 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / Digital Photo / May 2008Canon challenge.. any submissions from people here?
Here's my submission in the macro category: http://ta.canon-europe.com/?pg=gallery&cc=nl&lc=nl&photo_id=foto480675142d9c8 I wonder if a similar contest was (or will be) held in the USA or in other parts of the world and whether this site is even accessible in countries outside of Europe. The Canon site is a bit of a buggy mess though.. they seem to shuffle pics all the time, which might seem a nice feature at first, but turns out to be not so pleasant when browsing because you tend to encounter duplicates all the time. After viewing many pics, the site frequently stops working altogether. Lots of wonderful pics on the site though (and so many), though the resolution doesn't seem optimal. At flickr my pic is displayed better (as far as sharpness is concerned): http://www.flickr.com/photos/23114332@N00/2403716714/sizes/l/ > Here's my submission in the macro category: > http://ta.canon-europe.com/?pg=gallery&cc=nl&lc=nl&photo_id=foto480675142d9c8 Wow, that's a really great image! You'll get my vote for sure! Good luck! I'm also in the Macro Category: http://ta.canon-europe.com/?pg=gallery&cc=ch&lc=de&photo_id=foto480a08f72c8fc Wow... I'm glad that I'm swiss. Much less contestants here. > I wonder if a similar contest was (or will be) held in the USA or in > other parts of the world and whether this site is even accessible in > countries outside of Europe. I don't know. But an many cases, europeans where excluded from such challenges. Now I can attend and I'm hoping... Maybe I'm lucky. Marco  SignatureDimage A2, Agfa isolette http://flickr.com/photos/kruemi http://profile.imageshack.us/user/kruemi/images >> Here's my submission in the macro category: >> http://ta.canon-europe.com/?pg=gallery&cc=nl&lc=nl&photo_id=foto480675142d9c8 >> >Wow, that's a really great image! You'll get my vote for sure! Good luck! Thx. I think the background is a bit busy and the light area at the top is a bit of overblown with lack of contrast between the plant and the background. The competition is stiff.. I particularly like these Dutch sumbissions but it's hard to choose from so many pics: http://ta.canon-europe.com/?pg=gallery&cc=nl&lc=nl&photo_id=foto47e028757c302 http://ta.canon-europe.com/?pg=gallery&cc=nl&lc=nl&photo_id=foto4801bf59205d9 http://ta.canon-europe.com/?pg=gallery&cc=nl&lc=nl&photo_id=foto47f92ff2c2dcb http://ta.canon-europe.com/?pg=gallery&cc=nl&lc=nl&photo_id=foto47e7e0124dc68 And you get a bit weary when you attempt to watch all submissions from all countries, even in just a single category. >I'm also in the Macro Category: >http://ta.canon-europe.com/?pg=gallery&cc=ch&lc=de&photo_id=foto480a08f72c8fc > >Wow... I'm glad that I'm swiss. Much less contestants here. Cool, I like the shadow of the wing on the leaf. I like these as well: http://ta.canon-europe.com/?pg=gallery&cc=nl&lc=nl&photo_id=foto47e82c9fc05b2 http://ta.canon-europe.com/?pg=gallery&cc=nl&lc=nl&photo_id=foto47fd50a4d98d5 http://ta.canon-europe.com/?pg=gallery&cc=ch&lc=de&photo_id=foto47f8943208b08 I guess I'm a fan of droplets and moisture in macro pics. But insects are more tricky because they can fly/run away if you don't approach them carefully. >> I wonder if a similar contest was (or will be) held in the USA or in >> other parts of the world and whether this site is even accessible in [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Marco Better read the fine print...ie, the "I donate my copyright" bit: 4.1 Licenses 4.1.1 Any User expressly agrees that by entering into the Competition (whether national Competition or the Assignment), he/she automatically grants to Canon and its affiliates the non-exclusive, free of charge and royalty-free right to sub-license, use, reproduce and/or display in any format and support any Photograph that he/she uploads on this Website or, if relevant, that he/she takes during the Assignment, for the purpose of supporting and promoting internally and externally on the Internet and in Europe Middle East and Africa for a period of two years from the date of entering the Competition: a. this Competition; b. the results of this Competition; and c. Canon’s and its affiliates support of the photography and imaging industry and community, including but not limited through possible events (including exhibitions and corporate events), presentations, making-of movies, video-clips and publications (including Internet and press publications). 