[PRCo] Re: PRCo Photo Wiki?

[Jim Keener]

> My opening comment quoted below emphasizes Mr.Keener's comment about
point and click considered creative for copyright purposes.
This isn't about copyright though (I brought up copyright because I thought
misunderstood Boris' point), this is about me feeling slighted because you
don't consider photography creative.  I am by no means a professional
photographer, but I do try to take nice pictures.  My choices on how to set
up a shot are mine and they aren't just an existent thing, I created them
based on what I felt looked best.  Saying that what I enjoy doing isn't
creative because you don't feel there is any thought that goes into it is a
huge slap in the face, for me and I'm sure for many others.

Jim

On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 2:51 PM, Phillip Clark Campbell <pcc_sr at yahoo.com>wrote:

> Yes, Mr.Schneider.  My opening comment in my;prior post acknowledges
> point and click is most definitely considered creative ability protected
> by current copyright law.  I am not contesting law.  My opening comment
> quoted below emphasizes Mr.Keener's comment about point and click
> considered creative for copyright purposes.
>
> I am observing there is one horrendous difference between point and
> click and blank canvas with brush - the former is recording what is
> seen in a split-second isn't it.  The latter takes true talent and
> creative ability to 'paint' from scratch the same scene that an object
> in the hands of any individual 'records.'
>
> If there was a ground swell of opinion to eliminate point and click
> from the copyright law it is very possible to happen isn't it.  This
> has happened to topics far more important than copyright hasn't
> it.  Thus my observation about legality in one state is illegal in
> another.  Being jurisdictional is 'patently' obvious isn't it.  Using
> such as justification is an excuse, definitely not a reason.  It is
> dismissive, not dealing with the topic at hand.
>
> Freedom of choice to share or not share is not at all contested; each
> has that opportunity.  Thank you to those who share; respect goes
> to those who choose not to share.  It is that simple isn't it.
>
>
> Phil
>
>
>
>
>
> >________________________________
> > From: Fred Schneider <fwschneider at comcast.net>
> >To: pittsburgh-railways at dementix.org
> >Sent: Friday, May 25, 2012 12:22 PM
> >Subject: [PRCo] Re: PRCo Photo Wiki?
> >
> >
> >Phillip:
> >
> >There is an old line that a professional could do much more with a
> Brownie than any rank amateur with a Speed Graphic.
> >
> >Law applies to everyone regardless of who wants the picture posted for
> their pleasure.
> >
> >Fred
> >
> >
> >On May 25, 2012, at 1:35 PM, Phillip Clark Campbell wrote:
> >
> >> Mr.Keener,
> >>
> >>
> >> Your comment is interesting and most likely harmonizes with
> >> copyright law.  But spin is still spin isn't it.  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?
> >> 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?  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.
> >>
> >>
> >> 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.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Phil
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> ________________________________
> >>> 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.
> >
>
>