|
There's a world of difference between operating equipment and providing a creative product with long-term revenue potential.
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2009 03:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 07:09 |
|
|
pwn posted:Thank you for calling me stupid. You are stupid.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2009 05:03
|
|
|
pwn posted:Dorkroom: Do you think you're entitled to be paid every time someone makes money off your work? If so, why? Sub-question: Would you find it fair to send the maker of your camera a portion of the profits every time you make money with it? Every time you license a work for use you are creating value in that instance for your client, and as the creator of that work you are entitled to a piece of that under your terms. When I work in some production aspect (whether photo assistant or digital tech or whatever) I'm being paid for my time and labor, not my creative input. I don't have any stake in the final image or it's creation so it would be silly for me to be paid royalties for it. Boom operators are the same way.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2009 05:19
|
|
|
trueblue posted:Thanks for that link, all 3 parts in that series are really just superb.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2009 05:21
|
|
|
brad industry posted:Every time you license a work for use you are creating value in that instance for your client, and as the creator of that work you are entitled to a piece of that under your terms. pwn fucked around with this message at 08:04 on Dec 17, 2009 |
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2009 07:42
|
|
|
Twenties Superstar posted:You are stupid. This gave me a good laugh.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2009 10:15
|
|
|
Kind of a random question, but is a point of discussion among my friends. Let's say I have my camera and I take a bunch of pictures, I hand my camera to my friend while I go to the bathroom or something, and he takes a couple pictures, and then hands me the camera back. Who "owns" the pictures he took with my camera? This isn't any sort of legal dispute and is more hypothetical than real, but we were just curious. edit: neither party is making money for being there or anything.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2009 19:15
|
|
|
He would own the images he took.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2009 20:08
|
|
|
dunkman posted:Kind of a random question, but is a point of discussion among my friends. Not as simple as brad makes it out to be, i'm afraid. He would own the images to a degree, but he would have not right to get the electrons, and I don't think he could demand you produce the card, or copy the picture, or not delete it if you wanted to. He could control what you did with the images, but not necessarily the electrons, if you see the difference. You couldn't publish or use the photo, but you could destroy the card or delete the image. i think.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2009 20:12
|
|
|
brad industry posted:He would own the images he took. Isn't there a thing in regards to second shooters and assistants where the primary photographer owns the copyright? Is that built into the contract the assistant signs? I remember something to do with the Olympics and some assistant getting credit for a shot that the primary shooter had the rights to, and it was seen as a nice gesture by the main shooter.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2009 20:27
|
|
|
It would start to get a little funny if your pictures, taken by the assistant, had you visible somewhere in them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2009 20:34
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:Isn't there a thing in regards to second shooters and assistants where the primary photographer owns the copyright? Is that built into the contract the assistant signs? In these situations the second shooter/assistant signs a 'work for hire' contract.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2009 20:36
|
|
|
brad industry posted:In these situations the second shooter/assistant signs a 'work for hire' contract. Yeah but there's no contract since it's just me going "hey hold this while I drain the lizard." But what you guys say makes sense, I can't publish the pics as my own (since they're not mine) but he can't make me give them to him. Not that this is a problem or anything, just curious.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2009 20:57
|
|
|
I should start demanding credit for all the pictures I take with friend's point and shoots when I'm out at a bar. It's kind of awful how few people understand photographer's rights. My friend's dorm had some kind of thing were people could submit photos of the dorm and residents to be displayed and the email he received about it had this phrase - "So, please inform the photographers that they need to agree to giving up the so called copyright of the photo" These images were also going to be sold as well.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2009 21:01
|
|
|
 Medium format vs. 35mm vs. Digital "My.. my megapixels.." 
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2009 22:01
|
|
|
Tincans posted:
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2009 22:16
|
|
|
dunkman posted:Yeah but there's no contract since it's just me going "hey hold this while I drain the lizard." I'm not sure about elsewhere, but in New Zealand, on top of this, (unless specified otherwise via contract etc) the copyright is held by the person/people in the photo. So if someone took a photo of you, they couldn't sell it or distribute it without your permission.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2009 22:26
|
|
|
Sometime I just can't tell what's serious and what isn't on the internet  http://www.matt-probert.co.uk/samples.htm
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2009 22:54
|
|
|
i like his image enhancement section. http://www.matt-probert.co.uk/de.htm ive definitely seen worse, and if he gets paid for it and makes a living doing it. i wanna know his secret.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2009 23:10
|
|
|
Cyberbob posted:I'm not sure about elsewhere, but in New Zealand, on top of this, (unless specified otherwise via contract etc) the copyright is held by the person/people in the photo. So if someone took a photo of you, they couldn't sell it or distribute it without your permission. I dunno, I don't think it could work quite like that. It would make it pretty much impossible for news photographers/photojournalists to work: imagine taking a picture of a street in Auckland and having to run around getting everyone to sign a waiver so your editor could run it on page 5 of the business section. In the United States (I think the UK is similar?) you can take a picture of someone on the street and sell it for fine art/editorial uses, IIRC it's only commercial/advertising stuff that requires a model release.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2009 23:27
|
|
|