4.1.2 Provided that Canon and its affiliates act within the scope of the license provided above, User expressly acknowledge Canon and its affiliates’ right to treat User’s Photograph at their sole discretion, and with this respect waive any right to inspect or approve any printed or electronic use of the Photographs in relation to the above- mentioned purposes. etc. -hh | Better read the fine print...ie, the "I donate my copyright" bit: | [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] | | -hh In all seriousness... If you are going to enter a competition, exactly what do you expect the organizers to do? Pay you every time someone looks at your (probably non prize winning) entry? There is nothing in the conditions that gives Canon exclusive copyright. I'd have thought if you won the competition, you could make some serious money from selling poster licenses, knowing all along, Canon were promoting your work at no cost to you. Not to mention the status (and sales or other work)flowing on in that market segment from being a winner. - -- from Douglas, If my PGP key is missing, the post is a forgery. Ignore it. > In all seriousness... If you are going to enter a competition, exactly > what do you expect the organizers to do? Pay you every time someone > looks at your (probably non prize winning) entry? I expect them to restrict their rights. > There is nothing in the conditions that gives Canon exclusive copyright. No, just non-exclusive use ... free & unlimited. It includes whoever all of their "affiliates" are...for not only the winners, but every image submitted, for a plethora of potential uses that go far far beyond the competition website, thanks to the wonderfully broad and vague phrase of "...support of the photography..." And as per 4.1.2, you're giving away all rights to control or approve how your work is to be used. > I'd have thought if you won the competition, you could make some serious > money from selling poster licenses, knowing all along, Canon were > promoting your work at no cost to you. Not to mention the status (and > sales or other work)flowing on in that market segment from being a winner. Everyone always thinks of the potential upside for the Winner. What about the upside for the other 99.999999% that entered? This one from Canon at least *appears* to have a 2 year sunset on it, but many so-called "contests" call for a perpetual license - they're effectively image harvesters. Try Googling the topic a bit and you'll see plenty of examples. -hh |> In all seriousness... If you are going to enter a competition, exactly |> what do you expect the organizers to do? Pay you every time someone [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] | | -hh Your post was not about other "Examples" but the Canon competition. As for the also rans... Tough. You play your best shot and if it isn't good enough, do better next time. And if it isn't good enough, how would Canon be able to gain anything from it? The clunkers of 2008 perhaps? - -- from Douglas, If my PGP key is missing, the post is a forgery. Ignore it. > Your post was not about other "Examples" but the Canon competition. Correct. The point being made was that Canon is not unique in terms of their exploitive legal terms. > As for the also rans... Tough. You play your best shot and if it isn't good > enough, do better next time. And if it isn't good enough, how would > Canon be able to gain anything from it? The clunkers of 2008 perhaps? Canon could receive 10,000 absolutely great shots, but under the terms of the contest, they can't all win. And in terms of potential gain, let's assume for sake of illustration that you've entered some guy's contest where he grants himself a perpetual unlimited license for himself. Months later, you're browsing through a Stock Photography website and you find your contest submission image being listed for sale by someone else. By what is now often signed away, its all perfectly legal. There was a fairly recent court case where a company went under and was being liquidated under Chapter 11. One of the items that came up for sale was customer data that they had collected, but under a promise of "we will never share this". You might want to go look into the outcome. Generally speaking, on these "contests", the posters who are not at all concerned about their IP are the ones who have never considered their portfolio worth anything, are are stooges who believe that there's significant notoriety from "being published", despite the modern reality that being published is nowhere as difficult or expensive as it was twenty, or even five years ago. Today, one can have a bound "coffee table" book made up of one's portfolio for under $100, and can go pad our resume with the phrase, "Published Author". -hh Today, one can >have a bound "coffee table" book made up of one's portfolio for under >$100, and can go pad our resume with the phrase, "Published Author". Do you have a URL for that? Has anybody done it? Is the quality any good? If so, I'd expect it would be a great gift after major events: weddings, family reunions, business gatherings... SignatureThese are my opinions, not necessarily my employer's. I hate spam. > > Today, one can have a bound "coffee table" book > > made up of one's portfolio for under $100, and can > > go pad our resume with the phrase, "Published Author". > > Do you have a URL for that? The actual publishing part (versus resume buffing), try Google for a couple of appropriate terms. With 'publish your own book' (no quotes), I found www.lulu.com I've not used them, so I have no idea who they are, how good, etc). Some of the 'good reputation' websites that offer online printing now also sell bound