Slashdot Mirror

I truly dislike Getty due to the fact that they use an ENORMOUS number of public domain images, and try to pass themselves off as having ownership rights. It is selfish and disgusting. And there should be a way to punish entities who do this. (You might be surprised how many places do this, including taxpayer funded museums here in the USA...)
However, the Library of Congress page of "Carol M. Highsmith - Rights and Restrictions Information" at:
https://www.loc.gov/rr/print/r...
States:
"Carol M. Highsmith's photographs are in the public domain."

The article that appears on PDNPULSE:
http://pdnpulse.pdnonline.com/...
"Highsmith says she never abandoned her copyrights to the images. She says the Library of Congress had agreed to notify users of the images that she is the author, and that users must credit her."

If the images are public domain, she did not retain the right to enforce accreditation.
What she is describing would be equivalent to a Creative Commons Attribution License.
http://opendefinition.org/lice...

Part of the reason for a cc-by license is to stop greedy folks from reselling and trying to "own" what would otherwise be public domain works. Of course, those of us who work at organizing, editing and adding our own works to the public domain on sites such as my wpclipart.com, cannot touch anything with a cc-by license.

What would be much better is if there was a legal mechanism to punish people for falsely claiming rights/ownership of images.
Without it, greedy companies/entities are continually narrowing what is available in the public domain.

If you dig around a bit, you'll see that the artist did not make her photos public domain. She licensed them to the Library of Congress and gave a permissive license for anyone else to use them --- presumably including to sell them --- as long as users give notification that the these are the photographer's work. Nonetheless, she retains copyright. This is basically a BSD-style license. Getty is not only suing her for using her own copyrighted work, but is also not informing customers that they're her work, in violation of the license. She's suing to preserve the terms of her license.

Considering that most people that use their phones to take video don't even fucking know that they should probably turn the fucking phone

The best camera is the fucking one in your fucking possession when you fucking need to use it. Most people carry their cell phones at most times. Most people do not carry around dedicated 4k video cameras or high end DSLR's.

Not completely true. There's a reason if you do a photo shoot with a model you ask them for a model release (right to use their image). Not every image is copyright to the photographer. And I have quite a few citations.

Of course, whether or not you need a release is a complex issue, but if you don't want lawyers sorting it out the best is to err on the side of caution.

the second mistake was buying a gateway

Buying a Gateway wasn't just a mistake, it was a hugh mistake. Buying the Alpha was a mistake too, I liked it but had trouble installing software on it. I should have bought Macs instead. At least for my desktop, then a Windows laptop. I bought the Gateway though because they had just bought the Amiga and I was hoping they'd revitalize it. When I ordered it, I even had the store include a note saying I'd like to buy a new Amiga when it was released.

my university had labs full of them.... nothing but issues

When I got it I hadn't heard anything bad about Gateways though I did hear and read some good things. Before getting the Alpha every review I read said that with FX!32 almost any Windows program could be installed on it. However what I didn't read was that the software had to be 32 bit and not 16 bit.

laptops are no good because you can't calibrate the monitor, no color correction.... good call looking for the external monitor.

But you can take it with you. Then you'd have an external, large screen, monitor in the studio that was calibrated. The built in LCD with the laptop would then display the pallets and tools.

go with a lacie or an eizo, if you get an Eizo, go with the CG line, not the CE line

Thanks. Googling for "lacie OR eizo photography" the first result is from Photo.net, however I'd searched photo.net a number of tymes and couldn't find collaborated recommendations for a monitor. I did find what to look for though, values such as certain contrast ratios, brightness, and luminance.

it'll hurt buying one of those more as someone on disability.... but so will buying a decent DSLR

Right now I work with film, 35mm and I've been looking at medium format bodies. Maybe a 645. I love working in darkrooms, however I would like to get a DSLR. I've been drooling over the Canon EOS 1Ds Mark III, but as you say that's way out of the ballpark of what I can afford. Plus in another year or two it'll be dated. I figure that if I can make money as a photographer then I can buy a DSLR but not before.

photographers are going out of business left and right

A number of articles I've read in magazines like "Photo District News", PDN, and "Digital Photo Pro" say photographers have to find work differently than how their used to finding it. Doing such things as contacting NGOs to see if they will sponsor you. Check out "Digital Photo Pro's" article "Creative Commons". While not strictly about finding work it does touch on a couple of ideas. Some say the works there you just can't use the same methods to find them. In college a number of photo students I talked with wanted to create an online portfolio, and store from which they could sell photos. Other areas are in sports and weddings. Say a family has Jr playing in the little leagues or sis is a figure skater, I don't want to stereotype but my mind's not working well now, they may hire a photographer to shoot their child then put the photos on a website as well as print a book. Wedding photographers are doing the same thing. Because I'm coming from computer tech I figure I might be able to combine the two, create the photography websites as well as sell photos. Well in a way coming from both, in high school I was involved with and took classes in both comp sci and photography and though my major was with computers I also took more classes in photography.

Think just movies are going under DRM? What about Nikon encrypting part of their RAW output? Now why would they do that? Perhaps because they can get an extented revenue stream, such as high end printing only from Nikon cameras, for example?