charleswood

<p><a href="http://fightforrhinos.com/2013/03/28/pink-elephants-poison-rhinos/">http://fightforrhinos.com/2013/03/28/pink-elephants-poison-rhinos/</a></p> <p>To save something you love, sometimes you have to destroy its commercial value.</p>

<p>This one, and thanks Anders, is more specific: <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/priorities/digital-single-market/docs/dsm-communication_en.pdf">http://ec.europa.eu/priorities/digital-single-market/docs/dsm-communication_en.pdf</a> Interesting acknowledgement of existing problems.</p> <blockquote> <p>Section 2.4 Better access to digital content - A modern, more European copyright framework<br /> An effective and balanced civil enforcement system against commercial scale infringements of copyright is central to investment in innovation and job creation. In addition the rules applicable to activities of online intermediaries in relation to copyright protected works require clarification, given in particular the growing involvement of these intermediaries in content distribution. Measures to safeguard fair remuneration of creators also need to be considered in order to encourage the future generation of content.<br /> <br />3. CREATING THE RIGHT CONDITIONS AND A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD FOR ADVANCED DIGITAL NETWORKS AND INNOVATIVE SERVICES<br />The Digital Single Market must be built on reliable, trustworthy, high-speed, affordable networks and services that safeguard consumers' fundamental rights to privacy and personal data protection while also encouraging innovation. This requires a strong, competitive and dynamic telecoms sector to carry out the necessary investments, to exploit innovations such as Cloud computing, Big Data tools or the Internet of Things. The market power of some online platforms potentially raises concerns, particularly in relation to the most powerful platforms whose importance for other market participants is becoming increasingly critical.</p> </blockquote> <p>So it all sounds to me as aimed at creating favorable conditions for private monopolies because ideologically speaking, private monopolies are such a good way to provide all those great services while increasing jobs. Wow, great marking piece there. Doesn't it just sound like a marketer wrote that, with an independent contractor translator to boot (telecoms is slang for example, but a marketer wouldn't know that [imitating jargon their life's work], nor would an independent contractor translator - even with such an official document they produce it on the cheap, no benefits, etc.)</p> <p>There are existing impediments to monopoly creation (different nations) and currently no company wants to invest in all that Euro-National rent seeking infrasctructure without also having created a modern copyright framework and "balanced' enforcement. Sounds so benign doesn't it? Real up front hard hitting advertising copy that.<br /> <br />So your political situation isn't confusing to me or at all complicated. "Privatization is growth" with each little Spot running along with the program. How sad. Poor Tariq.</p> <p> </p>

<p>Well we can't much go by what these parties call themselves any more and I won't bother learning all the spots on European running dogs. It is, as Tariq Ali has termed it, the extreme center, afflicting this country as well..</p>

<p>Really? Have I got this all wrong? The article says "...Unfortunately, the members of the legal affairs committee <strong>turned this proposal on its head</strong>, by adopting the most restrictive amendment on the question of Freedom of Panorama, tabled by the member of the Liberal group Jean-Marie Cavada:" followed by Amendment 421 "<strong>Considers</strong> that the <strong>commercial</strong> use of photographs, video footage or other images of works which are permanently located in <strong>physical</strong> public places <strong>should always be subject to prior authorisation from the authors or any proxy acting for them</strong>;"</p> <p>Are you telling me that the Liberal group headed by Cavada is right-wing? His The <strong>Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe Group</strong> (<strong>ALDE</strong>/<strong>ADLE</strong>) is the current liberal–centrist political group of the European Parliament per <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alliance_of_Liberals_and_Democrats_for_Europe_Group">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alliance_of_Liberals_and_Democrats_for_Europe_Group</a>. What ever his odor, I don't believe him when he says his amendment would limit the impact of “American monopolies such as <a title="Facebook" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook">Facebook</a> and also <a title="Wikimedia" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia">Wikimedia</a>” and serve to protect “a sector of European culture and creativity”. Do you believe him? I would think that to protect "such" he would have taken Julia Reda's proposal a lot farther along to weaken copyright protections in law, regardless that European Parliament is, as I take it from you, little more than advisory. Maybe Jean-Marie wants a better job as a lobbyist for TTIP and was showing copyright holders just how much of a sell out he can be. When is his term up? What other brighter prospects exist for this 'leader' in a Parliament that doesn't have much power?</p> <p> </p>

