[PRCo] Re: PRCo Photo Wiki?

[Jim Keener]

> One can hardly
> equate point and click with artistic expression that starts
> totally from scratch.  Brownie cameras of yore were point
> and click; it is not unique to the digital world.  One can ask:
> Why does what I do in public become the private property
> of another individual simply because he points and clicks?
>
Yes, it can, and is, equated to artistic expression.  How the image was
framed, when the image was taken, the subject of the image, the settings of
the camera, any post-processing, &c are decisions made by the person taking
the camera.  Yes, the old 110 camera didn't allow much variation of the
picture itself, but the photographer still had the choice of what to take,
how to take it, and when to take it.  Just because you don't feel like they
put a lot of effort into those decisions doesn't mean they didn't still
make them.
Why do I lose my rights to privacy while he gains rights
> of privacy / copyright which includes me?  One 'generally'
> cannot contest being photographed in public.  The same
> photo then becomes private copyright property of another
> doesn't it.  What are we missing here?

IIRC, the photograph retains the rights to his image, but cannot use the
image under certain circumstances (making money off of it, and possibly
displaying it in public) without the subject's consent, hence model
releases.  Also, you don't lose your right to privacy, it never existed in
public in the first place.


> A parallel observation:
> What is legal in one country is sometimes illegal in another
> country isn't it.  We don't need to leave the country for this
> experience do we.  Some states in the U.S.A. forbid what other
> states allow.  Is this 'equality' of law which is part of our
> Constitution?  Isn't this the "United" States?  This sounds more
> divisive doesn't it.
>
How does this change they discussion? Different jurisdictions are, not so
surprisingly, different jurisdictions. Additionally, IIRC, copyright law is
federal, not state or local, so it is the same across all states in the
union.

>
>
> Just some thoughts.  With 100-people it is most likely 1,000-more
> conflicting thoughts can be expressed isn't it.  We shall most likely
> hear some won't we.
>
Yes, this was another point of the internet, free (as in speech) discussion.

You can ask my friends, I'm the first person to tell you the current system
of copyrights and patents needs majorly over hauled, but that does not mean
I feel like we should do away with it.  If someone would like to retain
full rights and control to an image they create, let them.  Do I feel it's
the best thing? No.  I prefer licenses like a CC-BY-SA (
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/)

Jim

>
>
>
>
> >________________________________
> > From: Jim Keener <jimktrains at gmail.com>
> >To: pittsburgh-railways at dementix.org
> >Sent: Friday, May 25, 2012 9:31 AM
> >Subject: [PRCo] Re: PRCo Photo Wiki?
> >
> >That's arguably an unfair way to look at it. A photograph is as
> >much art as a painting. His vision and knowledge and time went into it.
> >He has every right to not show just anyone his work.
> >
> >My only argument is that the internet is not public domain.
> >Copyright exists on it, though it does become harder to enforce and
> >easier to copy.
> >
> >Jim
> >--
> >
> >Boris Cefer <westinghouse at iol.cz> wrote:
> >
> >That is everyone's decision, however...
> >
> >All that belongs to the public before you steal it by your camera for
> >yourself should belong to the public again and the internet is the most
> >appropriate place to display it.
> >
> >No discussion!
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Fred Schneider" <fwschneider at comcast.net>
> >To: <pittsburgh-railways at dementix.org>
> >Sent: Friday, May 25, 2012 4:45 PM
> >Subject: [PRCo] Re: PRCo Photo Wiki?
> >
> >The one reason I have never posted anything valuable on the internet is
> >simply that it will forever be lost to me. It becomes public domain. In
> >otherwords, not interested.
> >
>
>