Post your favourite photo..

cutesoha

please post your fav photo here which inspired you most in yer life.... Post just one ...

cutesoha

http://www.authorstream.com/Content/Shalini-8794-Mother-Nature-best-mother-nature-great-canyon-visions-earth-glen-wild-crusade-california-alps-cletic-realm-at-her-ppt-powerpoint-118_88.jpg

sasar

I would say this one:
http://www.sp.uconn.edu/~wwwcoh/kiss.jpg

Paulw

DO you have the right to post someone else's photo? Especially without even giving credit and a link to the original? Isn't that a breach of copyright??

kensutz

I'm almost sure it is Paul.

ThOnda

We are posting pictures here not to make any profit from it, on contrary we are increasing knowledge basis and avarenes about work of other photographers, therefore we use copys of their work as advertisement for them. It is free advertising on paid server - they should be providing us with such pictures. Or with pictures closer to original (tonality, crop, sharpness, colour temperature). And if they want to, they could include watermark.

Paulw

It doesn't matter. You are using someone's photo without their expressed permission, which is a breach of copyright. It is not up to them to protect/watermark their images, copyright law protects their images. You just need to respect copyright.

Fine if you don't mind someone else taking your photo and using it, not for profit, but personally, I think copyright is a good thing.

Hopefully a mod can lock/delete the thread and/or the images posted in breach of copyright.

ThOnda

Well, I have sold only five (yes, 5) photos so far, so the copyright is not such issue for me.
What if I only post a link to a picture, that is located on some web page, that does not have rights or permision to display that picture?

ThOnda

However, my favourite pictures are paintings. It is very hard with photographs.
The biggest influence on my photography had works by Josef Sudek. Examples of his pictures are here and here.
My favourite picture is this one.
The simplicity of his pictures is beyond pictorialistic framework, it is almost surrealistic.

Disclaimer: I have posted links to pages on the Internet not knowing whether pictures displayed there are used accordingly to copyright and other laws.

Paulw

What if someone with one of the photos you sold, decided to post a copy of your pict online. Is that alright? Or what if they wanted to give free copies of your photo to friends, not for profit?

I think you need to read and learn what copyright is.

Posting a link to someone's website is fine. Posting their photo, without their expressed permission generally isn't.

DjDangerousDave

I think if you post a photo with the name of the photographer and perhaps a link to their page then if I were the photographer that would make me happy.

There is allowance for fair use of an image in copyright law. I think saying you love an image and posting it on a forum for other people to see can only help the artist in question and I would consider it fair use.

Who is the first one by? Is that a real place?

sunny2004

Personally I dont see any photographer having a problem with a image been posted here with a credit..

anyway here is the one that does it for me. the guy is an amazing photographer...

Borderfox

Probably this one, it was the first shot I took with a loan of a friends fuji p&s and inspired me to go on from there.

Paulw

sunny2004 wrote: »

Personally I dont see any photographer having a problem with a image been posted here with a credit..

And then you go and post a photo with no link and no credit?? Nice one.

What you see as an issue, and what is in law may be very different.

As for "Fair use", that does not permit the posting of copyright material on websites.

Samson

Lads,

If you wish to highlight a favourite photo which is not either your own or copyright expired (public domain), please post a link to the image only.
A credit/mention of the photographer would probably be appropriate too.

Samson

Whilst this refers to US case law, it's worthwhile reading:

A US court case in 2003, Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corporation, provides and develops the relationship between thumbnails, inline linking and fair use. In the lower District Court case on a motion for summary judgment, Arriba Soft was found to have violated copyright without a fair use defense in the use of thumbnail pictures and inline linking from Kelly's website in Arriba's image search engine. That decision was appealed and contested by Internet rights activists such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation, who argued that it is clearly covered under fair use.