Cyberbob posted:I'm not sure about elsewhere, but in New Zealand, on top of this, (unless specified otherwise via contract etc) the copyright is held by the person/people in the photo. So if someone took a photo of you, they couldn't sell it or distribute it without your permission. This would be so ridiculously impractical and bizarre in the real world I can't believe this actually existed, so I googled it and it looks like New Zealand has the same copyright laws as every other first world country: http://www.copyright.org.nz/viewInfosheet.php?sheet=339 The only difference I can see between US law and NZ is that people commissioning works default to owning the copyright. Canada has the same law, but in actual real-world practice contracts are written to respect the creator of the work so this never actually happens. I'm sure it's the same in NZ. I think you may be confusing model releases and copyright which aren't really related at all.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2009 23:40
|
|
|
Ok, I'm breaking the point of this thread and asking for advice: I'm out of school now and with the extra time I'd like to be studying/working on my photography, something I've been putting off doing for a long time. I looked in to my old university's Continuing Ed photo classes and they don't look particularly promising (neither did their BFA program for that matter, which is why I never took any photo classes as an undergrad). The library, on the other hand, has a really nice selection of great books. Can anyone point me towards a good syllabus, reading list, or curriculum in photography, like a proper degree program would have? I know this sounds broad as hell, but I'd like to fill in the gaps of the hodgepodge collection of knowledge I've built up over the years.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2009 00:09
|
|
|
http://www.aphotostudent.com He posted his MFA reading list and keeps updating with the articles/books they're reading and discussing. A lot of the shorter articles are online for free. I read a lot of the same stuff when I was in school and I've picked up a lot of others from his recommendations that I hadn't and they've all been really good. edit: here's the reading list, with links http://www.aphotostudent.com/photo-readings/ Other than that I would either take some art history classes or at least pick up some overview of western art books and from there go to photo history (which is obviously short and easy to put into context once you are familiar with the broader background). brad industry fucked around with this message at 00:37 on Dec 18, 2009 |
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2009 00:33
|
|
|
brad industry posted:http://www.aphotostudent.com Thanks brad, that is perfect! They actually do offer a "History of Photography" class in the spring, but given the wealth of books in the library on the subject I'm not sure it'd be worth it to take the class. This afternoon I went through two on the history of Japanese photography, very good but I see what you mean about needing an art history/general photography history background first.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2009 01:04
|
|
|
That's a great list brad, thanks.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2009 09:48
|
|
|
wickles posted:Sometime I just can't tell what's serious and what isn't on the internet How exactly is he claiming copyright on this image? http://www.probertencyclopaedia.com...ther%201927.htm
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2009 17:28
|
|
|
AIIAZNSK8ER posted:i like his image enhancement section. http://www.matt-probert.co.uk/de.htm ive definitely seen worse, and if he gets paid for it and makes a living doing it. i wanna know his secret.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2009 19:03
|
|
|
squidflakes posted:How exactly is he claiming copyright on this image? It's unlikely that he has it, but in the case of old photos/etc that are in public domain, doing extensive restoration/processing work on them results in a new copyrighted work. At my job we do a lot of this, although it's basically given away for free for educational use anyways.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2009 20:26
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:It's unlikely that he has it, but in the case of old photos/etc that are in public domain, doing extensive restoration/processing work on them results in a new copyrighted work. At my job we do a lot of this, although it's basically given away for free for educational use anyways. I guess that makes sense, though it looks like he photographed a picture from a newspaper or encyclopedia. I doubt that qualifies as "extensive restoration."
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2009 21:15
|
|
|
Street fashion photography in Helsinki. Posed full body shots. http://www.hel-looks.com/index.php
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2009 23:51
|
|
|
DanTheFryingPan posted:Street fashion photography in Helsinki. Posed full body shots. Welcome to Finland, where the cell phones are top of the line but fashion is stuck in the 80s.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2009 00:06
|
|
|
squidflakes posted:Welcome to Finland, where the cell phones are top of the line but fashion is stuck in the 80s. theres kinda an 80s revival on at the moment. it was ironic but then hipsters starting copying each other and we have what you see today [edit] boss  i kinda want those boots 
unixbeard fucked around with this message at 01:34 on Dec 19, 2009 |
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2009 01:26
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swqFA9Mvq5M 10 minute video on kite photography. It's a good watch, the guy's enthusiasm is really infectious  If nothing else, check out the simple yet ingenious version for a disposable camera at 5:25.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2009 07:41
|
|
|
squidflakes posted:Welcome to Finland, where the cell phones are top of the line but fashion is stuck in the 80s. And this is Helsinki, the capital. The rest of the country has yet to realize the 50s have ended. v  v
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2009 01:45
|
|
|
Looking up a Nikkor P-C 105mm lens for another thread here, I found this interesting Flickr thread.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2009 07:58
|
|
|
So anyone have any tips on moving an image library from Aperture to Extensis Portfolio?
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2009 09:44
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swqFA9Mvq5M Great video. Thanks for sharing this.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2009 15:45
|
|
|
Defecting to Nine posted:So anyone have any tips on moving an image library from Aperture to Extensis Portfolio? One of the reasons I refuse to use Aperture is it locks up your image library in a proprietary format.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2009 20:07
|
|
|
brad industry posted:One of the reasons I refuse to use Aperture is it locks up your image library in a proprietary format. Which is exactly the reason I'm switching. After working at a place that had a 55k+ item library in Portfolio, I now swear by it, and want to get older images in it. e: It's nice that it's possible to go 'Show package Contents' and drag everything out, rather than everything being stuck in one file, but it's still annoying as all gently caress. Defecting to Nine fucked around with this message at 21:34 on Dec 20, 2009 |
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2009 21:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 07:09 |
|
|
Can't you set Aperture to not manage your library? I know some people use Aperture that way and have access to the folders and what not where the files are located. I think it's kind of like how you can set iTunes to manage your files and put them in it's file system or just tell the program where your files are on disk.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2009 03:07
|
|
