|
MicrostockGroup Sponsors
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - cardmaverick
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 ... 18
151
« on: February 14, 2012, 02:47 »
Again you are taking all IP law as one package.
You are correct that this aspect is being abused, same with patent trolls and software IP.
What needs to be looked at is what is considered transformational. I bet very few if any of these cases make it to court because the rights holders know that there's a high possibility that a judge will pretty soon say f-off and suddenly all their posturing will be for nothing. Just lawyers trying to bully people into paying up out of court. Not the laws fault, greedy lawyers fault.
But you seem to be using a case for some reform to say that all IP law should be discarded wholesale.
I won't get into all the other industries that have problems with IP laws, but even Bill Gates has admitted that the software and technology business would have been decimated if anyone had leveraged existing IP laws during the early days of computers... so even a guy like him can see the problems it creates, even though he benefits from it much like myself. You're transformational argument, from the viewpoint of a product manufacturer is a poor argument. Look at it from their view. We'll use Ford as an example since they forced agencies a few years ago to pull de-logo'ed Mustang cars by the thousands from being sold. Ford poured what, millions of dollars into designing the shape of the Mustang? Whatever it was, it wan't cheap. They also probably put millions of dollars into ads and getting hundreds of millions of people to instantly recognize their products shape and design. Now here you are, a photographer making money off of all that, not only refusing to pay them a dime, but also having the arrogance to say you don't even need to ask permission to use it. This is how they view it, and I guarantee you this is one of the angles they used to win their law suit. Once more manufacturers find out about this, more suits will follow.
152
« on: February 13, 2012, 23:30 »
I remember early discussions about that on the SS forum many years ago when some photographers' images got rejected because of trademarked design of a vase, doll, pattern etc.
Posters sarcastically mentioned that everything around us was created by someone before and therefore (technically) should require a property release as well.
While it sounded pretty ridiculous back then, it starts to sound much more serious now. Sad world.
Thank you! For YEARS I have been warning people in this industry that IP laws were our biggest threat, never being taken seriously. I don't give a crap about people passing files around on file sharing sites. I DO care about the possibility of this entire industry going up in flames because of the IP laws photographers so ignorantly support, with zeal.
153
« on: February 13, 2012, 20:35 »
Based on sample images Getty has made available to photographers, an image like this, could now get you or your agency sued, especially in France. http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-29970016/stock-photo-young-woman-is-on-couch-and-working-on-laptop.htmlI saw some other sample images they were using in court where the use of the furniture was even more mundane. This law suit will be a big deal, because lifestyle photography is such a massive part of our business, and furniture, especially modern up to date furniture, is so commonly used by stock photographers - because that's what a lot of buyers want to see.
154
« on: February 13, 2012, 20:14 »
By now I'm sure many of you on here are aware of my anti intellectual property law beliefs. In the past I'm usually "dismissed", especially when I mention that IP laws are actually very dangerous to our industry, trade dress laws in particular. I just got an email from Getty Images, who represent some of my work, warning photographers about designer furniture appearing in their photographs, even as a minor part of the image. They are now conducting a massive removal of profitable content from the Getty Images website as a result, and asking photographers to help them weed out all kinds of content featuring furniture that might become targets for new law suits. This is the result of a law suite in French courts. I'm not sure if posting the email is appropriate or not, but I figured I would let you guys know that when I say trade dress is a problem, it's not some far off opinion. It's a legal reality. We all run the risk of being sued and labeled criminals because of current IP laws.
It's important to know that these law suits are not just at the agency level, but also at the photographer level. You read that right, you can be directly sued.
Something worth thinking about the next time you think expanding IP laws is a good idea....
155
« on: February 12, 2012, 17:10 »
I downloaded Luminance and started fiddling with it; I may have used Hugin in the distant past; I'm sure one of these will do the job. If I get an interesting result I may post it here. So far, the problematic area seems to be the tendency of all these tools to introduce banding in the sky and clouds.
What are you using for your input files?
156
« on: February 12, 2012, 06:33 »
I have been using Geeqie for entering metadata and viewing RAW files. Fastest RAW file viewer on the planet, seriously, I've never seen any other program debayer a RAW file at 100% as fast as that little program.
157
« on: February 12, 2012, 06:27 »
I would like to stop using windows but haven't taken the jump yet. There's too much free software that I like to dabble with that I can't get to work easily with linux. I tried wine but that's too complicated for me.
