[stef]

Yes.

I also notice artifacting, frame parity errors on de-interlacing, low bit rates, and id code embedding in movies, and find it annoying.

Fortunately, I also notice and appreciate when a shot is done well, especially if it is a difficult shot to do right. I appreciate it even more on low-budget stuff.

[stef]

OP: Copying a style is not an infringement (unless that person has previously shown to have committed an actual copyright violation). That happened in the UK, where a guy who had previously stolen images from a photographer started copying his style instead, and was slapped again with infringement. If you’ve already shown to be an IP thief, you need to keep “arms length” from the victim or it shows bad faith, which cannot be construed as coincidental. (That’s the red bus case in the above post.)

There are exceptions to styles, such as trademarks, but that’s really unlikely to stick regarding a style of photography… plus you’d have to trademark it and have a product… and I just can’t see it happening in reality.

The only real solution you have is to own the style better and produce a better product … and an attitude adjustment would help a lot. When I say “own the style”, I mean that you should produce copious amounts of work in that style and make sure all keywords searches will find your huge portfolio first. As far as attitude adjustment, see it as a compliment. Don’t rake muck, but if anyone asks about the other guy you should happily (not angrily) reply that he’s been copying your style for X years. Add something funny like “When people started copying my style, that’s when I knew I was a real photographer!” The more bitter you are, the more of a turnoff it is for potential clients.

 

But make sure you actively do something to own your style. If you don’t, it could be lost. As Picasso said, “Good artists borrow, great artists steal.” Don’t let him become a great artist at your expense.

[stef]

On one hand, why should one particular industry not be allowed to use stock photos?

On the other, using stock photos for a photography site is like false advertising. Kind of like a restaurant showing food from other restaurants. But is it any worse than hiring models to do a wedding shoot? That is common practice.

So, I do consider the level of abuse when using other’s images… I wouldn’t care if someone used a stock photo of clouds as a background or other random things like a hot woman wearing a headset waiting for your call. As long as it wasn’t in a section marked “portfolio” or strongly implied that those shots are his, then I have no problem. After all, some images just don’t lend well to showing on a website. If I was a scientific or highly specialized photographer, I’d want to get stock photos to make my website look good for the things I couldn’t shoot myself. (Also, you don’t need the full copyright to reproduce someone else’s photos, you just need a license. A simple email “sure, go ahead and use my pic on your website” is probably good enough. My online client gallery has a someone else’s monitor calibration image as the first image of every gallery, and I got permission to reproduce it via email.)

There are some images in the public domain that my business has used for composites with images we took. If I need a particular texture, I might look for a public domain version instead of going out and shooting some barn wood, for example. It’s fast and easy, legal, and I don’t have any issue with the ethics. I generally avoid creative commons for commercial stuff, since most of the licensing is non-commercial, and all of it requires credit. A surprising number of people put their images in the public domain, and it’s awesome … I liken it to tossing dollar bills out the window that only a few people ever pick up. I don’t feel bad at all picking one up and spending it now and then.

[stef]

“There is a photographer in California that writes books.  The introduction talks about his 20 years of photography experience and has a section saying the whole document is copyrighted.  The books are basic but mostly accurate and have photos to support the text.  In a couple of cases the text says he didn’t take the photo so he does not know for certain how lights were set up.  I started to become suspicious when he identified a photo of the Canadian House of Commons as a picture of a castle.   There was a wedding photo which had a watermark at the bottom.  I did a Google search and found the photographer, who had no idea her photo was in the book.”

That doesn’t always mean it was not used legally.

There’s a misunderstanding propagated heavily by advertising and lobbying driven primarily by the recording industry.

Many types of copying someone else’s work is illegal. Many types are not illegal.

 

Examples:

Some people think that copying but giving credit or linking makes it legal. It does not.

Some people think that any copying is illegal. It is not.

Some people think they can control all use of their image (face) or creations (art) in all contexts. They cannot.

