|
flagstaff_climber
Jan 23, 2004, 1:00 AM
Post #26 of 81
(7044 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 22, 2002
Posts: 310
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: As for the shots, regardless of the legal implications, they both show artistry. My hat's off to all three talents: Cryder, Hillary, and Kole. Keep up the good work! HEY, what about me, I was after all belaying and shouting beta to him :) Geeesh nobody ever apreciates the contribution of the belayer :D Rick You were even wearing the Snoopy pants that day! But it's tough to compete with the Enthusiasm! shirt...
Hey I forgot all about the snoopy pants, they would have looked sooooo sweet in Climbing, oh well :)
Rick
|
|
|
|
|
dynoguy
Jan 23, 2004, 1:36 AM
Post #27 of 81
(7044 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 6, 2003
Posts: 730
|
way to go gollum.
I printed that picture and brought it to my climbing gym, everyone loved it.
|
|
|
|
|
dbtex
Jan 23, 2004, 1:37 AM
Post #28 of 81
(7044 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 15, 2003
Posts: 45
|
In reply to: In reply to: There seems to be a lot of speculation or conjecture about the law, on the part of more than one, in this thread. Is there an atty., that knows the "ins and outs" of copyright law, that will respond and clear the air. I would like to know the "real" answer. As for the shots, regardless of the legal implications, they both show artistry. My hat's off to all three talents: Cryder, Hillary, and Kole. Keep up the good work! My wife (Lisa) has litigated copyright and trademark infringement cases in the past, both in this country and internationally. My post in this thread is basically Lisa's opinion--after I printed out both the original "Kole" photo and the altered "Gollum" photo and explained to her that the latter then appeared in Climbing magazine. Curt
Thanks for the clarification, Curt. So where does Lisa say that it leaves Cryder in relation to the use of Hillary's image? From the comment thread, on Cryder's pic, it didn't look like notification was given prior to his use of the image (Hillary correct me if I got that "would have been nice to get a PM first" comment wrong).
Sorry Rick, no disrespect meant in leaving you out. But, snoopy pants? Exactly what does that look like?
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Jan 23, 2004, 1:50 AM
Post #29 of 81
(7044 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: There seems to be a lot of speculation or conjecture about the law, on the part of more than one, in this thread. Is there an atty., that knows the "ins and outs" of copyright law, that will respond and clear the air. I would like to know the "real" answer. As for the shots, regardless of the legal implications, they both show artistry. My hat's off to all three talents: Cryder, Hillary, and Kole. Keep up the good work! My wife (Lisa) has litigated copyright and trademark infringement cases in the past, both in this country and internationally. My post in this thread is basically Lisa's opinion--after I printed out both the original "Kole" photo and the altered "Gollum" photo and explained to her that the latter then appeared in Climbing magazine. Curt Thanks for the clarification, Curt. So where does Lisa say that it leaves Cryder in relation to the use of Hillary's image? From the comment thread, on Cryder's pic, it didn't look like notification was given prior to his use of the image (Hillary correct me if I got that "would have been nice to get a PM first" comment wrong).
Well, that depends entirely on what specific permission was granted by Hillary to Cryder regarding the use of her photo in the first place.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
edge
Jan 23, 2004, 1:58 AM
Post #30 of 81
(7044 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 14, 2003
Posts: 9120
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: There seems to be a lot of speculation or conjecture about the law, on the part of more than one, in this thread. Is there an atty., that knows the "ins and outs" of copyright law, that will respond and clear the air. I would like to know the "real" answer. As for the shots, regardless of the legal implications, they both show artistry. My hat's off to all three talents: Cryder, Hillary, and Kole. Keep up the good work! My wife (Lisa) has litigated copyright and trademark infringement cases in the past, both in this country and internationally. My post in this thread is basically Lisa's opinion--after I printed out both the original "Kole" photo and the altered "Gollum" photo and explained to her that the latter then appeared in Climbing magazine. Curt Thanks for the clarification, Curt. So where does Lisa say that it leaves Cryder in relation to the use of Hillary's image? From the comment thread, on Cryder's pic, it didn't look like notification was given prior to his use of the image (Hillary correct me if I got that "would have been nice to get a PM first" comment wrong). Well, that depends entirely on what specific permission was granted by Hillary to Cryder regarding the use of her photo in the first place. Curt
This is all true, but i would think that Hillary's comments on Cryders re-interpretation would serve as an endorsement. Plus, although it seems to have been erased from any forum search, she also started a "Gollum pic" thread. Again, implied endorsement.
