Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Cameras / Gear / Photography > Being a Photographer > Business / Philosophy of Photography

Business / Philosophy of Photography Taking pics is one thing, but understanding why we take them, what they mean, what they are best used for, how they effect our reality -- all of these and more are important issues of the Philosophy of Photography. One of the best authors on the subject is Susan Sontag in her book "On Photography."

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

Old 1 Week Ago   #41
Michael Markey
Registered User
 
Michael Markey's Avatar
 
Michael Markey is offline
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Blackpool ,England
Age: 67
Posts: 3,649
The early cameras had "Buddha" ears .
My `55 M3 has them ....don`t know when they converted to conventional lugs.
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #42
jawarden
Registered User
 
jawarden is offline
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 218
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmr View Post
This is making the rounds, and I'm somewhat surprised it has not made it here. Sorry if this has been posted before.

Surf here:

https://petapixel.com/2018/04/05/ado...-stolen-photo/

How dare they steal from a man with a growing family!

😆
__________________

  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #43
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 23,497
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ko.Fe. View Post
So stealing of intellectual property from one American by another one isn't big deal for you?
You must be one of those selling fake watches on the street then...
Whole books of mine have been stolen and put up on the web, and the fence (website) holding the thefts refuse to take them down unless I jump through a lot of American legal hoops, referring me to their "Terms and Conditions" which of course I never signed, because I have no desire to deal with someone who plays host to a nest of thieves.

You'd think it would suffice that I can prove I'm Roger Hicks and that I wrote the books, but no. They're called issuu and they are no better than the thieves they shelter. Their so-called Help Page is at https://help.issuu.com/hc/en-us and you'll see that they make no provision for those whose copyright has been stolen.

Cheers,

R.
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #44
mich rassena
Registered User
 
mich rassena is offline
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by aizan View Post
looks like a tempest in a teapot. resnick replaced the kr placeholder image with his own photo when the mistake was found. he didn’t lie about it the way that one jch screenshot implies. all he did was overlook a detail in editing a blog post. whoop-de-doo! no real bad behavior, just everyday mild sloppiness. nobody will care in several days.

i wonder what ken will buy with his $1k....
I found the reaction to the author's words to be way overblown. I guess film users feel attacked on all sides these days, so I've seen several people promising to boycott Adorama over this opinion piece.

I dislike the sense of entitlement people are showing. People act like they're personally offended, betrayed even. I'm sure if the shoe was the on other foot, digital users wouldn't be reacting the same way. "Why I'm going back to film and ditching digital" just wouldn't raise any hackles even though Adorama must by this point sell mostly digital products by volume. Maybe it's because film users are part of a small minority of photographers now that the feelings are especially acute. Adorama and other sellers can cater to the digital majority and ignore the rest and not have it significantly hurt their bottom line.

Now the misuse of the M3 image can't be called a mistake, because of the removal of the watermark, unless that image is found elsewhere without the watermark, and that's the image that was used. This really crosses the line and undermines my sympathy for the author of the article, if he was the one that furnished the image.
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #45
ptpdprinter
Registered User
 
ptpdprinter is offline
Join Date: Apr 2017
Age: 62
Posts: 909
Why go to all the trouble of downloading an image, removing the watermark, and inserting the image in the article as a place holder. Why not just type "[insert M3 image here]". The excuse is simply not believable. I also cannot believe Adorama bought it. It is so laughable it makes them culpable.
__________________
ambientlightcollection.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #46
Ko.Fe.
Me. Write ESL. Ko.
 
Ko.Fe.'s Avatar
 
Ko.Fe. is offline
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: MiltON.ONtario
Age: 51
Posts: 5,599
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Hicks View Post
Whole books of mine have been stolen and put up on the web, and the fence (website) holding the thefts refuse to take them down unless I jump through a lot of American legal hoops, referring me to their "Terms and Conditions" which of course I never signed, because I have no desire to deal with someone who plays host to a nest of thieves.

You'd think it would suffice that I can prove I'm Roger Hicks and that I wrote the books, but no. They're called issuu and they are no better than the thieves they shelter. Their so-called Help Page is at https://help.issuu.com/hc/en-us and you'll see that they make no provision for those whose copyright has been stolen.

Cheers,

R.

Few years ago I asked M. Resnick's permission to translate and publish his article about Winogrand. In 2017 I asked permission from author of "Class time with Garry Winogrand". It took me some time.

