[PRCo] Re: PRCo Photo Wiki?

[Fred Schneider]

Sounds like excuses from someone who desires someone else's material...

On May 25, 2012, at 3:16 PM, Boris Cefer wrote:

> 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 
> 
>