products. Here's the link to one at mpix.com: http://www.mpix.com/productsinfo.aspx?prod=10 The one that I've personally used on multiple occasions now is the layout software & service provided by Apple on the Mac under their 'iPhoto' application: http://www.apple.com/ilife/iphoto/printproducts.html Apple's prices start at $30 (+ shipping) for a 10 page 8.5" x 11" hardbound. > Has anybody done it? Is the quality any good? If so, > I'd expect it would be a great gift after major events: > weddings, family reunions, business gatherings... I put my first one together two years ago (a vacation photo album) as a surprise Christmas gift for my wife. Everyone who has seen it has been thrilled with the result. My personal reaction is that I should have pumped up a few of the images a bit more, but that's nothing that I can blame the printer for. I've since was able to take the PDF export out of iPhoto, tortured it through Acrobat and Photoshop and got the file size down from roughly 180MB to 3.2MB to be able to have a halfway decent low resolution version online, which can be found here: http://www.huntzinger.com/photo/2006/Tanzania_album-2006s.pdf BTW, do be aware that their page layout software is template-driven, so you might not be able to easily get exactly what you want. For example, on marked page 31 (page 32 in the PDF), the template's style sheet for this 2-page layout for the left image (velvet faced monkey) overlaid my image with a "creased paper" style, which I personally do not care for. I couldn't find an easy/obvious control to get rid of it, so I left it in. I have later learned that there is a way that you can cheat and get each page exactly the way you want, but it no longer is "drag and drop" simple. Since this project, I've used this software & service a few more times, including for a family wedding that I got drafted to shoot last summer. In general, the printer does a fine job and the Mac software has reasonbly good workflow fidelity screen-to-print, although its probably not at Pro levels. Overall, I'm satisfied that I'm the workflow's weak link <g> and I will be using them again. -hh >> In all seriousness... If you are going to enter a competition, exactly >> what do you expect the organizers to do? Pay you every time someone >> looks at your (probably non prize winning) entry? > > I expect them to restrict their rights. I've read the terms in their full glory. They seemed acceptable to me. If they are not acceptable for you, don't enter the contest (sorry, I mean no offense by this, I just want to point out, that everyone can decide, if he/she wants to enter or not). You can see the same picture that I put in the contest on flickr. Under a CC-license (ok, non commercial). I see, that there is a great competition with great prizes and the opportunity to show off my pictures to an audience. for this I'm giving canon (and it's affiliates) the right to use the picture for two years (yes, the restrict themselves here). That's a fair deal in my opinion. Marco SignatureDimage A2, Agfa isolette http://flickr.com/photos/kruemi http://profile.imageshack.us/user/kruemi/images >> In all seriousness... If you are going to enter a competition, exactly >> what do you expect the organizers to do? Pay you every time someone >> looks at your (probably non prize winning) entry? > > I expect them to restrict their rights. I've read the terms in their full glory. They seemed acceptable to me. If they are not acceptable for you, don't enter the contest (sorry, I mean no offense by this, I just want to point out, that everyone can decide, if he/she wants to enter or not). You can see the same picture that I put in the contest on flickr. Under a CC-license (ok, non commercial). I see, that there is a great competition with great prizes and the opportunity to show off my pictures to an audience. for this I'm giving canon (and it's affiliates) the right to use the picture for two years (yes, the restrict themselves here). That's a fair deal in my opinion. Marco SignatureDimage A2, Agfa isolette http://flickr.com/photos/kruemi http://profile.imageshack.us/user/kruemi/images > Better read the fine print...ie, the "I donate my copyright" bit: I refuse to acknowledge copyright anyway. There is no copyright on the internet. Copyright is a relic of the past and once people publish things, there is no way to control who distributes their information and on what terms. Copyright is just legal mumbo jumbo and a way to keep lawyers busy. Companies like micro$oft or adobe with all their economic power can't do much to prevent people from pirating (aka sharing) their software. >> Better read the fine print...ie, the "I donate my copyright" bit: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Companies like micro$oft or adobe with all their economic power can't > do much to prevent people from pirating (aka sharing) their software. sweet so you won't care when I steal your identity, after all no one owns anything on the net as far as your concerned ;-) I already know your in the Netherlands, from Utrecht. A thorough Google groups search would un-earth a lot more