A forecast from 2 years ago might have assumed Flash Lite getting onto more mobile platforms than it has. The iPhone & iPod Touch, for example, certainly take a decent chunk of the mobile market at the moment, and neither can run Flash.
And, to be more complete, a "copywright" is the guy who works in a copy shop making copies. Like a shipwright builds ships and a playwright writes plays.
(I need to get "copywright" into publication at some point so the OED will finally recognize my mad genius!)
Damn. I've been following the International Earth Rotation and Reference Systems Service (IERS) emails for years and this one managed to slip into my spam filter. Thanks slashdot! for making sure I didn't miss it this year!!!
(A great bonding moment with my father was counting along to 61 with the atomic clock signal on the short wave while sitting by the sundial at the local science museum...)
Actually, if you RTFA, the museum had explicitly made a big deal about how they were opening up more to photographers. Both the museum's website and a senior museum employee had confirmed such with the photographer. But one power-mad guy in charge of visitor relations, or somesuch, got on his high horse and shut the photographer down.
Keep in mind, this was photography in the open atrium of the museum lobby... not pictures of individual pieces in the museum's collection.
It's a matter of vectors... which will happen first? My Mac will be infected by a brand new virus, or I'll hear about a new virus for the Mac that's been identified giving myself a chance to protect my machine, or the knowledge not to download the source trojan.
Hey wait a sec! The law states that you can't copyright a collection of facts (such as a phone book). Does that mean anyone else could publish their own list of Chuck Norris facts and Penguin couldn't sue them?
Well, it so happens that I am a professional photographer (among other hats that I wear). Not that you'll see this since you posted as an AC, but why do you believe it is ridiculous for a hired photographer to maintain his rights as a creator?
28 year term -- non-extendable; non transferable. It's good to make money off your success. It's not good to rest on your laurels and hope to retire off your one-hit wonder -- that doesn't give any incentive for new creation. And your heirs shouldn't expect any right to be useless members of society, making their way solely on your notoriety. Just because J.R.R. Tolkien and Frank Herbert created whole universes doesn't give Christopher Tolkien and Brian Herbert exclusive rights to play in those worlds, just because their daddies made them.
Corporations can't hold copyright, only the individuals that actually created the work. Work-for-hire would not transfer ownership to the hiring entity.
Non-commercial violations would be allowed under fair use so long as their scope was limited. (ie, OK to share a copy with your friend for no money; not OK to share copies with hundreds of strangers for no money.)
Probably a few more, but those are off the top of my head...
I'd heard that Duke Nukem Forever was being programmed in Director CS3, once Knuth releases The Art of Computer Programming Vol IV, using a soundtrack from Chinese Democracy, and was going to be the flagship title of Amiga OS5. Oh, and Natalie Portman was going to be nude in it.
Sorry, THAC0 was introduced in 2nd ed... The original DM's guide had combat matrices for each class (pp 74-75) that had to be looked up constantly (hence being on the original DM's screen).
This is all fine and good. I shoot primarily 85mm f/1.4 myself, so I know a bit about lens costs on a comparative level. But it doesn't change the fact that the people who turn you away will turn ANY SLR away. Whether its a Mark III or whatever the lastest $8000 Canon body with outrageously priced L lenses is, or a digital rebel with the cheapest kit lens. A security guard doesn't know; doesn't care. They see something with that shape of body+lens and they'll say "No." It's just been getting cheaper and more popular for the consumer to buy into that type of camera lately, I think.
What I'm saying is that just because it's an SLR doesn't mean it's pro, by any stretch of the imagination. (And, conversely, as a professional photographer myself, I've shot salable images on Holgas and pinholes as much as I have with my Hasselblad, 4x5, dSLR or any other high-priced kit I've had access to.)
And more importanty - so what? "Professional" photographers have just as much right as a tourist to stand around taking pictures. Even (gasp!) for commercial purposes!
Well, part of the idea is that if J. Random Bystander somehow manages to trip over the extension cord going to your lighting rig, the city wants to make sure that you've got an insurance policy that's going to cover you when they sue your ass. Makes it easier for everyone involved, really. Lights, crew, stands, tripods... they're all the same from the city's point of view... things that get in the way of anyone else not involved in the shoot.
Yeah, there's a serious disconnect when the determination of what's professional is based on how much you're willing to spend on equipment. It's even more of an issue as the price of digital SLRs and Hi-Def camcorders continues to drop into the prosumer's budget.
You see this same distinction made at concerts in smaller clubs and venues... Management (be it the venue or the band's) generally won't stop someone with a pocket digital camera, but you can't bring in any SLR without a press pass. As the smaller cameras get more megapixels, optical zoom, and even image stabilization, it's going to be a much tougher argument to make.