|
|
|
|
|
climbhigh2005
Jan 23, 2004, 2:15 AM
Post #31 of 81
(7044 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 14, 2003
Posts: 1500
|
i saw that article too... pretty cool that he is a climber
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Jan 23, 2004, 2:19 AM
Post #32 of 81
(7044 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: There seems to be a lot of speculation or conjecture about the law, on the part of more than one, in this thread. Is there an atty., that knows the "ins and outs" of copyright law, that will respond and clear the air. I would like to know the "real" answer. As for the shots, regardless of the legal implications, they both show artistry. My hat's off to all three talents: Cryder, Hillary, and Kole. Keep up the good work! My wife (Lisa) has litigated copyright and trademark infringement cases in the past, both in this country and internationally. My post in this thread is basically Lisa's opinion--after I printed out both the original "Kole" photo and the altered "Gollum" photo and explained to her that the latter then appeared in Climbing magazine. Curt Thanks for the clarification, Curt. So where does Lisa say that it leaves Cryder in relation to the use of Hillary's image? From the comment thread, on Cryder's pic, it didn't look like notification was given prior to his use of the image (Hillary correct me if I got that "would have been nice to get a PM first" comment wrong). Well, that depends entirely on what specific permission was granted by Hillary to Cryder regarding the use of her photo in the first place. Curt This is all true, but i would think that Hillary's comments on Cryders re-interpretation would serve as an endorsement. Plus, although it seems to have been erased from any forum search, she also started a "Gollum pic" thread. Again, implied endorsement.
Its not that simple. What if Hillary gave Cryder permission to alter her photo and post it on RC.com--but nothing more? She would still be able to comment positively on the altered photo and/or start threads about it on this site.
Doing any of those things would still not however, constitute an endorsement to use the photo in an expanded manner (i.e. outside of RC.com) without getting additional permission from her.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
edge
Jan 23, 2004, 2:25 AM
Post #33 of 81
(7044 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 14, 2003
Posts: 9120
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: There seems to be a lot of speculation or conjecture about the law, on the part of more than one, in this thread. Is there an atty., that knows the "ins and outs" of copyright law, that will respond and clear the air. I would like to know the "real" answer. As for the shots, regardless of the legal implications, they both show artistry. My hat's off to all three talents: Cryder, Hillary, and Kole. Keep up the good work! My wife (Lisa) has litigated copyright and trademark infringement cases in the past, both in this country and internationally. My post in this thread is basically Lisa's opinion--after I printed out both the original "Kole" photo and the altered "Gollum" photo and explained to her that the latter then appeared in Climbing magazine. Curt Thanks for the clarification, Curt. So where does Lisa say that it leaves Cryder in relation to the use of Hillary's image? From the comment thread, on Cryder's pic, it didn't look like notification was given prior to his use of the image (Hillary correct me if I got that "would have been nice to get a PM first" comment wrong). Well, that depends entirely on what specific permission was granted by Hillary to Cryder regarding the use of her photo in the first place. Curt This is all true, but i would think that Hillary's comments on Cryders re-interpretation would serve as an endorsement. Plus, although it seems to have been erased from any forum search, she also started a "Gollum pic" thread. Again, implied endorsement. Its not that simple. What if Hillary gave Cryder permission to alter her photo and post it on RC.com--but nothing more? She would still be able to comment positively on the altered photo and/or start threads about it on this site. Doing any of those things would still not however, constitute an endorsement to use the photo in an expanded manner (i.e. outside of RC.com) without getting additional permission from her. Curt
Agreed. Bad on Climbing if they did not contact her as well. For what it's worth, an article of mine that Rock and Ice published was uncompensated as well. You can read it in my profile; "Travels with Meaghan". I didn't write it for financial gain, and as such, expected none. Feel free to comment, as long as you "bump" it.... :wink:
|
|
|
|
|
dbtex
Jan 23, 2004, 2:36 AM
Post #34 of 81
(7044 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 15, 2003
Posts: 45
|
In reply to: You were even wearing the Snoopy pants that day! But it's tough to compete with the Enthusiasm! shirt...