On appeal, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals found in favor of the defendant. In reaching its decision, the court utilized the above-mentioned four-factor analysis. First, it found the purpose of creating the thumbnail images as previews to be sufficiently transformative, noting that they were not meant to be viewed at high resolution like the original artwork was. Second, the fact that the photographs had already been published diminished the significance of their nature as creative works. Third, although normally making a "full" replication of a copyrighted work may appear to violate copyright, here it was found to be reasonable and necessary in light of the intended use. Lastly, the court found that the market for the original photographs would not be substantially diminished by the creation of the thumbnails. To the contrary, the thumbnail searches could increase exposure of the originals. In looking at all these factors as a whole, the court found that the thumbnails were fair use and remanded the case to the lower court for trial after issuing a revised opinion on July 7, 2003. The remaining issues were resolved with a default judgment after Arriba Soft had experienced significant financial problems and failed to reach a negotiated settlement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#Fair_use_on_the_Internet

Aseth

http://my.opera.com/Alberto.S/albums/showpic.dml?album=287692&picture=4248862

Paulw

Samson wrote: »

Whilst this refers to US case law, it's worthwhile reading:

And to also point out, US law does not always apply the same under Irish law, especially when relating to copyright.

ThOnda

The same US law that allows customs to take your digital equipment at US borders to check all data stored in it (laptops, mp3 players, phones,...) and to keep such equipment how long they wont, even without a reason of you being suspicious of any wrongdoing.

Dragan

ThOnda wrote: »

The same US law that allows customs to take your digital equipment at US borders to check all data stored in it (laptops, mp3 players, phones,...) and to keep such equipment how long they wont, even without a reason of you being suspicious of any wrongdoing.

Politics tbh.

jackdaw

This is one of my favs.. (it's mine .. no worry about copyright )

sunny2004

Paulw wrote: »

And then you go and post a photo with no link and no credit?? Nice one.

What you see as an issue, and what is in law may be very different.

As for "Fair use", that does not permit the posting of copyright material on websites.

I am at a loss ? please explain... I am fully aware of the copyright implications, my stance on the situation is that I have never heard of any professional photographer complaining of an image used in a thread like this with his name mentioned and in a complimentary manner.. sometimes the legal situation and reality are totally different things. I get your point completely Paul but the reality is different. I in fact never mentioned fair use so I assume that remark is directed elsewhere !


Now as for me not posting a link or credit to the photo linked in my previous post.. ahhhhhhhhh you see the image is in fact mine

Paulw

You didn't mention who the photo was by, so there was no way of knowing if the photo was yours or not.

The reference to fair use, was to a previous post.

Just because there may have not been any cases where posting a photo on a forum has been brought up as a copyright breach doesn't mean that doing it is right or allowed.

It's also a matter of respect to the photographer. It doesn't take much to ask for permission, rather than making an assumption.

Since we are photographers, we should at least show the respect to other photographers that we would like. It's all nice referencing others, and saying how much their work inspires us, but at the same time, it is their work.

sunny2004

HELLO... you are speaking to the converted, my point is simple.
No photographer would complain at positive remarks in a forum like this that showed his images..
we are not talking about using someones images as a homepage !
or slagging someone off, the title of the thread is obvious..

In fact if I posted an image from your gallery here, and said this is a fantastic image, this guy paul is a great photographer, the sun shines out of his arse !
Would you honestly tell me you would complain ? all within the context of this thread..

I am not saying you are wrong..

got to go and look at your images

jackdaw

aren't we getting off the point ?

this thread is supposed to be about your fav. photo .. either your own
or another ..

Paulw

But, in the same way, what if you posted negative comments about the photo and photographer? That wouldn't be allowed, right?

Where is the difference in the use of the photo? Just because the comments are positive?

Surely, it's down to the fact that the image is being used without permission, not the fact of what is being said about it?

Yeah, probably just a technicality, but still. I think the photographer should (does) still have the right, under copyright, to be asked if the photo can be used or not.

sunny2004

Paul, I was not discussing negative feedback, I never mentioned nagative remarks. Pro Photographers are not stupid, any publicity is good publicity. but before that gets misquoted by the copy and paste brigade(not you Paul), if you are posting positive remarks in an obvious way no right minded photographer would complain. Case in point, say you got a wedding shot of mine and posted it here saying it was ****e. Firstly I wouldnt allow any of my ****e images to be in the public ( I dont have any lol) j/k and you posted an image from my website.. and said I was crap.. thats good for me ! most people would not take your word for it, I would hope any images I release onto the net if robbed are good enough to stand on their own merits. ! and if there is a link all the better


Someone complained about not been on topic.. I thing the discussion is valid and informative I have learned stuff so I am good with it and its good for the community I hope..


