Professional Photo Ownership

[bicker]

IF you are rolling stop--then how is that intent to stop? Sounds more like intent to do as you please.

Then you'd be wrong. That's the whole point.

So if stopping is the intent, then why don't you just stop?

I actually do stop.

Why are you lying about how I drive, Lisa?

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

Then you'd be wrong. That's the whole point.

I actually do stop.

Why are you lying about how I drive, Lisa?

"you" is general..I often type that way in a generalized conversation.

You have taken the stance that nothing will happen unless you BLOW through a stop sign and you are incorrect.

 

[bicker]

what you have done is rationalized why rolling stops are not bad whether or not that you think they are.

Another lie. Please stop lying about what I've written. I've been very clear about writing about degrees of transgression, not justifying any transgression.

 

[bicker]

"you" is general..I often type that way in a generalized conversation.

Great. So we need to accommodate your imprecise verbiage. Fine.

You have taken the stance that nothing will happen unless you BLOW through a stop sign and you are incorrect.

Which definition of "you" are you using here?

Seriously: When someone sees an obstruction in an intersection and proceeds through it anyway, then how long they were still at the edge of the intersection isn't the issue. You can just as easily kill someone from a full stop as you can from a rolling stop, if that is what you mean to do.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

Another lie. Please stop lying about what I've written. I've been very clear about writing about degrees of transgression, not justifying any transgression.

Have you ever looked up how many traffic fatalities are due to rolling through stop signs? I think you would be hard-pressed to find one case. (Just out of curiousity, since I believe the term is an American colloquialism, and I know you're not American: Do you even know what "rolling through" a stop sign means? It does NOT mean the same thing as blowing through a stop sign.)

Sorry, but I'm going to have to doubt your reports. It is practically impossible to have a fatal accident result from rolling through a stop sign. The driver would have have to blow through the stop sign to cause a fatal accident, unless the driver deliberately wanted to get hurt. It's as simple as that.

:

(that's funny b/c another poster did post how people have died in her neighborhood as a result of this)

There is no way to to fail to see a kid on a bicycle unless you're blowing through the stop sign. I cannot understand why you continue to assert that there is.

Why don't we just agree to disagree without all the disrespectful innuendo about your assumptions about attitude?

No one is lying here....certainly not me, so I'd appreciate you toning down your accusations.

You went off on a tangent to basically say (regardless of what you actually do) that there is nothing wrong with rolling stops.

Mis interpreting, maybe--but certainly not lying.

So let's drop the name calling now.

 

[bicker]

I cannot help but wonder why folks trying to defend their violating of copyrights did so by launching this maniacal fascination with rolling through a stop sign instead of trying to defend their violations on merits.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

Seriously: When someone sees an obstruction in an intersection and proceeds through it anyway, then how long they were still at the edge of the intersection isn't the issue. You can just as easily kill someone from a full stop as you can from a rolling stop, if that is what you mean to do.

Please explain how my friend did not get injured from a rolling stop.
(a post you (specific) seemed to have ignored)

 

[bicker]

I'll send you a PM. Let's leave this thread to discussion of Professional Photos Ownership.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

I cannot help but wonder why folks trying to defend their violating of copyrights did so by launching this maniacal fascination with rolling through a stop sign instead of trying to defend their violations on merits.

FTR I do not defend copyright violation.

In fact--I am very much against it.

Are you implying that I do defend it and say it is okay? I won't call you a liar, but I would like you to point out where I said that it was okay.

 

[bicker]

As I said, I cannot help but wonder. So help me understand how your contributions to this thread help clarify the copyright issue actually being discussed.

As you can see, I'm actually willing to accept your statement about what you actually have said. (I suppose it was too much to expect the same consideration.)

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

As I said, I cannot help but wonder. So help me understand how your contributions to this thread help clarify the copyright issue actually being discussed.

As you can see, I'm actually willing to accept your statement about what you actually have said. (I suppose it was too much to expect the same consideration.)

You pounced on viking by this whole defition of rolling thing. So I stepped in.
viking can take care of himself, I should have left it that way.

You did use the word "impossible"--I could have simply said never say never.

 

[bicker]

It seems, from our PMs, that it was a difference in terms issue. You and I had different definitions of what "blowing" though a stop sign means, and indeed, early on in the thread, I said to Viking that I thought that that was the case.

 

[bicker]

Regardless, what is your position on the actual issue of this thread?

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

Regardless, what is your position on the actual issue of this thread?

post 35

Unless he owns the negatives, then no he doesn't have the right to reprint it via any method.

The holder of the negatives is the holder of the copyright. The photographer can relinquish that copyright (in terms of reproduction--not credit) if they so choose to. Our wedding photographer did this by including negatives as part of the package.

post 69

FTR I do not defend copyright violation.