Having tried lots of different Linux distributions, I have found PCLinuxOS to be the best. Never had a problem with several different PC's. Zorin is another good one, much more similar to windows than other distributions.
I might try running ReactOS inside Linux. It looks like it can run most of the windows programs I use.
Take a look at AVLinux. It's a media optimized Linux distro. Built on the stable Debian release. Guaranteed to work and be solid.
159
« on: February 11, 2012, 23:48 »
Thanks all. A couple of good suggestions on which I will follow up.
I was up on Haleakala on Maui last week and took a series of shots of the rim, which I'd like to try combining into an HDR panorama. The light is pretty extreme up there and there is a huge range between white clouds and black shadows.
Check out Hugin for creating panoramas, very advanced open source software: http://hugin.sourceforge.net/
161
« on: February 11, 2012, 23:18 »
Linux user myself! I cheat though, I run CS4 in an XP virtual machine, and the XP system works better virtually in Linux than the actual hard drive installed version I have on my other partition. Go figure.
Are you using the latest unstable Darktable build? It's amazing, and very different from the stable release. I saw some videos of the mask selection tool they are working on. In my opinion, this one program could be enough to get more photographers to switch to Linux. Hands down the most professional image program I've been able to find for Linux. When the Gimp finally gets 16 bit support and non-destructive editing, I'm really not sure if I'll stick with Adobe or not.
162
« on: February 03, 2012, 19:01 »
I am not sure if this has changed in 2011 but I found following requirement: "File Form 1099-MISC, Miscellaneous Income, for each person to whom you have paid during the year: At least $10 in royalties". So every freaking agency that sent me me at least $10 should sent this form.
http://www.irs.gov/instructions/i1099msc/ar02.html#d0e697
If they don't send it, it won't matter. It will just be unreported income. At that point, you have a choice about including it in you're declared income or not...
163
« on: January 31, 2012, 15:34 »
Here's a novel idea. Adapt the clearly profitable business models these so called "pirates" use over seas.
Government is never the answer to a failing business model.
164
« on: January 29, 2012, 20:56 »
The ruling is not about a photography inspired by other photography.
It's about a company trying to avoid paying a commercial license by creating an alternative photography after they already infringed the first photography and got caught.
And what's wrong about creating your own alternative? This is where IP laws enter the realm of not just absurd, but start endangering the entire business. Imagine how far you could take this crazy logic.
165
« on: January 26, 2012, 17:51 »
Totally absurd. Perfect example of IP laws working against you more than they help you.
166
« on: January 25, 2012, 03:04 »
"How is the company doing?
iStock is a very healthy business that continues to grow. Maintaining growth is our #1 objective."
They could hardly have been less specific about 'growth'. Growth in what? Images? Registered customers? Sales? Revenue? Staff (I guess not)?
They are growing their customer exodus, being the number 1 customer looser is their #1 objective.
167
« on: January 06, 2012, 00:41 »
"Movies can also be shot at three different crops from the sensor, which Nikon is describing as FX, DX and 2.7X (native 1920x1080). This makes it easy to vary the field-of-view for grabbing footage, even if youve got a prime lens mounted. However, the FX size is a significantly cropped version of the full sensor (its 91% of the sensors width), so the field-of-view will be a little narrower than youd expect for any given focal length. Also the native 1920x1080 video will be higher quality than the FX and DX versions, since it hasn't been downsized. This difference is likely to be incredibly small (almost certainly irrelevant for most users), but is a consideration for high-end video users."
A windowed capture for video option is a step in the right direction! Too bad it will ruin you're ability to shoot anything wide angle :X
No word on how bad, or good, the shutter actually is. I'm still predicting super jell-o since they are not touting something like "global shutter" or "ultra fast rolling shutter" etc....
168
« on: January 05, 2012, 16:37 »
Nikon and Canon DSLR's can't shoot video worth crap, especially if you like to move the camera around.... or avoid artifacts galore.
sorry but thats an incredible (not to say ridiculous) thing to say, dont know if you ever seen creativelive workshops (from Seattle who is owned by Chase Jarvis) which are for free during the live session.. A few time ago (July 11) there was a genius regarding film making/footage on the 5D and he said he even shoot footage for House MD serie, he is working there as one of the directors for 4 or 5 years.. his name is Gale Tattersall
HDDSLR Filmmaking
For the first time in history a camera that costs roughly $2,500 can shoot material good enough to hold its own weight on the highest professional levels. Gale Tattersall, renowned Director of Photography, has been at the forefront of pushing HDDSLRs in Hollywood. He shot the season finale of House entirely on a Canon 5DMII last year.