Yet, I have my online pictures and my own articles stollen. I also never have intention to sell them... Just ask. But only old-style Cosmopolitan asked me officially for publishing rights.

I wonder if new EU regulation for protecting of personal data online which will be effective on May might help you. Yours books is your personal data and they are using it without permission online. In this new regulations stealing of personal data is upto 25 millions in fines.
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #47
hendriphile
Registered User
 
hendriphile's Avatar
 
hendriphile is offline
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 351
I'd be willing to let him use the image of my 1960 M3 for much less than $1K!
__________________
"It's so heavy! And it's full of numbers!" --- teenaged niece upon meeting my M3.

Last edited by hendriphile : 1 Week Ago at 10:13. Reason: Unable to shrink image size
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #48
seagrove
Registered User
 
seagrove is offline
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 185
What angers me about what Resnick stated was that the image was just used as a "placeholder". If that was the case, you would want to remind yourself that it was a purloined (love that word!) image that needed replacing BEFORE publishing. I really have trouble believing Resnick's response as the truth.
__________________
Rich
http://www.richard-owen.com
http://meandmyx100s.blogspot.com
Yashica Electro35 GS, Fujifilm X100S, TCL-X100, WCL-X100, sold everything else!
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #49
seagrove
Registered User
 
seagrove is offline
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 185
Quote:
Originally Posted by ptpdprinter View Post
Why go to all the trouble of downloading an image, removing the watermark, and inserting the image in the article as a place holder. Why not just type "[insert M3 image here]". The excuse is simply not believable. I also cannot believe Adorama bought it. It is so laughable it makes them culpable.
TOTALLY AGREE!
__________________
Rich
http://www.richard-owen.com
http://meandmyx100s.blogspot.com
Yashica Electro35 GS, Fujifilm X100S, TCL-X100, WCL-X100, sold everything else!
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #50
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 23,497
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ko.Fe. View Post
. . . In this new regulations stealing of personal data is upto 25 millions in fines.
Thanks for the idea. That would be nice! I'm not terribly fussed by my own financial losses, which possibly were not all that great. But I'd like to see those thieving swine* stopped in their tracks and heavily punished.

*EDIT: Sorry, that was unfair to swine. But then, there are always some people in any group who are irreproachable.

Cheers,

R.
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #51
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 23,497
Quote:
Originally Posted by seagrove View Post
What angers me about what Resnick stated was that the image was just used as a "placeholder". If that was the case, you would want to remind yourself that it was a purloined (love that word!) image that needed replacing BEFORE publishing. I really have trouble believing Resnick's response as the truth.
Dear Rich,

Well... Gosh.... You mean there are other people on the internet who do this sort of thing too? I always thought that everyone on the internet was always totally honest!

Cheers,

R.
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #52
Bille
Registered User
 
Bille's Avatar
 
Bille is offline
Join Date: Nov 2012
Age: 40
Posts: 700
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ko.Fe. View Post
So stealing of intellectual property from one American by another one isn't big deal?
Uncalled for generalization.
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #53
rjbuzzclick
Registered User
 
rjbuzzclick's Avatar
 
rjbuzzclick is offline
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 388
Quote:
Originally Posted by objectowcer View Post
I think someone noticed the strap lugs, which don't match up for the year he said his camera was. From there, the first google image search for leica M3.

I don't know if he could've picked a worse camera to steal a photo of, given how well people know the little differences.
I saw something that said that the reflections on the front lens element were the dead giveaway.
__________________
Reid

http://www.flickr.com/photos/rjbuzzclick/

"If I had a nickel for every time I had to replace a camera battery, I'd be able to get the #@%&$ battery cover off!" -Me
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #54
pepeguitarra
Registered User
 
pepeguitarra's Avatar
 
pepeguitarra is offline
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Los Angeles, California
Posts: 818
I am really upset that the guy did not stole the image from me. I have so many photos of the M3 and I could use $1,000. Somehow, I do not like Adorama and BH forcing me to observe their Sabath. While they are closed, I have been buying from Freestyle. And it seems that that is the way to go. They do not discriminate between digital and analog photography users.
__________________
It is not a photo until you print it! Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #55
aizan
Registered User
 
aizan's Avatar
 
aizan is offline
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Torrance, CA
Age: 36
Posts: 4,181
Quote:
Originally Posted by plummerl View Post
A placeholder image? An image with Ken's watermark mistakenly removed? This was a touch beyond a simple mistake. Clipping the image was one step, second step was removing the watermark. This was not a simple mistake. What he overlooked was that someone would recognize the image.
people seem to be assuming one particular sequence of events and motivations when the reality could be many other things. the dastardly version of events goes like this: resnick is writing the blog post, and when he gets to the part about his m3 (because he's lazy and conniving), he does a google image search, downloads the first image, opens it in photoshop and erases the watermark, then uploads it to wordpress, adds it to the post, finishes writing the post, then clicks publish.

