitan Transportation Authority's board approves it... the authority announced the proposed photography ban last May a 45-day public comment period ... ends tomorrow. </i>

 

Well that's pretty damn stupid isn't it. Announce that you might do something with the view to stopping terrorist gathering information and then give them 8 months to gather it. <p>

 

If the authorities in New York would talk to their colleagues in Madrid, they'll find you don't need a camera to know how put a bomb on a train. If they talked to their collegues in Belfast (assuming Belfast would take the call after the number of it's Citizens whose murders were paid for in New York) they'd find the IRA didn't need photos to know where to place car bombs. Suicide bombers in Iraq or Israel don't do photographic reconnaissance.<p>

 

Remember two things. One is that every minor freedom that you lose is a victory for the terrorist. The other is a quote from Benjamin Franklyn (and from Google it seems to be widely misquoted), according to my dictionary of quotations goes <i>They that give up their essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety</i>. To which is often added "and they usally get neither" <p>Before resorting to the bookshelf I found this <i>

"Benjamin Franklin didn't say, 'He who would sacrifice liberty for safety deserves neither,' but he said something very close to that... Every time something really bad happens, people cry out for safety and the government answers by taking rights away from good people. You have to watch the government all the time on everything. Thomas Jefferson didn't say that, but he said something very close to that." </I><p>

Interesting under Jefferson in the quotes dictionary I find "We hold these truths to be self-evident ... [all men have the right to] life, liberty and the pursuit of Happiness... and whenever any government becomes destructive of these ends it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it". <p>

 

It's not my government, but I'd start thinking about that.