information about who you are, what you do for a living etc, to a dedicated professional criminal, your posting history is like a fingerprint and if they really wanted to they could probably hack into your system, get all the info they need to own your identity and let it out to the wider internet community and then go on a spree that would make a drunken football riot seem like tea time at the local church bingo night. and the best thing is you don't care because "there is no way to control who distributes their information and on what terms." :-) SignatureGod made me an atheist. Who are you to question his wisdom? > >> Better read the fine print...ie, the "I donate my copyright" bit: > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > sweet so you won't care when I steal your identity, after all no one owns > anything on the net as far as your concerned ;-) There is no copyright on my identity. > I already know your in the Netherlands, from Utrecht. A thorough Google > groups search would un-earth a lot more information about who you are, what [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > -- > God made me an atheist. Who are you to question his wisdom? So what does all this (lack of privacy) have to do with copyright infringement? How exactly is that supposed to prevent people from sharing stuff online at the piratebay? >> >> Better read the fine print...ie, the "I donate my copyright" bit: >> [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > How exactly is that supposed to prevent people from sharing stuff > online at the piratebay? just because it is being shared doe not make it legal, maybe you missed those life lessons on ethics ?? Your the one saying that "there is no way to control who distributes their information and on what terms." I was just pointing out that if that's the case then you won't mind when someone steals your identity. after all you have probably published enough personal info on the net to allow even a half decent crim to fill in the blanks and then disseminate that info over the web. same thing for Copyright, it is someone personal property, just because they have published it on the web does not mean it is now open slather to anyone who wants to just take it. Signature"Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color." Don Hirschberg > >> "sobriquet" <dohduh...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > just because it is being shared doe not make it legal, maybe you missed > those life lessons on ethics ?? Laws and ethics don't necessarily coincide. Legal activities can be unethical and illegal activities can be ethical. Besides, the difference between legal and illegal isn't as clear cut as you might like to portray it. For instance, I'm in the Netherlands and here it's perfectly legal to duplicate an audio cd or movie dvd for personal use, even if you have not bought it. So where people draw the line exactly between legal and illegal information is rather arbitrary and illogical. If you record a movie with a video recorder, it's called time-shifting and if you download the same movie from a bittorrent site it's called theft, though it basically amounts to the same thing. > Your the one saying that "there is no way to control who distributes their > information and on what terms." [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > have published it on the web does not mean it is now open slather to anyone > who wants to just take it. Intellectual property is a rather abstract idea compared to concrete property of physical things. Who decides what's legal or illegal with respect to digital information? Can someone own the number 1 or 0? Can someone own bitstrings provided the bitstrings are long enough? If I come up with a bitstring (which might be the bitstring that represents a piece of software, music, video or whatever), does that give me the right to deny other people access to it or to dictate the terms under which it can be used? As far as I'm concerned, ownership is a concept that cannot be applied to information, just like it would be silly or nonsensical to apply the concept of ownership to numbers between 0 and 9. You have to look at copyright from a historical perspective. When did we first come up with it? We've been creating things long before copyright existed. If someone made a cave painting, he didn't paint a copyright symbol under it to 'protect' his creation. Copyright is something that emerged when people were able to reproduce information on an industrial scale, to protect centralized publishers from unfair competition and it works in such a scenario, because you can actually hold someone responsible if he disseminates information in a centralized way. On the internet everybody can distribute information and distribution happens in a decentralized way, usually not for commercial purposes. This means centralized publishing is no longer economically viable (because there is no way a centralized distributor can compete with decentralized grassroots distribution via p2p). It might mean that people who create things lose some control over the distribution