IMHO the idea behind this article is just plain dumb. It would be like an article saying that in 5 years we won't have ABC and CBS or Disney Land AND 6 Flags. I use Yahoo AND Google every day, and I think I'm not alone.
The other brands are starting to fold too. seem to remember Ilford going down, but don't quote me on that as my memory is a sieve. The point is that they are going to start falling like dominos. I was at Gassers in San Francisco, and I went down to the basement, the film and photo paper department, and it was as busy as a morgue, and the guys were about as cheerful. They had all kinds of gloom and doom stories about loosing all of their customs, schools dropping the subjects, people with darkroom equipment they couldn't give away etc...
I went all digital a year or so ago, and everyone I know in weddings has too (except anyone I know in Reno/Tahoe. I spoke with about 5 of them in December, and they were all still using film. It was like finding a bunch of people who used the telegraph, very weird.) I'm sure film traditional b&w will survive as an art form, but I feel sorry for anyone who makes their living at selling any of that stuff.
"(obviously, he can take all the pictures he wants in a public place but to make money of those pictures, he needs my consent, if I understand correctly)"
You don't understand this correctly. Their are two types of usages by which a photographer could make money off of a photo of you. One is commercial, like an advertisement, which would need your permission, and the other is editorial, which would not.
For example, if I took a photo of you getting your head smashed in by a cop, and then sold that image to a magazine writing an article about police brutality, I could make money and would not need your permission because the photo would be an editorial addition to the article, and not a promotion for the magazine.
"Photographers are no more the 'creators' of the products than NBC airing a game on their network. NBC *purchases* the rights to broadcast the game (and make money by selling ads). NBC owns the rights to their broadcast (because they paid for it) but does not own the game itself (the product). The league owns the products."
You are talking nonsense. I don't own your wedding if I take a picture of your wedding, I just own the picture. That is what this is about. If you want to go to a photo lab and reproduce your wedding, give it a try, but if you want to reproduce a picture that I took, you have to ask my permission. How hard is that to understand?
As a photographer with a digital work flow, I have to deal with this all of the time. I send all of my wedding clients a proof CD with screen resolution images. The cd even has a copyright notice, and the contract has my ownership of the images in the terms and conditions, and I still get upset clients calling and saying "I took the images (again, these are the screen resolution proofs) you sent me to the lab and the prints look horrible, wah wah wah."
I have flirted with watermarking the images with a copyright notice, but I think it looks bad.
I've kind of just come to expect this as a part of doing business, with the resigned idea that people who want quality will pay for the quality prints from me, but I can't say I'm happy with that as a solution.
I'd love to hear what others are doing if your out there.
"Despite this demand for home viewing, only 5% admitted to downloading a movie from the internet."
That is very easy for me to believe. Downloading movies online still pretty much sucks. I have a DSL connection, and while I never download anything that is protected by copyright (clear throat) when I use bittorrent to DL files of similar sizes, it can take days and days and days literally, and it slows the rest of my internet use to a crawl. It is a major pain, and it can be faster to buy a movie on ebay, including shipping time!
Then, when I get the file, playing it can be a problem. Not a big problem, but I consider myself to be right in the middle of the technical sophistication curve, and I think anyone less sophisticated than me would find downloading and playing movies to be completely impossible.
Childeren may be the hidden factor here for lots of people. I've never though of getting VHS, but my two year old is hell on DVD's if she gets her hands on them.
From the article: U.S. law enforcers said on Wednesday that they have shut down a computer network that distributed illegal copies of "Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith" before it appeared in movie theaters.
Federal agents executed 10 search warrants and seized the main server computer in a network that allowed people to download nearly 18,000 movies and software programs, including many current releases, the FBI and Homeland Security Department said.
The Elite Torrents network, found online at www.elitetorrents.org, relied on a technology called BitTorrent that allows users to quickly download digital movies and other large files by copying them from many computers at once.
The network signed up 133,000 members who collectively downloaded 2.1 million files, according to the Immigration and Customs Enforcement division of the Homeland Security Department.
Visitors to the Web site on Wednesday saw a notice that read, "This site has been permanently shut down by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement."
I thought Geo-thermal was supposed to have great potential as a non polluting energy source, but now I never hear a thing about it. What gives? Was it so good the thought police erased it? Was it too expensive and impractical? Anyone know?
Your anti anti nuke summary is a straw man, and I can prove it. I've got a proposal right here to convert your country to nukes, and it calls for putting all of the waste in your basement. Interested?
"So you are saying that I shouldn't get to choose where my taxes go regarding morally ambiguous activities?"
It is my deep wish that people who worry about their tax dollars going to "morally ambiguous activities" turn their attention to the $558 billion http://www.warresisters.org/piechart.htm military budget in the USA. Now, maybe not every penny of that $400 B would offend your sensitive morals, but I'll bet some scrutiny would find multiple billions funding things that make embryo harvesting look like a soup kitchen.
New meanng to the dispose of properly warnings. Shit, "Do not put in a fire." No kidding.
And am I the only one who would NOT put a nuke battery on my lap? "Sorry the kid has 3 toes and one kidney honey, but I was able to watch all of LOTR on those long filghts."
From TFA "It's important to note that being granted a design patent does not necessarily mean that Apple has any intention of releasing a particular product, and Apple has filed for many design patents in recent years for products that did not make it to market."
I hope this is a case where thry come thru with it. It looks COOL!
From TFA
"A link from slashdot.org has overloaded the server. Please bookmark this site and return at another time if you are unable to get through. I am working to get the site back up. My apologies. -- Jason Siegel"
While I agree that the RIAA and politician cabal that broke faith with the constitution of our country to extend the copyrights are scum, it seems to me that if you are going to use this as your basis for copyright infringement, you should limit yourself to art that is X number of years old. Personally, I never feel the slightest twinge of guilt for downloading music of artist who are now dead.