i doubt that's what happened. first of all, ken rockwell's photo is the top search result in google image search, and it's easily recognizable to just about anyone in the online rangefinder community (who the heck hasn't googled 'leica m3'?). if resnick was trying to be sneaky, he would have looked for a more obscure image. and why would he steal an image if he had written an article about it and it's a professional concern of his? it's a real stretch of the imagination to believe that resnick had bad intentions.

second, when you're writing a rough draft, you do what resnick did: get one of the top search results and stick it in. later on you prepare illustrations for the final draft. there's nothing unsavory about using a placeholder. that's just the writing process. why not just type in [insert M3 image here]? because people do things differently, of course.

we can only speculate on how the watermark was removed and who did it. maybe resnick did it, or maybe it was someone else at adorama (such as the current editor, who probably would have been the one who did the final review and clicked the publish button, or maybe an intern who didn't know any better). ever think of that? they never say by whom the image was altered.
__________________
Ugly Cameras
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #56
x-ray
Registered User
 
x-ray's Avatar
 
x-ray is offline
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Tennessee USA
Age: 69
Posts: 4,546
I have several hundred documentary images of the legendary moonshiner Popcorn Sutton that I registered the copyright on that have been repeatedly stolen. The chinese have filed them off, produced Tshirts and put them on sale on Amazon. I've filed complaints no less than 5 times and each time they've been removed but in short order they're relisted under different suppliers names. Finally I succeeded in breaking their spidti and they gave up.

In addition I caught one well known country musician using three of the images in a country music video. This one almost sent to court to get them removed.

I've sold these images many times to quiteca few major magazines and they've been published in both print and on line. On line has made it easy for them to be ripped off. I've even caught people photographing my images with their dslr and cellphones during gallery and museum shows.

Over the past 9 years I've busted copyright violaters from the US to Norway.

A couple of years ago my daughter in law contacted me with Etsy links of people ripping off my x-ray art. The one notable offender was an art instructor at the Art Institute In Chicago. She was producing cards, buttons and other items not only from my art but from Disney art. It was pretty easy to get that one stopped.

I even caught one guy on eBay that deals in vintage prints selling copies of my documentary images that he'd put his own copyright mark on. When I contacted him I asked why he did that because it's a major violation of copyright laws. His response was he didn't want anyone to steal it. Go figure.

The KR thing is minor. He did wrong but it was small potatoes and KR was compensated $1000 for something that might have brought $100 if bought from a stock agency if he'd been lucky.

The lesson, pick your fights when they're worth fighting otherwise you'll drive yourself nuts. This one wasn't worth getting your panties in a wad over it.
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #57
Huss
Registered User
 
Huss is offline
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Venice, CA
Posts: 5,247
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepeguitarra View Post
I... Somehow, I do not like Adorama and BH forcing me to observe their Sabath. While they are closed, I have been buying from Freestyle. ....
They are not forcing you to observe their religious practices.


You do know Freestyle is closed on Sundays, don't you?
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #58
mich rassena
Registered User
 
mich rassena is offline
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by aizan View Post
people seem to be assuming one particular sequence of events and motivations when the reality could be many other things. the dastardly version of events goes like this: resnick is writing the blog post, and when he gets to the part about his m3 (because he's lazy and conniving), he does a google image search, downloads the first image, opens it in photoshop and erases the watermark, then uploads it to wordpress, adds it to the post, finishes writing the post, then clicks publish.

i doubt that's what happened. first of all, ken rockwell's photo is the top search result in google image search, and it's easily recognizable to just about anyone in the online rangefinder community (who the heck hasn't googled 'leica m3'?). if resnick was trying to be sneaky, he would have looked for a more obscure image. and why would he steal an image if he had written an article about it and it's a professional concern of his? it's a real stretch of the imagination to believe that resnick had bad intentions.

second, when you're writing a rough draft, you do what resnick did: get one of the top search results and stick it in. later on you prepare illustrations for the final draft. there's nothing unsavory about using a placeholder. that's just the writing process. why not just type in [insert M3 image here]? because people do things differently, of course.

we can only speculate on how the watermark was removed and who did it. maybe resnick did it, or maybe it was someone else at adorama (such as the current editor, who probably would have been the one who did the final review and clicked the publish button, or maybe an intern who didn't know any better). ever think of that? they never say by whom the image was altered.
I agree, just because the author's name is attached to the article does not mean that the author had full responsibility for all of the content on the page. It's just as likely the author handed the text off to someone else. The only sticking point is the claim that the image was of the author's M3, when that wasn't the case.