In fact--I am very much against it.
.

 

[bicker]

Makes sense. However, in this day-and-age of digital photography, it isn't really a matter of negatives any longer (though if you've got the negatives, then you almost surely have been granted the copyright). Digital photos also have copyrights, and while you cannot purchase the negatives, you can purchase the copyright itself, if the copyright holder is willing to sell it and you're willing to pay that price. As I mentioned earlier, the fact that they're pictures of you, and how much you paid for the prints have no bearing on whether you have the right to copy them.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

Same could be said about the memory card or a CD. I Imagine that Sears upping the price of their CDS to $200 is to give permission to print (I could be wrong, I don't know their policy).

Basically if you haven't been given express permission to duplicate OR you have not been given the negatives OR any type of disk or CD allowing you to make duplicates (some wedding photogs do this--you get the CD and then you have printed what you want where you want) then you don't have permission at all.

There was some copyright discussion on when a cast member (especially the photo CM's) take a picture of you with your camera...while artistically, you didn't take the photo and can't say it is one that you took ethically---legally it is yours. I think they should prohibit the photo CM's by using any other camera than their Disney issued one so that there is no issues--but when CM released the camera back to you and memory card--there went their copyright along with it.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

Oh and the safe way--if you can't afford the prints you want at the price offered...you can always snap the photo yourself and send it to snapfish or shutterfly or any other service for duplicating and enlarging.

There is a reason why the professionals charge as much as they do and it isn't to cover the cost of developing and paper.

Certainly people understand when they by a book at Barnes and noble that it costs much much less to print than the price they are paying? But they would never question that to reproduce it in whole or in part is a clear cut copyright violation.

Images are no different. That's why they pay big bucks for TM's and such and why artists protect their work. Their work has value. Otherwise, why would you bother with a professional photographer?

 

[froglady]

OP checking back in here. I think I've gotten the answer to my question, and find myself in the minority as to considering a photographer's work his/her source of income, and my copying that work, rather than paying him/her, is unethical.

I'm sorry that I didn't make the situation even clearer, in that the man I encountered was holding a new (apparently) studio produced graduation/yearbook photo, and wanted to make an enlargement of the smaller photo he was holding.

The argument was made that if a photo is really old, and/or the photographer is unknown, dead, or cannot be contacted, it's OK to make the copy. I can see the rationale behind this, and the posters who offered this scenario made it plain that they WOULD pay the photographer if they could. I think my conscience could accept this, and I might join them in making the copy.

But the rest of the arguments involved disliking the photographer, disliking the situation (being forced to use an expensive photographer by the school,) or disliking the prices charged. The latter APPEARED to be the case in my encounter (but I didn't question the man as to the specifics in HIS case) and the clerk viewed it that way.

I didn't want to pay the ridiculous fees charged by DD's HS photographer for what I considered so-so photos, so I didn't order any. DH took a photo that year which is far superior, so that is what we have framed and hanging on the wall. Her college photos were very nice (I only saw the candids, not the "official" one) so we ordered copies and enlargements. It never occured to me to go and copy them myself, as I view that almost as "stealing" from the photographer...selling his photos is how he makes his living. Owning lots of "originals" doesn't do him a bit of good unless people purchase copies.

So I appear to be in the minority in my thinking, and I suspect that professional non-journalistic photographers may go the way of portrait painters. (Which I, and many of my friends, have used) They will have to increase their fees to cover lost revenues (ala Sears) in order to survive, but even then, only a minority of people will feel that the finished product is worth the price, so they will decrease in number.

 

[Viking]

No. I made it very clear to Viking from the very start that I didn't think Viking knew what I was talking about. Those qualifications were there from the start.

And moreover, I'm not even saying it is a good thing to do -- all I'm saying that copyright violation is worse -- much worse.

Not here in MA, where a very common cause of rear-end collisisons is drivers making a full stop where other drivers aren't expecting a full stop. It's a problem. The drivers in the rear are wrong, but they're plentiful, so the reality very important.

Which would be blowing through a stop sign, not rolling through it.

The only thing you made clear so far is that it is safer not to drive where you drive

 

[bicker]

No question that MA isn't a safe place to drive. As I indicated to Lisa via PM, I've been rear-ended here in MA just because I followed the law. This is the only place in the US where it was once legal to "follow the leader" (i.e., two cars going through the stop sign together, rather than each one waiting its turn). It is also one of the few places where the law once was that drivers entering a traffic circle/rotary have the right-of-way over drivers already in the traffic circle/rotary. I read something last week that indicated that MA is the second or third most dangerous state to drive in, in the United States.