<p><a href="http://jirisubrt.com/beauty-fairy-tales">http://jirisubrt.com/beauty-fairy-tales</a></p> <p>2nd column, last row is an example of a P/N member's use of the Eiffel Tower in an image. If that photo were used commercially, would some EU copyright holder want a piece of the action and envision a law to cut himself in? </p> <p> </p>

<p>The article stated Facebook terms to be "...the terms of service of Facebook, which state that you are giving permission to Facebook to use your picture commercially (Section 9.1 of Facebook’s Terms of Service), and that you have cleared all the necessary rights in order to do so (5.1 of Facebook’s Terms of Service). That means, if the commercial use of photographs depicting a public building requires a licence from the architect, it is <strong>your responsibility to find out whether the building is still protected by copyright</strong> (that is whether the architect died more than 70 years ago) and who actually owns the rights today. You then have to conclude a <strong>licence agreement with the rightholder or responsible collecting society</strong> that explicitly allows the commercial use of the picture by Facebook <strong>before you can legally upload your holiday pictures</strong> to Facebook."</p> <p>How would we know whether Facebook has used all the rights granted to it by the agreement? It's the agreement that matters. What does it say about member photos if not as represented in the article?</p> <p>Anders "...but we are nowhere near a “law” harmonizing national regulations in Europe concerning sharing photos of buildings and arts works in public spaces."</p> <p>Laurie's article at a minimum shows the direction in which copyright holders want a new 'law' to take. Anders, your linked article just offers reassurances about the red herring <strong>Europe is not banning tourist photos of the London Eye</strong>. You'll have to provide more for me to read for your 'probably' and "I think" remarks to carry much weight.</p> <p> </p>

<p>Get Facebook to stop using photos for commercial purposes? Sure, and why stop with just Facebook. Here's how to destroy the value of images used to advertise: Copyright law could be written to exclude from its protections any portion of an image used to induce sales, except that portion of the image that depicts the tangible object offered for sale would be afforded copyright protections.</p> <p>An example. Use a panoramic photograph to advertise the sale of airplane tickets, then that panoramic photograph isn't of the airplane tickets offered for sale. Therefore copyright protection doesn't extend to the image or any portion of the image.</p> <p>An example. A panoramic photograph of a beach with beautiful women on it as part of an inducement to sell cruise ship tickets. Since the cruise tickets aren't in the image, the image and no portion of the image is afforded copyright protection. If instead the inducement is to rent hotel rooms, the rooms themselves aren't in the image even if the hotel exterior is.</p> <p>Another example. The use of an image of a celebrity to induce the sale of a necklace. That portion of the image depicting the necklace is afforded copyright protection, but the portion of the image that is of the celebrity isn't afforded copyright protection.</p> <p>Another example. An image of a celebrity on stage performing used to induce the sale of album or concert tickets isn't a picture of an album or of concert tickets. Therefore, no copyright protection is afforded the image.</p> <p>Note that my rewrite of copyright protections aims to destroy the value of images used to induce sales. If commercial use of an image destroyed the value of the image, we would be thereby encouraging artistic expression instead of sales inducements, where sales inducements are the dregs of imagery.</p> <p> </p>

<p>It's called a Palace Revolution with copyright holders as upstart sovereigns. From our side, an offer of a petition in opposition to their move is an example of how generals always fight the last war, including our activist leadership. It's up to the soldiers now, since our generals have failed. Upstart sovereigns, the copyright holders, don't care one whit about your petitions nor do their political minions.</p> <p>Better as a strategy to destroy the commercial value of selected key images now. For example, use Photoshop to create and distribute images of the Eiffel Tower that can't be unseen. Such that none would use it commercially any longer. Act up. Don't play by their rules.</p> <p> </p>

<p>Fred - "A selfie is not just a self indulgence."</p> <p>I agree. The ones I see, which are mostly by women around my age, seem to include a "Why not?" in the smile, which complements what their kids are doing. That's my take, Fred, on your mention of links in a chain. It can really be quite celebratory and about connections between people.</p>

<p><a href="http://wpcomics.washingtonpost.com/client/wpc/nq/2015/06/26/">http://wpcomics.washingtonpost.com/client/wpc/nq/2015/06/26/</a><br> Links, like everything else, age so there's an updated link to the linked OP cartoon.</p> <p>My latest pet peeve isn't the selfie, it's the bucket list which has the advantage, when casting aspersions at others, of at least hitting closer to home.</p> <p> </p>