Clearly, someone messed up, and Adorama took responsibility by paying $1K to the Rockwell. We'll see how this plays out. If Adorama doesn't run any more pieces from the author, we'll have an answer.
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #59
sepiareverb
genius and moron
 
sepiareverb's Avatar
 
sepiareverb is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: St Johnsbury VT
Posts: 7,844
And they’ve done it again, ripped off a Japan Camera Hunter article and photos about an old M2...

https://www.adorama.com/alc/the-incr...-lost-leica-m2
__________________
-Bob
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #60
Huss
Registered User
 
Huss is offline
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Venice, CA
Posts: 5,247
Quote:
Originally Posted by sepiareverb View Post
And they’ve done it again, ripped off a Japan Camera Hunter article and photos about an old M2...

https://www.adorama.com/alc/the-incr...-lost-leica-m2
"It was offered to used camera expert Bellamy Hunt, who lives in Japan and blogs as Japan Camera Hunter. “I have been very lucky throughout my career to have found some amazing cameras,” notes Hunt on his blog, “but every now and again you come across something that sets itself apart. This is one of those cameras.”"

"Read the entire story on Japan Camera Hunter."
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #61
sepiareverb
genius and moron
 
sepiareverb's Avatar
 
sepiareverb is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: St Johnsbury VT
Posts: 7,844
Ah, exposure as “payment”. Not acceptable.

From JCP page: “I would like to extend my sincere thanks to Chad Kiser www.sea41film.com for helping me to work with the Flynn family. And to Tim Page www.timpage.com.au for assistance with the images you see here. All images used with permission. No reproduction without prior consent.”
__________________
-Bob
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #62
Huss
Registered User
 
Huss is offline
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Venice, CA
Posts: 5,247
Let's see what Bellamy has to say.
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #63
sepiareverb
genius and moron
 
sepiareverb's Avatar
 
sepiareverb is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: St Johnsbury VT
Posts: 7,844
From the JCH Facebook page:

“Having learned absolutely nothing, Adorama's favourite writer and unrepentant image thief is up to his tricks again. They used all the images in this piece without permission when the original article expressly requires that permission is obtained. Well done Adorama. Where is my $1000?”

https://www.facebook.com/Japancamera...62097860528597
__________________
-Bob
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #64
kuuan
plays with lenses
 
kuuan's Avatar
 
kuuan is offline
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,475
Quote:
Originally Posted by sepiareverb View Post
And they’ve done it again, ripped off a Japan Camera Hunter article and photos about an old M2...

https://www.adorama.com/alc/the-incr...-lost-leica-m2
mind blowing.. he did link to the original article of the Japancamerahunter, does that make it legal??
the Japan Camera Hunter's article from January: https://www.japancamerahunter.com/20...lynn-leica-m2/
__________________
my photos on flickr: : https://www.flickr.com/photos/kuuan/collections
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #65
aizan
Registered User
 
aizan's Avatar
 
aizan is offline
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Torrance, CA
Age: 36
Posts: 4,181
we all like to kick a dog while he's down, but this is getting to be an example of toxic fandom.

jch isn't going to get his $1000 because summary articles like that fall under fair use.
__________________
Ugly Cameras
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #66
michaelwj
----------------
 
michaelwj's Avatar
 
michaelwj is offline
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Brisbane AUS
Posts: 1,812
Quote:
Originally Posted by aizan View Post
we all like to kick a dog while he's down, but this is getting to be an example of toxic fandom.

jch isn't going to get his $1000 because summary articles like that fall under fair use.
The "dog" didn't get kicked down, it repeatedly tripped itself up being stupid

But do his original photos fall under fair use?

