alec_myers

<blockquote>

<p>Sometimes the faces of the alleged criminals are <strong>not</strong> blurred out. This seems to go to privacy issues as well as releases.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Releases are there to release the publisher from liabilities including responsibility for breach of privacy; I think it's the same issue. In the case of alleged criminals whose faces are not blurred one might guess they were convicted, and it cannot thereafter be a libel to them to associate them with the offence. Similarly the occupier of the house above at the time of the bust might not have a case against Mikael (or photo.net) for publishing the photo and caption, but the current occupier unconnected with previous events might.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>What if you purchased a very new DVD with images on it? Same difference.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Unlike an old negative, A DVD comes with a fairly explicit licence to view it ("<em>for home exhibition only; not for public display. etc. etc</em>") and statements of copyright are plastered all over the disc and the box ("<em>© 2008 Warner Bros inc.</em>" etc etc), so there's not much doubt.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>ISP isn't going to do anything without a court order and nobody is going to go to that much trouble over a minor copyright dispute.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I understand it's relatively straightforward to get exactly that kind of court order with which ISP's will readily comply - as many people involved in alleged breaches of copyright by peer-to-peer sharing of music files find out when the letters from the plaintiff's lawyers arrive on their doormat. </p>

<p>There's no need for criminality, simply a will (and a budget) on the part of the copyright holder. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Why would they Alec? ... Maybe I'm a bit dense but I don't understand where you're coming from.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't think you're dense at all. The position in the EU I don't think is as clear cut as the US, since the European convention on human rights gives a right for the private lives of individuals (article 8). For people who enjoy watching the unfolding of that kind of case law the Court of Appeal, House of Lords and (now) Supreme Court (all UK) have handed down judgements over the last decade that have enshrined into case law the concepts demanded by the Convention even without statutory provision, by twisting and turning the law as it stands.</p>

<p>In one particular example that comes to mind, a man who had a mental illness was filmed on by a local authority CCTV system in the public street brandishing a knife. The local authority sold the images which later appeared on national television. The man sued on the grounds of a breach of his right to privacy. The European Court of Human Rights upheld his complaint; while the filming was legitimate, and in a public place, and while he should have realised that he was on camera, it was not reasonable for him to expect pictures from cameras installed for law enforcement to appear with such broad exposure. (<a href="http://www.echr.coe.int/eng/Press/2003/jan/Peckjudeng.htm">http://www.echr.coe.int/eng/Press/2003/jan/Peckjudeng.htm</a>)</p>

<p>I realise of course that in the case above we're outside the jurisdiction of this court (and the Charter); I just wondered if you thought there might be a similar argument that might hold in the US. Possibly a bit tenuous, seeing as it's a picture of a house rather than a person - but I was just curious as to what you thought. I can see that if it were my house, as a new unconnected occupant I might be against the idea of it being continually identified as the site of a drugs bust - years later. I might seek to construct an argument that having it identified as such would be to my detriment somehow. For instance, without making clear that the events were historic and the current occupant was not associated with the drugs bust, that could be a case of False Light, couldn't it? Potentially defamatory, although not false per se.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Of course, the downside is that if it doesn't work, you're still no nearer to an answer about the Lowel or the Litepanel. But... nothing ventured. Please post how you got on.</p>

<p>Seriously, Dave: before spending $$$$$$ try a $20 maglite strapped to a flash bracket. You only need the light where the af sensor looks, so a spot beam will be adequate. You could also try putting a red gel over it, similar to the af assist beams (that don't work in AI SERVO mode which is largely what you want for dance).</p>

<blockquote>

<p>...frustrated by the amount of responses from people who seem to be suggesting, that if I knew what I was doing, I wouldn't need to ...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>A common feature of photo.net, and sometimes a hard trap not to fall into for those responding.</p>

<blockquote>

<p> I'll see if I can find a copy of the warrant somewhere and add it in.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If you do add it in, would the current occupants have a (hypothetical) cause for complaint against photo.net of breach of privacy?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Deputy sheriff's serve a search warrant at <strong>XXX Anystreet</strong>.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Just out of interest, Mikael, why were you reticent to give the correct address? It wouldn't be because you are afraid of being sued by someone, would it...?</p>

<p>Echoing what Craig has said: if you have to ask that question then you definitely don't own the copyright. Which means basically <em>you don't have the right to stop someone else duplicating the images</em>, should they get hold of a print, or other copy.</p>

<p>Whether or not you yourself have the right to print or use the images is actually a different question and depends on (as Craig says) how old the images are as well uncertain stuff like under what circumstances the negatives passed out of posession of the copyright holder.</p>

<p>There is an argument to say that if you as the copyright holder give someone the negative to your photograph you also give them an implied <em>licence </em>to use it, for at least some purposes - the extent of which would also depend on circumstance. </p>

<p>It's available in most small hardware shops (there's a company that markets it in small green plastic bags) - alternatively you can buy it from Silverprint.</p>

<p>As the old legal dictum says, the truth is not a libel.<br>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Could this photo run with THAT caption?:<em>"Police raid meth lab in rural America."</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>If that was indeed a meth lab in rural America being raided, then sure.</p>

</p>

<p>Neal, I'm not sure we're all on the same page when it comes to the difference between steps and stops but both of the following can't be right:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Mathematically, multiply or divide by the cube-root of 2 to move by steps, and multiply or divide by the square-root of 2 to move by stops</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If you're talking about apertures (f numbers), then it's the sixth-root of 2 for 1/3-stops (steps, apparently, although I've never heard that definition before) and square-root of 2 for stops.</p>