Oh my God! I just picked up on the link. Snoopy pants! So, that is exactly what that looks like. Rick, I want to climb with you someday!
Outrageous; nice job!
Again, props to Hillary. I particuarly like the name of that shot/ file- ricksnoopybutt. That's rich!
|
|
|
|
|
sixter
Jan 23, 2004, 2:46 AM
Post #35 of 81
(7044 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 25, 2003
Posts: 262
|
In reply to: My wife (Lisa) has litigated copyright and trademark infringement cases in the past, both in this country and internationally. My post in this thread is basically Lisa's opinion--after I printed out both the original "Kole" photo and the altered "Gollum" photo and explained to her that the latter then appeared in Climbing magazine. Curt
I refreshed my memory by looking at some photo industry books I have on my shelf, and the answer they basically give is maybe. :roll: Basically it comes down to the opinion of the court.
From The Big Picture, The Professional Photographer's Guide to Rights, Rates & Negotiation "There are four standards for evaluating fair use:
-If the use of the work is not for profit, such as in educational television, fair use may be granted
-The nature of the work itself influences fair-use application, such as a photo distributed for a charity, publication of which would benefit the charity.
-If using the work or a portion of it can harm future sales as a copyrighted work, fair use can be limited or denied.
-The amount of the work used in relation to the whole copyrighted work, such as one chapter from a book, is also considered"
and also
"Artists creating collages or manipulating photographs by computer may be inclined to incorporate one or more of your pictures from a magazine or book into their work. First you have to discover this usage, then you need to determinewhether combining it into another visual image has harmed your reputation or future sales of your work."
A lot more interesting reading in several other books, but that is the very basics of fair use. A very slippery slope indeed. The book I quoated uses several examples of cases in a Q&A with an attorney that deals with exactly this sort of thing, and does little to clarify, but considering that the image takes such a small portion from Lord of the Rings, it might be legal, as long as it isn't used for profit.
Glad it isn't my butt.
-Andreas
|
|
|
|
|
bsignorelli
Jan 23, 2004, 2:49 AM
Post #36 of 81
(7044 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 1, 2003
Posts: 415
|
In reply to: In reply to: I think it's backwards: wouldn't climbsomething be liable for copying Gollum from the movie? I would have to check my photgraphy books to be sure, but I think this falls under "fair use". If the original work is significantly changed, then you are creating a new copyrightable image. I believe this sort of work and parody is protected under copyright laws, but don't quote me on that.
How about "fan art". Aren't you allowed to write fantasy stories or to make new fantasy pictures featuring characters that you like?
As far as "fan art" is concerned, if he was a fan of the orig photographers work and inserted a digital image from another work that he was a fan of.... :)
But the ultimate question should be about Climbing's use of the picture since they are a for profit company that is publishing fan art.
But then again IANAL so I'll be crawling back under my rock now....
Bryan
|
|
|
|
|
fracture
Jan 23, 2004, 2:55 AM
Post #37 of 81
(7044 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2003
Posts: 1814
|
The entire idea that anyone should be able to "own" information sucks. A digital picture is just a sequence of bits---i.e. a number---should we really allow people to have exclusive rights to a number?