<p>If self-expression is narrowly defined as expression that can't be a mimicked expression [mimicked self-expression a contradiction in terms] then it seemed to me at the time <em>The Pump House Gang</em> was written by Mr. Wolfe that there was a lot of mimicking going on in our generation that tried to pass itself off as self-expression. Expressing one's self became itself something to mimic where self itself seemed to disappear in an infinite regression, self imitating a self imitating a self where it was imitation all the way down. Who am I then? was an appropriate question to ask given those circumstances, and the Me generation was thus also delineated as having an identity crisis (another phrase I remember from that time, along with navel gazers, etc.). Me generation, identity crisis, navel gazers, self-involved: those were monikers given by those who though older were also were rather imitative in their staid adaptations, a case of the older kettles calling the young pots black. That self-expression is a conundrum we all might agree?</p>

<p>Fred - 'Maybe "intent" and "motivation" are too strict concepts for all this.'</p> <p>For me intent and motivation are words that have some categorical, narrowing connotations.</p> <p>I like the phrase you use 'showing others in a particular light'.</p>

<p>I didn't intend to sound prescriptive, apologies. Instead I'm saying the subjects seem sensitively handled and allow me as a viewer to feel a connection to the subjects. The distinction I'm trying to make in intent is say between approaching a <em>person</em> with a specific intent to show them as a <em>person, </em>(which to me would be kind of rude to approach a person to 'show them as a person' since they already are a person so what else would one be showing?) and approaching a subject less definitively than that<em>. </em>Less definitively, more sensitively, etc. etc.</p>

<p>Fred - "I wouldn't find it helpful or creative to limit my objectives in this way."</p> <p>I don't see connection as a limitation, or disconnection as a limitation, just that they're both self-exploration and an exploration for the viewer too where it's all expression, communication, connection. Sorry to be so general.</p> <p>In my photography I was rarely feeling that metaphor was working for me, I really felt/feel lost in that area. But in woodworking, for me metaphor comes more readily and I am less dismissive of it when it comes up in me as I work, where it's like metaphor is getting a free ride when it attaches to what I'm doing with my hands.</p> <p> </p>

<p>Going back to Lannie's point about my surprise that a couple of my photos had a lot of views when compared to views of other photographs of mine: Lannie thought that a reason for higher views for those two than my average views could be found in the expressions of the subjects.</p> <p>That might be the reason. If so, at that time I really wanted to get more interesting actions out of coyotes and birds. Daily I would have wanted coyote mothers licking puppy faces, bird incredible acrobatics, etc.</p> <p>What I did get were photographs of how the wildlife connected with me, that is: they kept their wary eyes on me and that's pretty much what I got, pictures of wary eyes on me before the subjects came to a decision to just leave. So for me I still compare my results with my loftier intention where the results came short, but still I like the eye contact in a lot of my shots. There's an element of self-recognition there, for me like when I was a young child where it was a thrill to recognize that an animal was looking at me and I was looking at it in mutual curiosity.</p> <p>And I think with words like 'equality' or 'rights' or 'personhood', 'individuality' it would feel a bit invasive to approach a subject like an older gay man, or Andy, or Plowshare residents with anything other than a desire to connect, Plowshare particularly where even entertaining a such well defined intention can feel inappropriate. It must be that it would take a pretty sensitive person to bring to a viewer by photographing such subjects a sense of self-recognition.</p>

