|
mr. mephistopheles posted:I was just going by this clause, "Works by the U.S. Government are not eligible for U.S. copyright protection." How strictly they enforce that is better left to somebody who is in the military and/or knows law. I work for the government in a civilian capacity and I see how they could very easily manipulate that phrasing to mean whatever the hell they want to, such as any photos I take while I'm at work are considered a "work by the U.S. Government." Well, as a lawyer and retired US Army, I can tell you that it's like anything else. If you work for IBM, and take a picture, even at work, it's not a work "By IBM." However, if IBM says, Mr. Mephistopheles, as part of your work today, go take a picture of this." In that case, there is an argument to be made that it was a picture "by IBM." Same for US. We have a navy photographer here, as I recall, but don't know who it was, or if they're still here. But their shots taken officially are not copyrighted.
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2011 01:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 07:12 |
|
|
torgeaux posted:Well, as a lawyer and retired US Army, I can tell you that it's like anything else. If you work for IBM, and take a picture, even at work, it's not a work "By IBM." However, if IBM says, Mr. Mephistopheles, as part of your work today, go take a picture of this." In that case, there is an argument to be made that it was a picture "by IBM." Same for US. We have a navy photographer here, as I recall, but don't know who it was, or if they're still here. But their shots taken officially are not copyrighted. But couldn't they very easily say that a photo taken while on the job was shot for them and take ownership? How could you disprove that? For instance, the shots jeisai posted in SAD that look to be from some sort of training exercise. How could you prove that it was just him messing around with his camera and not something requested by his superiors? I'm not trying to disagree, it just seems that the official wording leaves open a lot of room for interpretation and the only thing stopping them from seizing the rights to something is because they don't care. They could also easily claim a photo contained sensitive information and just flat out take it from you and I don't see how you would have a ton of recourse beyond your word against theirs.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2011 02:06
|
|
|
Usually when you are hired to do something there is documentation. I suspect that when you are ordered to do something by the United States Military this is also the case.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2011 02:11
|
|
|
mr. mephistopheles posted:But couldn't they very easily say that a photo taken while on the job was shot for them and take ownership? How could you disprove that? For instance, the shots jeisai posted in SAD that look to be from some sort of training exercise. How could you prove that it was just him messing around with his camera and not something requested by his superiors? Because I'm not a Public Affairs photographer (which is an actual enlisted career field). Even if my CC did ask me to shoot, it would be at my discretion and just for our squadron, so I would at least get credit. Copyright would be slightly muddy in that situation, but I think I'd still retain it since he can't exactly order me to take official pictures (as again, it's my personal camera and whatnot, and I'm not PA). Then again, that may just how be my squadron works. It may be the case that by agreeing to do it, the pictures automatically become government property - I just know that in my case, it wouldn't work that way as my CC is not a dick. As far as sensitive information, I know what is sensitive and what is not. Sensitive items I blur or remove, or do not shoot at all (the obvious choice). They can't "claim" something is sensitive, when it is not - especially when PA takes the same types of pictures. Riot Carol Danvers fucked around with this message at 02:19 on Feb 2, 2011 |
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2011 02:14
|
|
|
mr. mephistopheles posted:I was just going by this clause, "Works by the U.S. Government are not eligible for U.S. copyright protection." How strictly they enforce that is better left to somebody who is in the military and/or knows law. I work for the government in a civilian capacity and I see how they could very easily manipulate that phrasing to mean whatever the hell they want to, such as any photos I take while I'm at work are considered a "work by the U.S. Government." No uphill battle. USAF legal answered the question. It's a good discussion topic but it has been definitively answered what guys like Jeisai and myself can copyright and sell. It's info I didn't know but glad you brought it up though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2011 02:19
|
|
|
mr. mephistopheles posted:But couldn't they very easily say that a photo taken while on the job was shot for them and take ownership? How could you disprove that? For instance, the shots jeisai posted in SAD that look to be from some sort of training exercise. How could you prove that it was just him messing around with his camera and not something requested by his superiors? Two points. One, if you take it on your equipment, at your discretion, with neither orders nor duties, it's yours, for good or ill. Two, if it's sensitive, that's not covered by the copyright issue, and seizure/deletion is expected, and not a big deal. I've had lots of pictures viewed, then they request I delete them. Usually, they're wrong about what's covered, but when your in a sensitive area, on a military base, you usually don't argue about that. jeisai posted:Because I'm not a Public Affairs photographer (which is an actual enlisted career field). Even if my CC did ask me to shoot, it would be at my discretion and just for our squadron, so I would at least get credit. Copyright would be slightly muddy in that situation, but I think I'd still retain it since he can't exactly order me to take official pictures (as again, it's my personal camera and whatnot, and I'm not PA). Then again, that may just how my squadron works. It may be the case that by agreeing to do it, the pictures automatically become government property - I just know that in my case, it wouldn't work that way as my CC is not a dick. You could be ordered, under some circumstances, to take official photos, even on your equipment and not a photographer. Document a fight for an investigation, etc... Might their be an argument against? Yeah, but I'd advise not even considering fighting it. Twenties Superstar posted:Usually when you are hired to do something there is documentation. I suspect that when you are ordered to do something by the United States Military this is also the case. No, not necessarily. Official photographers would have written assignment orders (not for an "assignment" like a shoot, but a unit/location and duties. They may receive an email or message giving directions, but mostly it would be, "Go there, shoot that, give to me," likely all oral.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2011 02:24
|
|
|
torgeaux posted:stuff That pretty much clears up my confusion except for one more detail. I wasn't trying to imply that seizure/deletion intersected with copyright law, just that if they didn't want you to sell a photo (for whatever reason) could they just force you to get rid of it on the grounds that it's sensitive info? I'm not saying they'd have any reason to, I'm just asking whether or not they could if they wanted to. And following from that, if they can order you to delete it, is it really fair to say that it's "yours for good or ill." Legally you may have copyright of it, but that legal ownership seems like it can be overruled by your service and the people in charge of you if they were inclined to do so. Would you have any sort of recourse in this situation?