process and it might even mean people can no longer make money from their creations in a direct way. But that doesn't mean people who share things are criminals. It's just a technological development that has implications with respect to the economic viability of certain ways to generate an income. At a fundamental level, there is nothing criminal about sharing information. It's big corporations (like publishers) that realize they lose an easy way to make an income and economic power to portray it as an immoral or unethical activity. Artists will always find a way to exploit any popularity that ensues from their creations being enjoyed by a wide audience, even if their creations are being shared freely and there is not much an artist can do to prevent it, even if they wanted to. The flip side of this is that artists have free access to an enormous amount of material from other artists via the internet and this can be a powerful incentive to create things, apart from a financial incentive that used to be associated with publications involving centralized distribution. Copyright is an invention, like money and steam engines and there is no reason to assume it's something we have to keep using indefinitely or something that needs to be protected and respected at all costs in the face of technological developments that render it counterproductive. Copyright is incompatible with modern information technology. If we insist copyright must be retained, we should ban computers and abandon the internet, because those inventions were specifically designed to share information freely. > -- > "Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color." > Don Hirschberg- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven - > > - Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven - >>>> "sobriquet" <dohduh...@yahoo.com> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 119 lines] > abandon the internet, because those inventions were specifically > designed to share information freely. You can blather on at great length and very convincingly - to yourself - but at some level within you, you know that the real world honors effort and skill, and justifiably grants "ownership" of certain aspects of the products of effort and skill. Until that is changed in the established systems of government, you "philosophical" rantings are no more than a pressure-relief for your personal anguish. Nice try; no cigar. SignatureFrank ess > >> "sobriquet" <dohduh...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 135 lines] > -- > Frank ess The government is a mere extension of corporations (who pay for the government), so you can't expect the government to be concerned with individual rights (like the right to share information or even human rights in general). You can criminalize or demonize people all you like, but you can't hold back technological developments. Copyright is less and less of a feasible concept. In a few years devices like ipods with practically unlimited memory and network connectivity will be as ubiquitous as mobile phones and how exactly do you propose to prevent people from exchanging information, if you can't even do it right now with millions of people exchanging stuff online relatively unimpeded? Information doesn't become worthless by allowing it to be exchanged freely. It's just that it is no longer possible to express its value in monetary terms. Economic laws of supply and demand determine the price of things and in case of digital information, the supply is infinite (once you have a single copy, you can reproduce it indefinitely at no extra costs). Compare it to diamonds that are valuable because they are rare. If you could duplicate diamonds as easily as you can duplicate a software package like CS3, their value would drop to zero, because if there is an infinite supply, that means the price goes to zero. But that doesn't mean that diamonds are suddenly no longer useful for all sorts of purposes. So it's still valuable in that respect, but it's just no longer possible to express this value in monetary terms (because that requires an aspect of rarity). Apart from that, copyright is not the only possible way to provide a financial incentive to people who create things. Alternatively, we could tax the online exchange information, statistically monitor the items being exchanged and distribute some or all of the taxes accordingly to people who provide fresh and original material. In practice this is already being done with a levy on blank media to compensate for copyright infringement. So it's not that I think artists don't deserve to be rewarded for their efforts, it's just that I think we must strive towards a fair way to do it that actually works in practice and is compatible with modern technology. |> Nice try; no cigar. |> [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] | I think we must strive towards a fair way to do it that actually works | in practice and is compatible with modern technology. You rather quaint and romantic attempt to justify your beliefs is entertaining but founded on a totally wrong foundation... That