[PRCo] Re: PRCo Photo Wiki?

[Boris Cefer]

Photography may be creative as well as non-creative, e.g. when you take a 
photo of a bolt to give someone idea what he is going to buy in a hardware 
store. Would you collect copyright fees on such a photo? It has the same 
character of technical document as a pencil draft on a small piece of paper. 
Would you demand a copyright on that?

If someone is willing or is not to share his creations, whatever they are, 
it reflects his personal character rather than having any relation to 
copyright or law in general, they are used only as excuses.

Boris

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jim Keener" <jimktrains at gmail.com>
To: <pittsburgh-railways at dementix.org>
Sent: Friday, May 25, 2012 9:06 PM
Subject: [PRCo] Re: PRCo Photo Wiki?


> 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