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2011 03:07
|
|
|
mr. mephistopheles posted:That pretty much clears up my confusion except for one more detail. I wasn't trying to imply that seizure/deletion intersected with copyright law, just that if they didn't want you to sell a photo (for whatever reason) could they just force you to get rid of it on the grounds that it's sensitive info? I'm not saying they'd have any reason to, I'm just asking whether or not they could if they wanted to. And following from that, if they can order you to delete it, is it really fair to say that it's "yours for good or ill." Legally you may have copyright of it, but that legal ownership seems like it can be overruled by your service and the people in charge of you if they were inclined to do so. Well, real world: I'm on Gitmo, take a picture of the ferry. MP says, "you can't take a picture of that, delete it." He's wrong, I can. Normally, I just say fine. If I wanted to push it, I'd (politely) get him to get someone with authority involved (easier for me than most enlisted guys). It'd be pretty easy to win that, because I'm actually right, and not in a position to get pushed around. I said, "good or ill" because if it really is sensitive, you're also on the hook for potential problems. For good because, absent some specific circumstances, you own the shot. jeisai said that he blurs stuff that's sensitive...he's walking a fine line, and most commands won't accept that for personal shots, as they have no way to do it in camera, so there's too much trust involved. And, if it's actually classified, you're hosed.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2011 03:22
|
|
|
torgeaux posted:Well, real world: I'm on Gitmo, take a picture of the ferry. MP says, "you can't take a picture of that, delete it." He's wrong, I can. Normally, I just say fine. If I wanted to push it, I'd (politely) get him to get someone with authority involved (easier for me than most enlisted guys). It'd be pretty easy to win that, because I'm actually right, and not in a position to get pushed around. I must specify that I meant OPSEC sensitive, not classification level sensitive. I have not and will not take pictures of any type of classified material. The only time I have to do it is if it's something I see as questionable (if it's questionable at all, there's no question, right?), and I've accidentally included it in a photo. Not intentionally going to take a picture of anything OPSEC sensitive, either. I'm not that dumb.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2011 03:33
|
|
|
torgeaux posted:No, not necessarily. Official photographers would have written assignment orders (not for an "assignment" like a shoot, but a unit/location and duties. They may receive an email or message giving directions, but mostly it would be, "Go there, shoot that, give to me," likely all oral. But they are paid to be photographers? And their payment and employ is documented?? edit: your use of the word shoot makes me unsure whether you mean photography or just like a gun guy
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2011 03:35
|
|
|
Twenties Superstar posted:But they are paid to be photographers? And their payment and employ is documented?? There are specific career fields within each branch that are photographers, yes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2011 03:43
|
|
|
This is a no poo poo situation that happened to another crew I deployed with last year. Guy is on the jet taking photos for the slideshow or whatever. He inadvertently snaps a picture of several airmen with a piece of sensitive equipment in the back. It wasn't even the focus of the picture. Another crewmember raises a flag and instead of (this is solely my personal opinion) telling the guy to delete that one photo he reports it as a security violation. So this took place a few hours after the photo was taken. Guy with camera uploads photos and those get passed around the jet. So when the investigation takes place, every laptop, external HDD, and memory card that is even thought to have been in contact with something that held the photo is confiscated, wiped clean, and given back. 6 people had their laptop HDD's nuked and several others had gigabytes of data wiped out over one pic.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2011 04:06
|
|
|
HeyEng posted:This is a no poo poo situation that happened to another crew I deployed with last year. And this is why I don't take photos in situations like that. No classified around when I shoot, ever. I just meant sanitized name tags, certain other piddly things that may or may not be OPSEC.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2011 04:07
|
|
|
edit
bloops fucked around with this message at 23:53 on Nov 14, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2011 06:52
|
|
|
jeisai posted:After a quick phone call to base legal, photos can be copyrighted for personal use, but if I sell them I have to have an off-duty employment form filed with them. The question blew their minds and they had to look it up. evil_bunnY fucked around with this message at 15:17 on Feb 2, 2011 |
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2011 15:11
|
|
|
HeyEng posted:6 people had their laptop HDD's nuked and several others had gigabytes of data wiped out over one pic.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2011 15:16
|
|
|
Do we have anything on the forum that has a good overview of the ins and outs of copyright, photographers rights, etc.?