In the heyday of USENET I recall a thread on one of the rec.arts.movie... boards arguing that Deckard was a 57 Chevy. Wish I could find an archive of that thread.
Music gets tricky... The songwriter has unlimited rights to perform and record the music he has written. However, if a record label is paying for your studio time and releasing your album, they own the copyright to that recording of your song. You're free to record other takes on your own dime, and sell them to greatest hits collections or whatever, but if the original commercial recording owned by the record company is redistributed, they want their cut. The songwriter should get his cut too, but that usually doesn't amount to much.
In a lot of ways photography is much more straightforward. The production of my photos is not subsidized by a larger corporation. The IP that I own is clear, so long as an explicit work-for-hire contract wasn't signed.
Say I sell a picture to a magazine. (In point of fact, I just sold three last week...) I base the price of my images on a number of factors including the size of their use on the page and the circulation of the publication that wants to use them. I expect Foo Magazine to sell to its 20,000 subscribers and I've got a quarter page photo in a 32 page monthly magazine, for instance. I may charge them $50 for one-time-use rights. (Not much, but editorial work really isn't paying well now days... It's a monthly, so I don't expect back issues to be in high demand, and it won't stay in print long...) 20 years from now when Bar: The Complete Foo Collection is released, my quarter page of one issue in the context of all the pages of all the issues isn't very much. But maybe there's a higher demand for the collection than just the subscriber base, or maybe that's increased over the years, or their distribution has increased. The point is, they're selling a new product and receiving new income for repackaging their work. Shouldn't I as a contributor to that work receive some proportional fraction of that new endeavor? If nothing else, it's certainly beyond the scope of my original contract with Baz Publications.
Slashdot Mirror
Heh. Actually, he'd done that, to that same photo, a while ago...
http://www.baldheretic.com/2008/07/27/sabine-street-bridge
A forecast from 2 years ago might have assumed Flash Lite getting onto more mobile platforms than it has. The iPhone & iPod Touch, for example, certainly take a decent chunk of the mobile market at the moment, and neither can run Flash.
And, to be more complete, a "copywright" is the guy who works in a copy shop making copies. Like a shipwright builds ships and a playwright writes plays.
(I need to get "copywright" into publication at some point so the OED will finally recognize my mad genius!)
Damn. I've been following the International Earth Rotation and Reference Systems Service (IERS) emails for years and this one managed to slip into my spam filter. Thanks slashdot! for making sure I didn't miss it this year!!!
(A great bonding moment with my father was counting along to 61 with the atomic clock signal on the short wave while sitting by the sundial at the local science museum...)
Actually, if you RTFA, the museum had explicitly made a big deal about how they were opening up more to photographers. Both the museum's website and a senior museum employee had confirmed such with the photographer. But one power-mad guy in charge of visitor relations, or somesuch, got on his high horse and shut the photographer down.
Keep in mind, this was photography in the open atrium of the museum lobby... not pictures of individual pieces in the museum's collection.
It's a matter of vectors... which will happen first? My Mac will be infected by a brand new virus, or I'll hear about a new virus for the Mac that's been identified giving myself a chance to protect my machine, or the knowledge not to download the source trojan.
Hey wait a sec! The law states that you can't copyright a collection of facts (such as a phone book). Does that mean anyone else could publish their own list of Chuck Norris facts and Penguin couldn't sue them?
And yet Dragon's Lair made boatloads of money on the same concept back in the day.
(And Simon was more memory, and less rhythm based.)
Well, it so happens that I am a professional photographer (among other hats that I wear). Not that you'll see this since you posted as an AC, but why do you believe it is ridiculous for a hired photographer to maintain his rights as a creator?
- 28 year term -- non-extendable; non transferable. It's good to make money off your success. It's not good to rest on your laurels and hope to retire off your one-hit wonder -- that doesn't give any incentive for new creation. And your heirs shouldn't expect any right to be useless members of society, making their way solely on your notoriety. Just because J.R.R. Tolkien and Frank Herbert created whole universes doesn't give Christopher Tolkien and Brian Herbert exclusive rights to play in those worlds, just because their daddies made them.
- Corporations can't hold copyright, only the individuals that actually created the work. Work-for-hire would not transfer ownership to the hiring entity.
- Non-commercial violations would be allowed under fair use so long as their scope was limited. (ie, OK to share a copy with your friend for no money; not OK to share copies with hundreds of strangers for no money.)
Probably a few more, but those are off the top of my head...I'd heard that Duke Nukem Forever was being programmed in Director CS3, once Knuth releases The Art of Computer Programming Vol IV, using a soundtrack from Chinese Democracy, and was going to be the flagship title of Amiga OS5. Oh, and Natalie Portman was going to be nude in it.