 

Using an example of someone’s work to explain a concept might be perfectly legal, even in a book you’re selling. The whole idea of copyright is to protect the owner to allow him to capitalize on the work publicly, spawning growth of creativity. This creativity is also spawned by allowing commentary and education to build on other works as examples, which is protected by law. The recording industry, and many fauxtographers themselves, try to promote that any use of anyone else’s image is illegal and imagine all sorts of harm that was done, esp when they’ve never even sold an image in the past.

If any such copying weren’t legal Fair Use, this site would be offline and the owners in court.

[stef]

A good portrait lens you can afford for your crop camera is a 50mm prime, like the nifty-fifty for $125 retail, or much less used. You can probably find the nice f/1.4 for $250 easily.

 

[stef]

Though this blog post has been copied several times most photographers link back to the original.

Linking or giving credit doesn’t really matter in terms of copyright infringement, unless rights are given to copy if a link is provided. Copying is copying. The only time it’s technically legal is when it fits into Fair Use, such as commentary (e.g. a rebuttal), newsworthiness, etc.

So, yeah, that photographer did plagiarize that blog. The new question is “Does it matter?”

The blog owner is unlikely to care, and he is the only one that matters.

 

I generally wrap my blog posts with creative commons or gnu free documentation license. Note that CC licenses require credit… it’s not optional, either you credit it, or you are violating copyright.

[stef]

Yeah, although photographers often do take gory pictures, the editors decide whether or not to publish them based on local mores. This guy has no editor, and probably has trouble running his mouth, too, if he’s pissing off firemen.

There were many gory pictures of boston, but the editors thought about how it portrayed actual news.

 

[stef]

Loke, there’s not really anything as a press badge. A civilian can go where any other civilian is allowed, and he can shoot from there. Some PDs issue media credentials and allow those folks better access. Removing someone from a public area for lack of credentials needs to be tested, challenged, and beaten. You don’t get more rights as a civilian based on your job…. in theory.

 

 

[stef]

You would not want to be shooting a wedding at 1/15 in a dim church with moving people.

Therefore, the judge hassling the defendant about not using a tripod merely exposes his misunderstanding of photography and the gear.

 

That was my point. The defendant, while probably a fauxtog, was screwed anyway because she couldn’t deal with this judge who (like every idiot who’s ever held a camera) was a self-appointed expert.

[stef]

I saw this a while back (1-2 years ago), rewatching it now…

 

Judge Brown is giving the fauxtog crap for not using a tripod in low light, which doesn’t make a ton of sense when the subjects are moving. I never see anyone use a tripod in a church except for posed formals, if that. But after a few of his comments, he asked about a 7D so that does mean using an XTi is a pretty old camera. Still, the 18-55 has IS and can shoot a still subject handheld to 1/8 without much issue, and 1/15 easily which is plenty of light even with a kit lens. Hell, I don’t know the speed of my 70-300… I think it’s 4-5.6, but I’m not positive.

Nonetheless, it’s hard to remain a fauxtog after shooting “hundreds of weddings”. 25 a year is a lot of weddings to shoot in a year, so that’d mean she has been shooting for many years. She should’ve had better equipment if she’s shot “hundreds” as she claimed. And based on her bizarre testimony, I think she probably was lying, and I’m leaning towards a deserved judgment.

But I still think the judge didn’t know much about what he was talking about. Who cares if he had a camera 20 years ago… He was just spouting nomenclature. The problem is, he was essentially being an expert witness for the plaintiff, but disallowing cross examination by the defendant. When she tried to ask him questions, he just kept talking over her.

 

Fortunately, this was a TV show. Both the parties get paid for their participation, although I bet the amount awarded meant that the defendant didn’t get anything.

[stef]

The judge is a fauxtographer himself, acting as his own “expert” witness. He’s a know-nothing, but because he has a camera, he thinks he’s an expert.

 

[stef]

Your point is well taken, but mine still remains.