I'm aware of the House season finale, etc... Here's my big point. To get those cameras to perform well, you end up doing a ton of stuff you wouldn't normally need to do and you also loose a ton of flexibility in post because of the compressed formats used... Just because someone pulled a great image out of the camera does not mean it's a good camera. Visit my website and look at my demo reel. A lot of those clips were shot using a DVX100A standard def camera.... yet I pulled 10bit uncompressed 720P footage out of it. It was modified, and quite frankly, a PITA to operate since it had to be tethered to a Mac Mini in a pelican case, all files needed to be rendered before I could view them, sound had to be synced in post, and the sensitivity of that system was practically 100 ISO, not very filmmaking friendly. That system has issues galore - but I still pulled great images from it. Doesn't mean it's a great camera. I'm just a good DP  I've learned over the years to not base my opinion of a camera on footage anymore - any camera can produce a great - or lousy - image in the right hands. I'm way more focused on the actual tech specs because those represent the real tools I have to work with. PS: There is a sensor filter on the market specifically designed to reduce artifacts produced by HDSLR cameras. In my opinion, you shouldn't need to buy an accessory like that.
170
« on: January 05, 2012, 15:19 »
Canon DSLR's can't shoot video worth crap, especially if you like to move the camera around.... or avoid artifacts galore.
Interesting I haven't heard that before.
Keep in mind I've worked with professional video camera systems. Everything from BetaCams to VariCam and now Red One systems. If you come from my background shooting and color correcting footage from those types of systems, you won't be terribly impressed with DSLR video, and even less impressed with ergonomics.
Take a DSLR camera and try to shake it from side to side and see how squisy the image becomes. Terrible.
Are you comparing $100,000 systems to $500 dollar cameras though?
Yes and no. None of those cameras I listed specifically will cost you $100K - even with a decent lens included, but I've used plenty of lower priced video cameras as well in the $1k-5k range that I would prefer over video DSLR's in the exact same price range. I see they are listing this as a 1080P camera, but I have my doubts it will look good. DSLR's don't downres a full sensor capture, they skip lines (line sampling if I remember right) and it looks terrible, especially with high detail scenes. They also use slow rolling shutters, so the images wobble when you move the camera. If they can fix those issues, I'll be a bit more interested, but I don't think they will be recording with a very good format. H.264 is not a production worthy format, it's a distribution quicktime codec.
171
« on: January 05, 2012, 15:00 »
Canon DSLR's can't shoot video worth crap, especially if you like to move the camera around.... or avoid artifacts galore.
Interesting I haven't heard that before.
Keep in mind I've worked with professional video camera systems. Everything from BetaCams to VariCam and now Red One systems. If you come from my background shooting and color correcting footage from those types of systems, you won't be terribly impressed with DSLR video, and even less impressed with ergonomics. Take a DSLR camera and try to shake it from side to side and see how squishy the image becomes. Terrible.
172
« on: January 05, 2012, 14:51 »
You know... I love my D700, but at some point an upgrade is called for, and quite frankly I also need to upgrade my video pretty bad as well.... given the price of it, I'm more inclined to keep on looking at a Scarlet - not a massive jump in resolution, but I know it'll do both stills and video without compromise. Nikon and Canon DSLR's can't shoot video worth crap, especially if you like to move the camera around.... or avoid artifacts galore.
173
« on: January 04, 2012, 13:12 »
So I would guess that "RM Stock" is now being called "PITA Stock"?
174
« on: December 23, 2011, 13:44 »
Despite my "ultra realist" opinion of IP laws and the whole concept of owning ideas as all rubbish - I do NOT think this business will vanish. There are way to many other variables like convenience, and yes, even resolution. There are markets where resolution alone is the reason our images can't be so easily taken for free. One reason why I love video so much has to do with the fact that it's so hard to "steal" a clip and use it! Thank you advent of 4K video.... 
175
« on: December 23, 2011, 13:35 »
I really can't blame Istock for pushing non-exclusive content down in the search. Like it or not, non-exclusive images are not something that make an agency stand out against their competition.
An agency manager once told me that exclusivity was a "weapon" agencies could use against their competition, and he's right, too bad iStock has done way to many other things to jack up its reputation... this probably won't stop the exodus.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 ... 18
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