communism can produce productivity. I will stop taking photographs for a living if people can copy them instead of buy them. To stop people like you from taking my endeavorers and destroying my business, there exists copyright, patents and trademarks. The foundation of enterprise that encourages invention. Before ever any of your romantic notions could have a hope in hell of succeeding, you first will need to present people like me with an alternative income source. I do not like the growth of large corporation who manage to measure the exact amount of money they can get away with charging for their goods but I respect their right to do it. This is where your attempt to justify anarchy and the destruction of civilization as we know it today is fundamentally flawed. I have no idea how you derive your income. I'll wager however that the people who invented the CPU in the PC you are using to try to promote no protection for them, are getting a royalty payment every time you replace it. The notion that a CPU or DRAM or any of the plethora of inventions - all protected by copyright or patent - needed to build a computer would exist if the inventors could not profit from them is absurd. I strongly suggest that before ever you attempt to justify your opinion that there should be no copyright, you should question and explore the alternative. I certainly won't work for food alone. Linux is probably the best example of why open source doesn't work. Without patented and copyrighted goods and code (Linus Torvold owns the patent to the core of Linux) The software would not exist. Even it's existence came from taking someone else's patented idea and altering it. Something which today, wouldn't be allowed. It demonstrates too, how little incentive there has been in nearly 15 years for it to become usable, compares to Microsoft OS. People still pay several hundred dollars for Windows instead use the free Linux. Why? Because there is no incentive to support what you didn't get paid for. - -- from Douglas, If my PGP key is missing, the post is a forgery. Ignore it. > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > entertaining but founded on a totally wrong foundation... That communism > can produce productivity. No. The foundation is that economic laws determine the price of things, not tradition. Once we invent universal duplication devices, we can abolish money as a universal substitute for things (perhaps we can retain it for services) and that would render the whole discussion of communism vs capitalism moot. We have universal duplication devices right now and they are called computers. But so far they only work for digital information and not for physical commodities. > I will stop taking photographs for a living if people can copy them > instead of buy them. To stop people like you from taking my endeavorers [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > succeeding, you first will need to present people like me with an > alternative income source. I've done that.. the alternative is taxing the online exchange of information. They already do that (in the form of a levy on blank media). > I do not like the growth of large corporation who manage to measure the > exact amount of money they can get away with charging for their goods > but I respect their right to do it. This is where your attempt to > justify anarchy and the destruction of civilization as we know it today > is fundamentally flawed. How do you ensure there is a balance then between economically powerful corporations and individual people where their rights or interests conflict? You can't rely on the government for that, because they are biased towards corporations who can wield way more economic power to influence government policy. > I have no idea how you derive your income. I'll wager however that the > people who invented the CPU in the PC you are using to try to promote no [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > protected by copyright or patent - needed to build a computer would > exist if the inventors could not profit from them is absurd. We might soon enter an age where people design their own pc and other electronics on their home computer. But currently, computers are produced and distributed in a centralized fashion, because they require heavy machinery to produce them. Hence patents work in that situation, because they can prevent unfair competition from people who try to make a buck by producing commodities like computers in a centralized fashion unfairly using technological know-how from the competition. Have you ever seen people who share illegal copies of computers or other commodities on bittorrent sites? Although I'm against patents, I think you can still justify those, because they apply to physical commodities (like computers or other devices) that can not be reproduced so easily as software and distributed in a decentralized fashion for noncommercial purposes online. That's why I'm restricting this discussion to copyright as it applies to digital information (as opposed to physical commodities) that can be duplicated indefinitely