you said: "Good luck with that you clearly have no clue what the role and functions of the UK Department of Transport are"

The UK Department of Transport will have a media department, and the media department deals with public relations including photography and journalism. if you want permission to use something that they have rights to, you send them a written request and they either approve it or deny it.

second, copyrights protect creative works such as music, art, and literature. trains are not creative works. copyrights cannot and do not protect objects that are used for functional or utility reasons. trains cannot be copyrighted or trademarked.

the intellectual property of trains are only protected by patent law.

I wrote my own video renderer and am familiar with these codecs.

The reason why you have problems is because there are hidden variables that can be set for MJPEG and H264 that the software has preset that you cannot configure, which will affect the output, and because the software is not properly translating the codec settings.

The "90%" setting is somewhat meaningless and does not translate to real world use for the photo jpeg codec. in other words, the actual codec doesn't have a '90%' setting, it was created by your software develoepr and is not accurate. The codecs use quantizers and others variables that are explained on the wiki pages and in the codec documentation. the developer should have given you the quantizer setting instead of the '90%' setting which does not exist in the actual codec. H264 has far more configuration options than prores and mjpeg and is more complicated and difficult to explain.

your software developer made a front end to a codec, and if he did not implement all the features, then they are not available to you. and if the developer did not use the highest quality settings by default, then you do not have access to it. it might say 'best' in the software, but when it is translated to the codec, the developer may not have actually used the highest quality setting.

photo jpeg is a series of jpeg images. other codecs use deltas, meaning they store the difference between frames, and are not a series of images.

I did a pixel by pixel comparison of various codecs and if you use the best quality settings, they all perform about the same. it is once you use lower quality settings that you see large differences in the codecs.

I use a spreadsheet with a master copy of the metadata, and I use sheet cell references to copy the data to separate sheets for each agency.

if a cell A2 needs to be copied, you reference it like so: sheet_name!A2

then I save each sheet for each agency.

for some agencies, I save a sheet and run it through a script that makes changes unique for that agency.

you said: "The problem which you originally said you had is due to the way light is reflected."

no, I only used that as an example of how bright the sunlight was, it was bright enough that I am getting reflections off of people's clothing onto their face.

I have 3 cameras. an fdr ax100, a P900, and a coolpixk waterproof camera. the FDR AX100 handles bright sunlight better than the P900 and the waterproof camera. the technology is different between the 3 cameras. I want to buy a camera that does a better job than the 3 cameras that I already have when filming in bright sunlight. the minimum ISO settings are similar and the video quality is vastly different.

I have gone through hundreds of cameras and am unable to determine what measure signifies its performance in bright sunlight.

can anyone recommend how to identify what to look for in a camera, specs wise, that will ensure me that the camera films better in bright sunlight?

thankyou

you said: "It�s not just the use of the actual Hollywood sign that they are protecting under their trademark registrations."


You are 100% wrong. The hollywood sign is owned by the state of california, and there is no valid trademark registration for the sign itself. trademark registration for signs is not permitted in the United States of America. The Hollywood Chamber of Commerce only has rights to manage the ground where the sign sits and not the sign itself. They have made numerous attempts to file trademark registrations with the USPTO and the USPTO office rejected their attempts to register a trademark of the Hollywood sign.

The article you reference is not evidence of trademark registration and is misinformation. Go to the USPTO web site and search for their trademark registrations and you will see that they were DENIED a trademark for the sign itself, and most of their trademarks are for gift items, such as an imprint on a paper bag.

They tell you they have trademarks for the Hollywood sign but what they don't tell you is that their trademark is limited to gift items such as imprints on paper bags that are distributed at their gift shop. this does not deny you rights to photograph and resell photos of the sign, they have no rights to control it. There is a law entered into the state of california legislature that clearly states that the hollywood chamber of commerce only has rights to manage the grounds that the sign sits on and not the sign itself, they do not own it.

I contacted the Hollywood Chamber of Commerce and they confirmed to me that I may photograph the Hollywood sign and sell my photos for profit. I posted an excerpt of the email.

You are wrong, please stop spreading misinformation.

If you think they have a trademark for the sign, find the registration number with the USPTO. You will fail.

This is a classic case of organizations misleading the public because the public doesn't investigate the truth. They may as well say they own the Brooklyn bridge.

In regards to the question about people suing regarding model release forms years later, there is nothing the copyright law regarding model release forms. model release forms were invented by the stock media industry. anyone can sue for any reason in the United States. Only a court of law can make a determination if a lawsuit can be entered into a court, not me or you.

I have 3 cameras. one (SONY FDR AX100) does somewhat well in bright sunlight but not always. the P900 and my waterproof coolpix do horrible in bright sunlight.

I want to buy a new video camera that does better in bright sunlight than the SONY FDR AX100. bright sunlight = filming at the equator around 11am or 1:30pm.

I am trying to figure out how to determine which camera will perform best in bright sunlight. ISO is not an accurate measure, because many cameras with ISO 100 perform differently in bright sunlight.

you said: "unnonimus, a question. If I have a model release, signed and witnessed, can a model come after me years later, to have all her photos removed, and sue me, because she's become famous and she doesn't want them on Microstock. With a proper legal release can a model change her mind after the fact?
What's your official legal opinion on this question unnonimus?"

only a court of law can make that determination.

first of all, I have tried using polarizing and neutral density filters (I think the brand is Hoya) and they are mostly worthless.

I have gone through hundreds of cameras, and even the garbage cameras have an ISO setting of 100 and do poorly in bright sunlight.

I am looking for a camera that performs well in bright sunlight, because I almost exclusively film in bright sunlight.

the ISO is not an accurate measure. 2 cameras that both have a min ISO of 100 may perform completely differently in bright sunlight.

I would have done testing but my camera is being repaired right now, and has been for a few weeks.

sales up 50%
portfolio size up by about 700%

I have learned that low ISO is best for bright sunlight.

what about gain, do I need a low gain level?

you said: "You cannot copy nor make any derivative new copyrighted work of another author work without his/her explicit permission"

you are wrong, derivatives fall under Fair Use and is legal.

you said: "The dept of transport will not sign"

if you contact the right person, you will get a signed release form.