[PRCo] Re: PRCo Photo Wiki?

Fri May 25 14:24:42 EDT 2012

Mr.Keener,

Much is revealed in the way you edit isn't it.  You retain the complete
email of others but you eliminate my opening statement where I
acknowledge current copyright law recognizes point and click as
copyright.  Let me quote myself here:

"Your comment is interesting and most likely harmonizes withcopyright law."

I agree; according to current copyright law point and click is considered
creative isn't it.  But I stand by what I said:  it does not begin to
compare with a blank canvas and brush does it.  If there is a
groundswell of support for this the law could be changed couldn't it.
Certainly that has happened with far more important items hasn't it.

If a person does not wish to share this is certainly an exercise of
freedom of choice isn't it.  I respect that.  I am not discussing this
item but solely the approach to point and click.  Such is instantaneous
and only takes a split-second; blank canvas and brush takes
considerably longer.  This is creativity.

I only seek an understanding of my impression on point and click;
I am hardly alone on this impression.  I do not seek an endless
discussion and I openly acknowledge current copyright law accepting
such in my original comment on the topic and here.

Phil

>________________________________
> From: Jim Keener <jimktrains at gmail.com>
>To: pittsburgh-railways at dementix.org 
>Sent: Friday, May 25, 2012 11:58 AM
>Subject: [PRCo] Re: PRCo Photo Wiki?
> 
>> 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.
>