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2011 16:22
|
|
|
William T. Hornaday posted:Do we have anything on the forum that has a good overview of the ins and outs of copyright, photographers rights, etc.? There's a thread somewhere that discusses some of that, I don't have the time to search for it. The problem is that there are so many different situations that it's impossible to have a "good overview" aside from "if you shoot it, most of the time you own it."
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2011 19:21
|
|
|
With all these new posts I thought you goons were dogpiling a cute girl or castigating PIMM, what the hell Dorkroom?
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2011 19:44
|
|
|
From this past Saturday at about 5:45PM. It sucked about as much as it looks. Much more for the model, of course. (Medium).jpg) The negs look pretty good so far!  Photo credit= Evilkiksass McMadCow fucked around with this message at 22:18 on Feb 2, 2011 |
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2011 22:11
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:There's no such thing as copyright for personal use. Something is either copyrighted or not. Thanks torgeaux for clearing the ownership issue 8) Yeah, I meant to say personal photos for personal use are copyright to the photographer.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2011 00:59
|
|
|
HeyEng posted:This is a no poo poo situation that happened to another crew I deployed with last year. I spend too much of my life dealing with classified data spills. First reaction is always limit the spill. The guy who waited to report instead of dealing with it was stupid.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2011 01:14
|
|
|
Oh god the Aliens were out to get me, then this guy busted out of the forest and took my picture!
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2011 01:38
|
|
|
Tenser234 posted:Oh god the Aliens were out to get me, then this guy busted out of the forest and took my picture! Hah, that is awesome!
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2011 19:58
|
|
|
 2011-27 by Tom Rintjema, on Flickr This is me. I directed a helpful lady to take my photo.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2011 21:01
|
|
|
You look like you're getting ready to die  Here's me hard at work or something 
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2011 22:32
|
|
|
TomR posted:
Alright, what did you do to yourself?
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2011 01:06
|
|
|
I've have sharp pains in my stomach area and am sick to my stomach a lot. I've done a bunch of tests and today was the last one. I get to hear the results later this month. I don't really know whats wrong, but if I had to guess there is something up with my gallbladder, but I really don't know. This has been going on for a while and has gotten much worse the past few weeks. I didn't really leave the house this week. It's really putting a damper on my photography.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2011 01:15
|
|
|
TomR posted:I've have sharp pains in my stomach area and am sick to my stomach a lot. I've done a bunch of tests and today was the last one. I get to hear the results later this month. I don't really know whats wrong, but if I had to guess there is something up with my gallbladder, but I really don't know. I've got a close friend, and a guy who works for me who have had the gall bladder removed. Interestingly, the guy who works for me passed out, in court, because he passed a gall stone suddenly AFTER he'd had the gall bladder removed. Don't worry, if it's the gall bladder, it's an easy fix, and not much impact on you after.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2011 01:52
|
|
|
I've heard having your gallbladder out is no big deal, and know a few people who've had it done and they seem fine. They haven't said that's what it is yet though, I just hope it is because it would be an easy fix, like you say.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2011 02:08
|
|
|
You all look completely different than I imagined.  
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2011 12:32
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2011 02:03
|
|
|
I shaved my beard. I know the second one is out of focus, I dont have a remote or anything, so I just auto-focused it and guessed  before_after by spikespikespike, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2011 05:04
|
|
|
Anti_Social posted:I really like the lighting on this. What was your setup?
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2011 05:12
|
|
|
mr. mephistopheles posted:I really like the lighting on this. What was your setup? Super tiny room - ISO 200, F5.6 One 580EXII subject left high, down at 45 degrees through a small softbox. One 580EXII subject right and behind, bare bulbed and flagged. And then I had a snoot at really low power hitting my chest, that was on a shelf just behind the camera. All I remember about power ratios were that my bare bulb light and the snoot were at minimum power. The softbox may have been at 1/64th? I underexposed it pretty heavily and brought it up in post so I wouldn't have to worry about light contamination any more than I already did.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2011 06:01
|
|
|
Awkward Davies posted:I shaved my beard. I know the second one is out of focus, I dont have a remote or anything, so I just auto-focused it and guessed Man you lost like 10 years of age with that beard.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2011 18:09
|
|
|
DJExile posted:Man you lost like 10 years of age with that beard. I did that on Wednesday too. I'm afraid to take a picture of myself now though I walked into work and got "Holy crap, you're 18!" Tenser234, your shot is awesome! Nice work haha.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2011 18:19
|
|
|
DJExile posted:Man you lost like 10 years of age with that beard. I know, I look like I'm 16 now
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2011 19:42
|
|
|
I haven't posted here in a while and I have splendid new facial fuzz. I also haven't learned to fix my background so the poo poo behind it doesn't show.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2011 07:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 07:12 |
|
|
That's a bitchin sweater
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2011 18:08
|
|