Irrespective of "fair use" or anything else, What the f*** is the deal with Adorama, just lifting whatever off the internet? In the end, it doesn't matter how the law views their actions, they're perceived to have stoled photography without asking for permission. They're trying to sell photography equipment, to photographers, who they just stole from. Nice move.

Either create something for your "blog" or don't bother.
__________________
Cheers,
Michael
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #67
kuuan
plays with lenses
 
kuuan's Avatar
 
kuuan is offline
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,475
Quote:
Originally Posted by aizan View Post
we all like to kick a dog while he's down, but this is getting to be an example of toxic fandom.

jch isn't going to get his $1000 because summary articles like that fall under fair use.
besides what the legal system says, are you considering this as fair use?
If from the beginning it had been stated that the camera find, the photos and the article is from Japancamerahunter I might consider it as fair use, not really though, if without asking permission from Japancamerahunter. But the way it was done, no way.
Btw. the articel at Adorama by now seems to have been taken down.
__________________
my photos on flickr: : https://www.flickr.com/photos/kuuan/collections
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #68
aizan
Registered User
 
aizan's Avatar
 
aizan is offline
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Torrance, CA
Age: 36
Posts: 4,181
yes, even the images. less is better when it comes to the amount and substantiality factor, but using 6 out of 19 images is not going to raise any eyebrows.
__________________
Ugly Cameras
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #69
kuuan
plays with lenses
 
kuuan's Avatar
 
kuuan is offline
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,475
Quote:
Originally Posted by aizan View Post
yes, even the images. less is better when it comes to the amount and substantiality factor, but using 6 out of 19 images is not going to raise any eyebrows.
amazing..if stealing "only 30%" of ones images + the story, of one that I would view as an "exclusive story", should be ok..
but it seems some eyebrows have been raised. The negative reactions, which imo are justified, caused Adorama to take down the article
__________________
my photos on flickr: : https://www.flickr.com/photos/kuuan/collections
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #70
aizan
Registered User
 
aizan's Avatar
 
aizan is offline
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Torrance, CA
Age: 36
Posts: 4,181
it’s only raising eyebrows now because of the m3 debacle. it was published 5 weeks ago and nobody got upset.

the way i see it, the question before the online film photography community is not so much about image theft, of which this whole thing is a minor case, but whether we encourage the community to take up pitchforks and torches whenever someone voices a fairly innocuous perspective about why he prefers digital over film.
__________________
Ugly Cameras
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #71
michaelwj
----------------
 
michaelwj's Avatar
 
michaelwj is offline
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Brisbane AUS
Posts: 1,812
Quote:
Originally Posted by aizan View Post
yes, even the images. less is better when it comes to the amount and substantiality factor, but using 6 out of 19 images is not going to raise any eyebrows.
Maybe not with the law, but many eyebrows have been raised (we are talking about it aren't we), and Adorama have been judged by the people already. I bet it will (if it hasn't already) cost them the the small amount of money they should have spent (if not legally then morally) paying for the images.

Sure, they have been the victims of an internet trial. But they should know better and frankly the author and whoever approved the posts should lose their jobs over it. They stole, lied, and tried to cheat to get traffic to their commercial website. It doesn't matter if it was legally okay, it was morally wrong.
__________________
Cheers,
Michael
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #72
Faintandfuzzy
Registered User
 
Faintandfuzzy's Avatar
 
Faintandfuzzy is offline
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 341
Well..it's been two days...no word from Helen. Resnick's articles are still up despite stealing photos in one...and stealing a whole article without asking for permission in another...not fair use by the way.

If Adorama can't get its act together for two days, I can only assume they condone this behaviour. As such, I can only recommend people on our Film FB page move elsewhere for there purchases as I do not condone this behaviour. I for one will not give them one more nickel. This is being discussed all over forums and Facebook. Their inaction will cost them. Shame on them.
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #73
aizan
Registered User
 
aizan's Avatar
 
aizan is offline
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Torrance, CA
Age: 36
Posts: 4,181
in previous posts, i’ve already talked about how resnick didn’t lie, and how we don’t know all the facts about how the watermark was removed. and fair use is not immoral. (quite the contrary, actually. google it.) i think we’re dealing with a situation where an institution is responsible for a misdeed and not one individual. it’s less satisfying to hold a corporate body accountable than a person, since it means there’s no identifiable villain, but we as a community should stop short of demanding resnick’s head on a platter. i don’t think that’s a good sign of film photography’s revival.
__________________
Ugly Cameras
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #74
nickthetasmaniac
Registered User
 
nickthetasmaniac is offline
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 517
Quote:
Originally Posted by aizan View Post
the way i see it, the question before the online film photography community is not so much about image theft, of which this whole thing is a minor case, but whether we encourage the community to take up pitchforks and torches whenever someone voices a fairly innocuous perspective about why he prefers digital over film.
Is it a minor case? One of the world's biggest 'legitimate' photography businesses steals an image, actively removes proof of ownership, gets called out for it and lies.

