[PRCo] Re: PRCo Photo Wiki?

[Jim Keener]

Philip,
Considering that your previous email is available to everyone, I only
wanted to include the points I was talking about specifically.  I wasn't
denying anyone the ability to read your message.

What is this obsession you have with point-and-click?  As Fred said,
an experienced photographer can do a lot with a simple point-and-click.
 Should their works be limited just because you don't think their camera is
important?

You seem to have a romance about painting, but what you don't understand is
that there are those with a romance about photography.

I do think we need to re-ground ourselves with this discussion.  I was
replying to a comment about how it's wrong for someone not to share their
photographs, implying that there was no artistic value to them.
 I truly feel that this is a awful line of thought.  There can be a lot of
thought and effort that goes into taking a photograph.  I can take crayons
and draw a trolley in seconds, or I can spend an hour trying to frame a
shot and get it to look like _I want it to look_.

 To say that a camera only captures what is and has no reflection on the
photographer is just wrong. There are photographers where you can look at
their work and guess them, simply by their style.  The same is true for
painting, wood work, computer programming, and pretty much anything that
requires a person to sit down and use their creative side.

It just feels extraordinarily ignorant and short-sighted to tell someone
that what they've done was not an artistic expression.

Jim

On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 2:24 PM, Phillip Clark Campbell <pcc_sr at yahoo.com>wrote:

> 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.
> >
>
>