without further costs and consequently be shared freely online. > I strongly suggest that before ever you attempt to justify your opinion > that there should be no copyright, you should question and explore the > alternative. I certainly won't work for food alone. Linux is probably > the best example of why open source doesn't work. Why use linux when you can just as easily use windows for free? Well there are reasons, like linux being easier to tinker with (given that you have the source code available), but I prefer to use windows and all the applications that can be downloaded for free on p2p (copyright is irrelevant, except for a bit of a hassle with keygenerators). > Without patented and copyrighted goods and code (Linus Torvold owns the > patent to the core of Linux) The software would not exist. Even it's [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > free Linux. Why? Because there is no incentive to support what you > didn't get paid for. Linux is supported by a community and I think open source software is a good idea. But personally, though I have used linux in the past, I'm happy to ignore copyrights and use pirated copies of commercial software instead, because those are indeed more polished and refined and tend to be somewhat in the lead with respect to implementing new features. But that is probably primarily because companies like micro $oft are criminal organizations that have been convicted repeatedly for abusing their economic power. So just because they produce nice software, that doesn't imply they go about their business in an ethical way. Oh and 'nice' software doesn't really apply to windows of course (which is a piece of sh.t actually) but more to applications like photoshop that are available for windows. But the issue at stake here is not commercial vs open source software. The issue is copyright and it applies to both. I'm against copyright as it applies to open source software that imposes restrictions on its use just the same (like not being allowed to modify it and re- distributing it as closed source software). Not that I think it would be a good idea to modify open source software and re-distribute it as closed software, but because I'm fundamentally opposed to the idea of ownership of information and the consequential restrictions those owners are supposed to be allowed to impose on its use. > - -- > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > =o0+S > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >I've done that.. the alternative is taxing the online exchange of >information. >They already do that (in the form of a levy on blank media). That is a flawed system. Who gets that tax money? Not the individual creators of the work being copied. Somebody gets paid, but not the person who did the work. Of course, this discussion isn't really a fair discussion since you do pay a special tas for blank media while we do not. Personally, I think our system is better, since the money goes to the person or company who does the work, not just the big name companies. I used to photograph friesian horses, but I found that the Dutch breeders were in the European mindeset, so no matter how I presented the proofs, they just used them without paying. I can't afford to drive to each farm after a shoot (most are several hours away), so there was no way to do proofs in person. I had to print something or post something, and they used them without paying every time. And each time they would see me, they would ask when I was going to buy a friesian. Um, maybe when people start paying me for my services? THey aren't going to give me a free horse. Why should I give them free photos year after year. I still photograph the annual show for my own enjoyment and study, but I do not post the photos. I do photograph other breeds of horses with fewer problems. There will always be cheaters, but it isn't consistent with people who are used to the American system. And I do much better at cat shows. There, the people pay in advance for a specified number of photos. And they have no problem with the concept. They do get advertising usage included in the service. I've only had one person that tried to skip out. I can't imagine how photographers could ake a living in Europe if they have to depend on people paying when they know they can get away without paying for it. > On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 10:10:37 -0700 (PDT), sobriquet > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > creators of the work being copied. Somebody gets paid, but not the > person who did the work. Well, it's an international problem, because sharing things online is an international phenomenon. So it would require a kind of global authority that keeps track of who created what to determine who is entitled to receive compensation for their creations being exchanged online. > Of course, this discussion isn't really a fair discussion since you do > pay a special tas for blank media while we do not. Personally, I think > our system is better, since the money goes to the person or company > who does the work, not just the big