Just about everything I've read about this whole saga has been firmly focussed on the theft and Adorama's response to it, rather than pitchforks because someone said (stupid) mean things about film.
__________________
Ricoh GR II | Pentax MX & LX | Leica M2 | Spotmatic SP F | Minolta Autocord | Olympus 35RD

Instagram @other_strange_creatures
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #75
Corran
Registered User
 
Corran is offline
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 1,065
Quote:
Originally Posted by aizan View Post
jch isn't going to get his $1000 because summary articles like that fall under fair use.
Except it absolutely is NOT Fair Use.
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #76
jawarden
Registered User
 
jawarden is offline
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 218
Quote:
Originally Posted by aizan View Post
it’s only raising eyebrows now because of the m3 debacle. it was published 5 weeks ago and nobody got upset.
Oh I don't know about that, I imagine Bellamy Hunt was upset 5 weeks ago.

I now see the Resnick article that borrowed heavily from Bellamy Hunt has been removed. Which is good IMO.

I don't want anyone to lose their livelihood here, but Adorama should have a clear policy for their writers to follow, and the writers should follow it. Seems pretty simple to me. One or both of those things aren't happening if you have to apologize for one article and remove another, both by the same author.
__________________

  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #77
jawarden
Registered User
 
jawarden is offline
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 218
Quote:
Originally Posted by aizan View Post
jch isn't going to get his $1000 because summary articles like that fall under fair use.
Of course JCH isn't going to get $1000. They'll get $7,000 because there were seven images. You forgot to apply the Rockwell Stolen Image Multiplier™ to your calculation.

__________________

  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #78
jawarden
Registered User
 
jawarden is offline
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 218
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huss View Post
Let's see what Bellamy has to say.
I don't know if he participates here but his Twitter posts about this issue show his displeasure.
__________________

  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #79
michaelwj
----------------
 
michaelwj's Avatar
 
michaelwj is offline
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Brisbane AUS
Posts: 1,812
Quote:
Originally Posted by aizan View Post
in previous posts, i’ve already talked about how resnick didn’t lie, and how we don’t know all the facts about how the watermark was removed. and fair use is not immoral. (quite the contrary, actually. google it.) i think we’re dealing with a situation where an institution is responsible for a misdeed and not one individual. it’s less satisfying to hold a corporate body accountable than a person, since it means there’s no identifiable villain, but we as a community should stop short of demanding resnick’s head on a platter. i don’t think that’s a good sign of film photography’s revival.
Gauging by the response here and elsewhere on social media, the people have decided that what you call "fair use" is immoral. Morality is a personal thing, and I'm pretty sure I don't need google to tell me what I think is immoral.

I agree that the institution is responsible for the misdeed. The institution is being punished by losing business, by a public backlash and tarnishing of their image. But the institution didn't steal an image and claim it as their own, one person did. The institution didn't copy and entire article and pass it off as their own, the same individual did. As a community of content creators, we should be absolutely appalled by what both the individual and the institution did. It is totally unacceptable and I think our outrage is a good sign that we will stand up for our content.

I don't think the issues being discussed here have anything to do with the "revival" of film photography, and I fail to see how you jump from someone being caught out stealing an image and passing it off as their own, and damage to "film photography's revival".
__________________
Cheers,
Michael
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #80
Emile de Leon
Registered User
 
Emile de Leon is online now
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 731
They only pay up...when they get caught..as in..purely a business move...to stem the bleeding..
If no one said a word..well...
The psychology of today is..just take it online..steal it right out from under them..and if you get caught..then deal with all that when the time comes..but if not...hehehe..we's makin good bux here...and we's didn't have to do a thing..as in... that fool over there did all our work for us....hahahahaha...
..what a way to make a living..! No brainer..! Just take it...
Laughing all the way to the bank...off some other fools time and efforts...
Don't have to buy a cam...don't have to scout the set..don't have to do anything...just steal it...ohhhh yeaaaahhh...
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:40.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.