Back on topic bit....

Well for me most of the early work from Bob Carlos Clarke

http://www.google.ie/search?hl=en&q=bob+carlos+clarke&meta=

I was lucky to meet the guy.. He is Irish but commited suicide recently...

Fajitas!

Paul, get down off your high horse.

Some people don't see everything on the internet as a legal challenge.

If any of the original copyright holders wish to take boards to court over posting their photos in a 'you're favorite photo' thread, I'll laugh heartily before bringing up the Copyright and Related Rights Act, 2000 - in relation to Fair dealing: criticism or review. Because, that is, at the end of the day, what we are doing.

Now, give people a chance to enjoy the thread.

sunny2004

Fajitas! wrote: »

Paul, get down off your high horse.

This coming form an insufferable arsehole, I am only quoting your profile on the right and I hope you see the funny side. ( I have no problem with you or anyone here I hope)

Paul is in fact right and the discussion is healthy. but the reality is different.
If we discussed this in a pub I would make Paul buy the next round !:p

Fajitas!

sunny2004 wrote: »

This coming form an insufferable arsehole, I am only quoting your profile on the right and I hope you see the funny side. ( I have no problem with you or anyone here I hope)

Oh, I find it funny

And aye, Paul would be buying next round if it were in reality.

sunny2004

Sored then, Paul check your wallet...
The insufferable arsehole and myself are not cheap dates !

Paulw

Fajitas! wrote: »

Oh, I find it funny

And aye, Paul would be buying next round if it were in reality.

Is that because a poor student *cough cough* can't afford a round?

Seriously, it's all in good meaning, and not nearly as serious as some take it.

A healthy debate can be good every now and then.

But, at the very very least you should credit and link to the photographer (which was NOT done for the first two images posted).

Fajitas!

But if, when made public (ie: uploaded) and this information is not provided, it's not a legal right to link. Good manners yes, but law, no.

sunny2004

Yep, he is not giving up..
Make that 2 rounds !

Paulw

Fajitas! wrote: »

But if, when made public (ie: uploaded) and this information is not provided, it's not a legal right to link. Good manners yes, but law, no.

IF.

Ok, I'll shutup now, before all drinks are on me. :eek:

Fajitas!

Fantastic

Calina

I am disappointed with this thread in a number of ways.

While it's nice to see nice photographs I would find this thread more interesting if people said why the photographs chosen were their favourites and why they found them inspiring.

Otherwise what's the point?

As for me the photograph which inspired me most isn't online and I don't have a clue where it is. It's of one of the fountains in Trafalgar Square, taken with a little Agfamatic 110 film camera. I took it when I was 14 years old and it was by some distance the best photograph I'd taken at the time. Even the last time I saw it I was still struck by the colours in it - cities which were far at odds with the the fact of being surrounded by buildings and stone and concrete and traffic. I assume it's in a box somewhere with most of the other photos I took as a teenager. Everyone needs a photograph like that once in a while to keep them going on the road, I think.

When you can create things of beauty, the world sometimes becomes a more beautiful place. But sometimes it doesn't.

As for the dust-up over copyright I note that the OP is a new user and may make errors. This thread was not a particularly edifying way of showing them the error of their ways on the subject of copyright.

I'm of the opinion that if the photo is not yours, a link to somewhere which may justifiably have a licence (art.com is a good place to start from some art photography if you're stuck) is called for, not an inline post. That is all I will say for now.

nameandanumber

Ever since I was young I've been a big fan of Pennie Smiths photograph of Paul Simonon going completely nuts at a Clash gig in New York. I guess I like it because it's visually what The Clash did musically. You can hear the intensity of the music when you look at the picture.



http://www.worldsfamousphotos.com/london-calling-1979.html

That's a bit of background on it.

This thing about copyright sounds like the pc brigade gone mad again. Images posted are for illustrative purposes, not commercial.

magicbastarder

good shot, but i would have issues with Q's summation of it.

i've alway like andre kertesz's chez mondrian - it's more like a painting in a way:

Trojan911

Here is my favourite so far. I took it myself about two weeks ago & decided to play around with it on PS. It looks good on an 8 X 10 matte finish. Sorry, but still cannot figure out how to embed them.