<p>The OP title, emphasis added: "Has Photoshop <em><strong>Spoiled</strong> </em>Your Ability to Appreciate Great Photographs"</p> <p>Sanford's example of a photograph that for him photoshop has spoiled is "<strong><em>The Steerage</em></strong>" by Alfred Stieglitz. Spoiled is a strongly emotion laden word, and the effect of the affect is to spoil something for Sanford. Photoshop hasn't spoiled Sanford's ability to appreciate great photographs. But what has? An affective element attaches to the object, a photograph, of its own free will, enters into Sanford's perceptual field to comment on his viewing experience by offering commentary that devalues the viewed object. For example, "bad color balance in the Mona Lisa".</p> <p>One fact I note is that Stieglitz in his "The Steerage" was documenting his own personal depression. With that photograph Stieglitz photographed what he felt. "I saw shapes related to each other. I saw a picture of shapes and underlying that the feeling I had about life." <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Steerage">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Steerage</a> ,quote in Description section. The feeling Stieglitz had about life at that time was a depressed feeling, a withdrawal of emotional value from what had been his emotional <em>values</em> as exemplified by his pictorialism. In "<strong>The Steerage</strong>" he documented his depressed feeling about life. "Although Stieglitz described "an inclining funnel" in the scene photographs and models of the ship (see below) show that this object was actually a large mast to which booms were fastened for loading and unloading cargo. One of the booms is shown at the very top of the picture." [Wikipedia same]. In other words, what was clearly a mast by his depressed feeling was transformed into "an inclining funnel". Perhaps his depressed feeling saw the inclining funnel as swallowing people.</p> <p>Was Stieglitz's depressed feeling his muse? His muse's take on pictorialism may have been that those pictorialist products were but "lies agreed upon", as Napolian is said to have defined 'history'. Following that seminal photograph was a new direction in Stieglitz's creative life.</p> <p> </p>

<p>I like colorized versions of Mathew Brady photographs as much as the originals. <a href="http://www.smithsonianmag.com/us-history/the-civil-war-now-in-living-color-19317683/">http://www.smithsonianmag.com/us-history/the-civil-war-now-in-living-color-19317683/</a></p> <p> </p>

<p>Thanks William for sharing that woman's ability to say something beyond words with her simple words.<br> ~~<br> Was da Vinci satisfied with the color balance of the Mona Lisa, did he declare it to himself as great and perfect? Did he ever declare it done?</p> <p> </p>

<p>Hi Lannie,<br> Here's one example: <a href="/photo/12428532">http://www.photo.net/photo/12428532</a> 1,116 views.<br> Second example: <a href="/photo/10752113">http://www.photo.net/photo/10752113</a> 688 views.</p> <p>Example one is a coyote and I have lots of others I consider to be better or more interesting in my portfolio here. Why this one was viewed so many times compared to the other coyote shots of mine I don't know.</p> <p>The second one is a small bird, common, the one bird species I would always see, those all seem to have their own tree on my street, in the park, everywhere.</p> <p>What the two may have in common, aside from high views and average ratings, is subject familiarity to viewers. The two shots may meet their expectations about what a coyote is and what Black Phoebe is. To me they both come off as rather staid, the bird particularly.</p> <p> </p>

<p>Leo sometimes you just have to leave some of your money on the table and walk away.</p>

<p>Q.G. "The value taken by from the originators is that of having say about what happens to and with their photos."</p> <p>OK, got it.</p> <p>Fred I think that, sure, Prince missed the value of their selfies and add that for me Prince in his work misses the idea of value entirely. </p>

<p>If I made a collage from internet found selfies then I would have added value to them as a collection. Who then gets that added value? We can say Prince did no work, or that his work didn't add value, or that his work was an unjust appropriation of another's. And we wouldn't be wrong. But were I a 'prince' I might with reason disregard the minuscule effort whose result was the individual elements of my 'greater' collage. Had I instead taken grains of sand from a public beach and made a work of art, whom should I then pay for the grains of sand? I just don't see behind a claim against Prince much of a case for value having been taken from the originators.</p>

<p>How is interpreting another's photograph by manipulating it not art? And if a better interpretation results than was in the original, don't we all gain? And if someone owns something they aren't using to the best benefit, should they have any property rights in it other than its cost of production?</p>

<p>TPP intellectual property provisions? <a href="http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/455848/disney_calls_extended_copyright_international_trade_agreement/">http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/455848/disney_calls_extended_copyright_international_trade_agreement/</a></p>

<p>Tim it was an intentionally misleading presentation and I'm curious as to who the advertisers were? Here <a href="http://www.adweek.com/news/television/animal-planet-has-lined-dozens-new-advertisers-153915">http://www.adweek.com/news/television/animal-planet-has-lined-dozens-new-advertisers-153915</a> . I see that Animal Planet content is designed to attract live viewers, that is, designed to attract viewers who don't skip ads through playback. Somehow you didn't just turn the channel or turn it off, so the content successfully delivered your attention to the advertisers. That is a bad thing. You were used. And now you feel cheated and cheap.</p> <p>Your human faculty to freely give your attention is a precious capacity born of all the suffering and triumphs of every living thing that has come before you since the beginning of time.</p>