name companies. Not necessarily, because many people download things in the USA as well. So in Europe, just like in the USA and in other parts of the world, some people pay for stuff, while others obtain a free copy (either from friends or online). But I think it's silly to criminalize people for sharing things. Sharing things is a very basic tendency for humans that's deeply ingrained in our evolutionary structure and has a history that goes back way further than the notion of copyright. If you have bread and someone is hungry, it feels good to share it. Likewise, if you have music on your mp3 player, you love it so much you'd like others to enjoy it as well, and if you can simply copy it, there is no way to prevent people from sharing what they have. It's simply the nature of modern technology that information is easily shared and all attempts to prevent this so far (with drm and things like that) have failed. > I used to photograph friesian horses, but I found that the Dutch > breeders were in the European mindeset, so no matter how I presented [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > photos year after year. I still photograph the annual show for my own > enjoyment and study, but I do not post the photos. Well, there are many people taking pictures these days and many people can afford to take pictures for a hobby and don't mind sharing them for free. You can never compete with them. So whether you share your photos or not is irrelevant because there are plenty of people who enjoy sharing their pictures just for the fun of it. In fact, often you are even allowed to use their pictures for commercial purposes. Look at all the pics available at flickr that are shared freely: http://flickr.com/search/?q=horse&m=tags&s=int&l=commderiv&z=t > I do photograph other breeds of horses with fewer problems. There will > always be cheaters, but it isn't consistent with people who are used > to the American system. And I do much better at cat shows. There, the > people pay in advance for a specified number of photos. And they have > no problem with the concept. They do get advertising usage included in > the service. I've only had one person that tried to skip out. I think if you have a talent, it's always possible to exploit it financially. Even if people share your pictures for free, that means you can get a lot of exposure so your name is well known and there are many ways to exploit such fame. You could give photography workshops or take pics on a commission basis to ensure you have a kind of contract which ensures reliable payment. > I can't imagine how photographers could ake a living in Europe if they > have to depend on people paying when they know they can get away > without paying for it. Hello I'm bringing this up again... The voting has started now, so go and vote. you have to register to vote, but it might be worth it... you can vote for as many pics as you want... > Here's my submission in the macro category: > http://ta.canon-europe.com/?pg=gallery&cc=nl&lc=nl&photo_id=foto480675142d9c8 that's a good one and has my vote... I'm advertising my image too, maybe it helps (i NEED this Camera! My old one is dying!) http://ta.canon-europe.com/?pg=gallery&cc=ch&lc=de&photo_id=foto480a08f72c8fc Marco SignatureDimage A2, Agfa isolette http://flickr.com/photos/kruemi http://profile.imageshack.us/user/kruemi/images > Hello Hey Marco. > I'm bringing this up again... The voting has started now, so go and > vote. you have to register to vote, but it might be worth it... you can > vote for as many pics as you want... Yep. I'm curious though to what degree the voting is an indication of how good the pictures are or if it's an indication of how good people are at getting others to vote for their pic. People who have lots of contacts that can vote for them may stand a better chance to win. Also, because voting requires registration, that may put some people off to go through that effort simply to cast a vote. On the other hand I do realize that if they wouldn't require registration of voters, that might make it easier for people to vote repeatedly in a fraudulent way. Oh and by the way.. just curious, are there any people here who have downloaded some or all of the images on the canon website? It seems like a nice collection to have because it's so varied and each amateur photographer is represented by a single photo. I reckon the contest gives a good impression of contemporary amateur photography. Also, if you would download all the pics, it's more convenient to view them on the computer as a slideshow. For instance, you could put all the macro pics in a single folder for all the participating countries and watch it for a long time to get a better idea of the really good photographs that deserve a vote. > > Here's my submission in the macro category: > >http://ta.canon-europe.com/?pg=gallery&cc=nl&lc=nl&photo_id=foto48067... [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > -- > Dimage A2, Agfa isolettehttp://flickr.com/photos/kruemihttp://profile.imageshack.us/user/kruemi/images |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.