FTA: Charlie Kaufman created the two finest science fiction films of all time so far: "Being John Malkovich" and "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind."
I loved those movies, never thought of them as Sci Fi though. Do you?
A good friend of mine was raised as a Jehovah's Witness. He has left the religion, and is an intelligent person, but he was raised on a lot of pseudoscientific anti-evolution mumbo jumbo. I was wondering if anyone knew of any good recourses, books, websites, articles, to debunk all of the standard Christian half truths that they use to debunk science. Here is an example just for fun. He refuses to believe that scientist have any idea how old the earth really is.
Slashdot Mirror
IMHO the idea behind this article is just plain dumb. It would be like an article saying that in 5 years we won't have ABC and CBS or Disney Land AND 6 Flags. I use Yahoo AND Google every day, and I think I'm not alone.
I went all digital a year or so ago, and everyone I know in weddings has too (except anyone I know in Reno/Tahoe. I spoke with about 5 of them in December, and they were all still using film. It was like finding a bunch of people who used the telegraph, very weird.) I'm sure film traditional b&w will survive as an art form, but I feel sorry for anyone who makes their living at selling any of that stuff.
I think I should put you on my friends list.
News flash, my previous comment was a (gasp) joke.
There is no place for maturity here!
You don't understand this correctly. Their are two types of usages by which a photographer could make money off of a photo of you. One is commercial, like an advertisement, which would need your permission, and the other is editorial, which would not.
For example, if I took a photo of you getting your head smashed in by a cop, and then sold that image to a magazine writing an article about police brutality, I could make money and would not need your permission because the photo would be an editorial addition to the article, and not a promotion for the magazine.
You are talking nonsense. I don't own your wedding if I take a picture of your wedding, I just own the picture. That is what this is about. If you want to go to a photo lab and reproduce your wedding, give it a try, but if you want to reproduce a picture that I took, you have to ask my permission. How hard is that to understand?
I have flirted with watermarking the images with a copyright notice, but I think it looks bad.
I've kind of just come to expect this as a part of doing business, with the resigned idea that people who want quality will pay for the quality prints from me, but I can't say I'm happy with that as a solution.
I'd love to hear what others are doing if your out there.
That is very easy for me to believe. Downloading movies online still pretty much sucks. I have a DSL connection, and while I never download anything that is protected by copyright (clear throat) when I use bittorrent to DL files of similar sizes, it can take days and days and days literally, and it slows the rest of my internet use to a crawl. It is a major pain, and it can be faster to buy a movie on ebay, including shipping time!
Then, when I get the file, playing it can be a problem. Not a big problem, but I consider myself to be right in the middle of the technical sophistication curve, and I think anyone less sophisticated than me would find downloading and playing movies to be completely impossible.
Childeren may be the hidden factor here for lots of people. I've never though of getting VHS, but my two year old is hell on DVD's if she gets her hands on them.
You don't have permission to access /index.php on this server.
Never have I been happier to learn that they were talking about evil spam spewing Windows machines
Who was the sick up their ass who moded that as troll? The parent is funny! It made me laugh out loud.
Has anyone else posted the link to http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/05/2 5/1838201&tid=126&tid=14" this '04 /. article about the firm making bioD from algae with farm waste being the main source of nutrients? It was one of my favorite /. stories ever.
From the article: U.S. law enforcers said on Wednesday that they have shut down a computer network that distributed illegal copies of "Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith" before it appeared in movie theaters.
Federal agents executed 10 search warrants and seized the main server computer in a network that allowed people to download nearly 18,000 movies and software programs, including many current releases, the FBI and Homeland Security Department said.
The Elite Torrents network, found online at www.elitetorrents.org, relied on a technology called BitTorrent that allows users to quickly download digital movies and other large files by copying them from many computers at once.
The network signed up 133,000 members who collectively downloaded 2.1 million files, according to the Immigration and Customs Enforcement division of the Homeland Security Department.
Visitors to the Web site on Wednesday saw a notice that read, "This site has been permanently shut down by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement."
I thought Geo-thermal was supposed to have great potential as a non polluting energy source, but now I never hear a thing about it. What gives? Was it so good the thought police erased it? Was it too expensive and impractical? Anyone know?
Your anti anti nuke summary is a straw man, and I can prove it. I've got a proposal right here to convert your country to nukes, and it calls for putting all of the waste in your basement. Interested?
To a politician, the only "real problem" is getting (re) elected.
It is my deep wish that people who worry about their tax dollars going to "morally ambiguous activities" turn their attention to the $558 billion http://www.warresisters.org/piechart.htm military budget in the USA. Now, maybe not every penny of that $400 B would offend your sensitive morals, but I'll bet some scrutiny would find multiple billions funding things that make embryo harvesting look like a soup kitchen.
Just a thought.
And am I the only one who would NOT put a nuke battery on my lap? "Sorry the kid has 3 toes and one kidney honey, but I was able to watch all of LOTR on those long filghts."
I hope this is a case where thry come thru with it. It looks COOL!
From TFA "A link from slashdot.org has overloaded the server. Please bookmark this site and return at another time if you are unable to get through. I am working to get the site back up. My apologies. -- Jason Siegel"
While I agree that the RIAA and politician cabal that broke faith with the constitution of our country to extend the copyrights are scum, it seems to me that if you are going to use this as your basis for copyright infringement, you should limit yourself to art that is X number of years old. Personally, I never feel the slightest twinge of guilt for downloading music of artist who are now dead.
I loved those movies, never thought of them as Sci Fi though. Do you?
I appreciate your help.