<p>If you're talking about shutter times, then it's a factor of a cube-root of 2 for a 1/3 stop difference, and a factor of 2 for a full stop difference.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>It is worth considering that if Tanya's business does get off the ground and expand, then fairly soon she will be in a position to buy photos from professional photographers.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Rubbish. She will plead poverty again and scrounge more photos for free. There is never a time when a business ever feels so flush with cash that it looks for opportunities spend it on something it can get for nothing. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Ultimately her current strategy could put more money in the pockets of pros. Certainly more than if she went out of business.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I really wouldn't bet on that.</p>

<p>I've an Intuos 4 - had it for a six months, I think, and use it daily, all day. I've never changed the nib. Don't sweat it.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Manual mode.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>does exactly the opposite of ...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>not have to worry about accidentally knocking the wheel and altering one of the values during a shoot?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Peter: you will be aware that you can disable the rear thumb-wheel. But no, you can't lock or protect the front controller wheel. There's always gaffer tape, I suppose.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Alec – I don’t think you will find I am asking for ‘better’ images than the travel trade libraries offer, we just haven’t been able to find anything we like in the travel trade libraries.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>If the travel trade libraries' pictures suited your purposes then you'd use them. The fact they don't means you need something more suitable. Confusing the technical quality of a photograph with it's "goodness" is a beginner's error - a good photo is simply one that suits the purposes of the person who uses it.</p>

<p>The point being that the stock value of a photograph depends mostly on its content. Pictures of generic sunrises are ten a penny on iStockphoto - but if you want sunrise over a particular valley in New Mexico and can accept no other location then when you find that right photo its value is higher. It has rarity.</p>

<p>The pickier you are about the content, the more you should be prepared to pay. Which is, I think, at the heart of what I dislike about your post: You're saying "we have free pictures from libraries, they're not good enough (not right); we want to be pickier, but we don't want to pay." I really really hope that you don't find them.</p>

<p>As Jamie said. Also, anything on the sensor will show up clearly in every image as splotches, spots or stains, in every image. It would be impossible not to notice.</p>

<p>Dave, I would take with a pinch of salt (a big one, at that) all the "my camera has no problem with that" comments (you don't have their camera) and all the "you shouldn't have any trouble doing that" (implication that you're doing something wrong or are deficient in the head, on both of which I think you deserve the benefit of the doubt) and trust your own instinct and experience. Other people know what works for them and they're very apt to assume that you're taking exactly the same kind of pictures as them. Which you're not.</p>

<p>Hire one - try it. If it works for you, fabulous. If not then you know.</p>

<p>By the way, I have tried strapping an LED maglite to my camera to help with the same situation, but I found it too unwieldy. YMMV may vary of course.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I would, if mine were any where near good enough!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Maybe you should revisit the issue if and when your pictures are good enough, by which time you will be able to evaluate your own investment in terms of time, energy and money to get to that standard. You might well feel differently then.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I can understand that professional photographers would find Tanya's request cheeky, but she hasn't requested she wants 'professional' photos.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's very much the point: 'professional' photos are ones that are paid for, and she want freebies so by definition she's not asking for pro photos. However, she's asking for good photos, for free (better, even, than the travel trade image libraries - which don't satisfy her) for a commercial purpose, to earn money with.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I don't wish to exploit anyone David, that's not my intention.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Best not to ask for free photos on a photographer's forum then. I don't think it gets much simpler, does it?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>A newish travel company that no-one's heard of? No, sorry.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Indeed.</p>

<p>William, I think Nic's point of view is that he doesn't want to hand over his private pictures for the club to make free commercial use of, in any medium. Still less sign any "release" or documents. Maybe he can clarify?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The mirror would have to flip up and down, possibly several times, to get it right.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No, not at all. MR's original suggestion was for this to work in live view mode, when the mirror (if there is one) is already up and out of the way, and the sensor is already pulling in data, periodically, to update the display. Clearly each pixel is returning a value every so often, and it would be trivial to work out any exposure based on that.</p>

<p>Even outside of live-view mode, a single trial exposure (at the regular metered level) would give a sufficiently accurate basis to adjust for a second exposure (not so different from the way Canon's ETTL algorithms use a single flash to determine correct exposure for the second flash, although applied somewhat differently.) The mirror could stay up and the shutter could fire twice. Alternatively, if the sensor can be gated for an intial metering exposure then cleared down for the actual exposure even the shutter doesn't have to refire.</p>

<p>There's really no great difficulty about engineering this kind of exposure mode, if there was a will.</p>

<p>Neil Ambrose is 100% correct in what he says.</p>

<p>I would add that, since your friend is making the arrangements, only she (if anyone) has the clout to negotiate different conditions, since she can arrange to take her business elsewhere. I doubt if contacting the owner yourself will do anything but make things less likely to work out the way you want.</p>

<p>In other words, you lay your terms in front of her, she negotiates them with the club management, and if she can't get them to agree you have to inform her that you are unable to abide by the conditions they've set out and therefore will leave your camera behind. The fact that she's a friend makes it harder but doesn't change the facts.</p>

<p>I think it would be a fine idea. </p>

<p>tried Rajapack?</p>