[PRCo] Re: PRCo Photo Wiki?

Fri May 25 16:44:14 EDT 2012

Mr.Keener,

I do believe you make every attempt to take good pictures.  On the other
hand I am not slapping anyone in the face.  Why do you choose to be
offended?

This is one highly imperfect world isn't it.  Not one person has total knowledge;
comments are thus "one perspective" on a topic aren't they.  You have a
perspective; others 'each' have their perspectives.

Do you remember the attempt to identify a photo whose actual location eluded
the list for many years?  Do you remember Mr.Lybarger's approach?

"What am I missing?"  Mr.Lybarger then set out to answer this question; he
went into the field to identify the location which he did precisely.  Much more
importantly a lesson on approach was learned or re-learned / remembered wasn't it.

Mr.Cefer is a young man with incredible intelligence on PCCs and trolleys isn't he.
His contributions to this list show genuine wisdom.  He has earned my respect
as has Mr.Lybarger.  When either write and I have a differing opinion, I simply
revert to Mr.Lybarger's approach:  "What am I missing?"  What can I learn from
their comments?  Each has a piece of the puzzle to that topic; Mr.Cefer has
brought to light another piece of the puzzle.  All are subject to the law; all are
free to express an opinion to that law.  This is what each is doing.

Phil

>________________________________
> From: Jim Keener <jimktrains at gmail.com>
>To: pittsburgh-railways at dementix.org 
>Sent: Friday, May 25, 2012 1:06 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
>
>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.
>