Bah, there aren't any conspiracy theories... Freemasons don't rule the world...
...and Bush is not an idiot.
(wait, didn't I just read about negations being omitted from memory in spreading the prevalence of a myth? Excellent...)
Sorry, THAC0 was introduced in 2nd ed... The original DM's guide had combat matrices for each class (pp 74-75) that had to be looked up constantly (hence being on the original DM's screen).
FTFA:
While pre-recorded VHS tapes were as cheap as chips, Laserdiscs were $50 each.
Except when pre-recorded VHS tapes never dropped below the "$99 priced for rental" level, while the letterboxed LD was available for $20-35...
Layouts are protected under the Berne Convention.
For some reason, now I'm trying to picture the "booth babes" at "BerneCon".
Nah, haven't you heard? He's off exploring some "Undiscovered Country"...
If Corbis has US Govt WWII Photos that predate WWII by more than 16 years then I think someone needs to look into photographers employed at Area 51...
*nothing* in the book is copyrightable
How about the cover art?
While the permit may be free, somehow I think having the $1,000,000 insurance policy may cost you a bit...
This is all fine and good. I shoot primarily 85mm f/1.4 myself, so I know a bit about lens costs on a comparative level. But it doesn't change the fact that the people who turn you away will turn ANY SLR away. Whether its a Mark III or whatever the lastest $8000 Canon body with outrageously priced L lenses is, or a digital rebel with the cheapest kit lens. A security guard doesn't know; doesn't care. They see something with that shape of body+lens and they'll say "No." It's just been getting cheaper and more popular for the consumer to buy into that type of camera lately, I think.
What I'm saying is that just because it's an SLR doesn't mean it's pro, by any stretch of the imagination. (And, conversely, as a professional photographer myself, I've shot salable images on Holgas and pinholes as much as I have with my Hasselblad, 4x5, dSLR or any other high-priced kit I've had access to.)
And more importanty - so what? "Professional" photographers have just as much right as a tourist to stand around taking pictures. Even (gasp!) for commercial purposes!
Well, part of the idea is that if J. Random Bystander somehow manages to trip over the extension cord going to your lighting rig, the city wants to make sure that you've got an insurance policy that's going to cover you when they sue your ass. Makes it easier for everyone involved, really. Lights, crew, stands, tripods... they're all the same from the city's point of view... things that get in the way of anyone else not involved in the shoot.
Yeah, there's a serious disconnect when the determination of what's professional is based on how much you're willing to spend on equipment. It's even more of an issue as the price of digital SLRs and Hi-Def camcorders continues to drop into the prosumer's budget.
You see this same distinction made at concerts in smaller clubs and venues... Management (be it the venue or the band's) generally won't stop someone with a pocket digital camera, but you can't bring in any SLR without a press pass. As the smaller cameras get more megapixels, optical zoom, and even image stabilization, it's going to be a much tougher argument to make.
In the heyday of USENET I recall a thread on one of the rec.arts.movie... boards arguing that Deckard was a 57 Chevy. Wish I could find an archive of that thread.
Music gets tricky... The songwriter has unlimited rights to perform and record the music he has written. However, if a record label is paying for your studio time and releasing your album, they own the copyright to that recording of your song. You're free to record other takes on your own dime, and sell them to greatest hits collections or whatever, but if the original commercial recording owned by the record company is redistributed, they want their cut. The songwriter should get his cut too, but that usually doesn't amount to much.
In a lot of ways photography is much more straightforward. The production of my photos is not subsidized by a larger corporation. The IP that I own is clear, so long as an explicit work-for-hire contract wasn't signed.
Say I sell a picture to a magazine. (In point of fact, I just sold three last week...) I base the price of my images on a number of factors including the size of their use on the page and the circulation of the publication that wants to use them. I expect Foo Magazine to sell to its 20,000 subscribers and I've got a quarter page photo in a 32 page monthly magazine, for instance. I may charge them $50 for one-time-use rights. (Not much, but editorial work really isn't paying well now days... It's a monthly, so I don't expect back issues to be in high demand, and it won't stay in print long...) 20 years from now when Bar: The Complete Foo Collection is released, my quarter page of one issue in the context of all the pages of all the issues isn't very much. But maybe there's a higher demand for the collection than just the subscriber base, or maybe that's increased over the years, or their distribution has increased. The point is, they're selling a new product and receiving new income for repackaging their work. Shouldn't I as a contributor to that work receive some proportional fraction of that new endeavor? If nothing else, it's certainly beyond the scope of my original contract with Baz Publications.