How about attorneys? You’re not likely to die, but if you get a crappy one, you will probably not be happy with the results. Now imagine if anyone could put on a suit and tie, grab a briefcase and call themselves a bon-e-fide lawyer. You’ve already seen some of this happen with cheap legal forms and such. Divorces used to cost thousands of dollars just to file the paperwork. Now, an uncontested divorce costs $100.

[stef]

On the first, if you could just raise the lens up just a tad bit….I like cropping close too, but  I feel it just needs to be raised a little higher IMO

Raising it up would chop the fingers, a big no-no. I think it’s a fine crop, but I don’t like the flower in the foreground. Most people find foreground objects to be highly distracting, like something is being poked in their eyes. It would’ve been fine in the plane of focus. Leading foreground space, like the grass on the second image isn’t an issue. Despite the uninspired bullseye in the second pic, I think I like it better due to the expression.

 

The stray hair in the face and in the sun is distracting. The color temperature is different on both images. I’m not convinced it’s in focus, either… looks like the top pic may have focussed on her hair, not her eyes which are slightly soft. It is a difficult lens to use well consistently, but also easy to get some really nice shots from.

[stef]

how should people start off or approach things?

People learn different ways. I learn by study, then attempting to implement. Others learn by rote, doing it over and over until they get it right (although everyone falls into this a little bit). Some people have to make every wrong choice before they can make the right choice.

I think a cheap DSLR coupled with a LOT of dedicated study is a fine way to learn. I prefer DSLRs in manual mode because you get more feedback, quickly. It will also teach you some bad habits, but the tradeoff is worth it. You can quickly see obvious issues at certain settings, and it will help you learn the effects of each control really fast. But nothing can substitute for the efficiency of actually hitting the books. You can spend a lifetime dicking with a camera, and still learn more in a year of book study + practice.

[stef]

Define good art then? Contemporary art is much more concept-based than about formal things as ”beauty” or composition. Of course in an ideal case the content and form are entwined together. All images are potentially art but not actually.

That’s not really the scope of this website… that’s the scope of formal education. I would agree that nearly all the photos posted here are “interesting”. But “interesting” doesn’t mean “good”. For example, portraits (which you seem to disdain with a “been there, done it, boring”) have very specific aesthetics and intent. If it doesn’t meet that intent, it’s a “bad” portrait even if it’s otherwise interesting. Food photography has a certain intent, and if it looks like really really interesting vomit on a shingle, it’s still bad photography.

What do you care if someone wants to pay for a less educated photographer than you? Is it directly out of your pocket? They will also get paid most likely a lot less. Some people also make a clear decision not to pay 3000 dollars/euros/pounds for wedding photos and rather settle for less quality for a cheaper price just to document the event. And they get what they bargained for.

True, it’s their money, but there is an issue that perhaps an example will make clear.

Doctors work really hard, have a lot of education, and are pretty well paid in general.

What if … there were no regulations on it, and anyone could call themselves an MD? Toss stethoscope around your neck, and boom: instant MD.

 

A couple things would happen. First, it would become very difficult to find a competent MD. It would be a minefield for the hapless sick person. There would be a TON of uncertainty in the field. Even if you got lucky and your doctor was extremely competent, he would be very difficult to trust on the first visit, because you couldn’t be sure of what you were getting.

Second, all the hacks would be charging a lot less due to competition. The competition among the real and fake doctors increased dramatically, but the average competence dropped precipitously. And lower average competence generally means they’ll have to charge lower average prices. People would subsequently see crazy low prices for services. As a result, they would come to expect those prices, even when they’re dealing with a very competent doctor. The competent doctor will definitely be affected by this competition, even if nobody is anywhere as competent as he. And because of this, there would be little incentive to get formal, expensive education to become a doctor. Why pay $100k/year to go to Harvard when you can pay $100 for a diploma from Haarvard?

 

This has already happened with photography. How many people actually are pursuing degrees in it? Now, go ask both of them if it was worth it.

[Author]

Posts