At the very least, in the current implementation, patents and copyrights protect primarily monied interests, rather than securing availability of information for use by the general public, create artificial, government-supported monopolies, and frequently serve to stifle innovation rather than encourage it. Current copyright law only "protects" you if you sue violators, and by implication, only if you have the money to sue. Most industries require the actual creators of works to give up all or part of their copyrights to a corporation, in some cases as part of an agreement to enable distribution (e.g., the record industry), other times simply by declaring all the production of their "employees" to be their property (the software industry). It is a system which increases class disparity rather than lessening it. There are also the glaring examples where the patent system actually directly results in death and suffering; e.g. the current situation WRT African countries that want to produce cheaper generic AIDS medication, because they cannot afford the artificially inflated patent-monopoly prices.
So I don't think Climbing did anything morally wrong in using the pic, though I have no prediction as to whether climbsomething would win a lawsuit against them ;). IANAL.
Ultimately, if you would've said yes anyway, why would you care whether you were asked first? If you wouldn't have said yes, or would have said yes hinged on financial compensation, then I would argue that you're the one being immoral by attempting to prevent fellow citizens from having access to information, out of a profit-motive.
Btw, both versions of the pic rocked.
|
|
|
|
|
flagstaff_climber
Jan 23, 2004, 3:15 AM
Post #39 of 81
(7044 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 22, 2002
Posts: 310
|
In reply to: In reply to: You were even wearing the Snoopy pants that day! But it's tough to compete with the Enthusiasm! shirt... Oh my God! I just picked up on the link. Snoopy pants! So, that is exactly what that looks like. Rick, I want to climb with you someday! Outrageous; nice job! Again, props to Hillary. I particuarly like the name of that shot/ file- ricksnoopybutt. That's rich!
Whenever you find yourself up this way just let me know.
Rick
|
|
|
|
|
flagstaff_climber
Jan 23, 2004, 3:17 AM
Post #40 of 81
(7044 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 22, 2002
Posts: 310
|
P.S. If anyone should happen to see any Gollum pants or even fabric let me know 8)
Rick
|
|
|
|
|
onelung
Jan 23, 2004, 3:18 AM
Post #41 of 81
(7044 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 8, 2002
Posts: 436
|
Gee I sure hope they didnt take up too much space..I bought climbing so I can read about beth and tommy!
Not renewing...and I am bill
|
|
|
|
|
dbtex
Jan 23, 2004, 4:35 AM
Post #42 of 81
(7044 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 15, 2003
Posts: 45
|
In reply to: P.S. If anyone should happen to see any Gollum pants or even fabric let me know 8) Rick
Smeagol Skivvies! Now there is a brand/ market opportunity! Of course, I suppose, we'll have to get permission from the Tolkien Estate(?). I wonder how much they would take off the top.
|
|
|
|
|
the_pirate
Jan 23, 2004, 4:39 AM
Post #43 of 81
(7044 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 20, 2003
Posts: 3984
|
First of all: I thought we were shoved up Rock and Ice's ass these days. How'd it get into Climbing?
Second: Am I the only one who can't see it. I looked at that damn magazine for nearly half an hour and I couldn't see it. I even bought the damn thing to bring it home to look at. I've been starring at it like one of those damn hidden image pictures and I still don't see it.
Where the hell is it?
|
|
|
|
|
tenn_dawg
Jan 23, 2004, 4:48 AM
Post #44 of 81
(7044 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 14, 2002
Posts: 3045
|
In reply to: The entire idea that anyone should be able to "own" information sucks. A digital picture is just a sequence of bits---i.e. a number---should we really allow people to have exclusive rights to a number?
Dude.
If I go out, and make the investment in time, effort, cash, and blood, to learn how to be a good photographer, and take good pictures, it's not fair for someone else to just "take" my photo's and use them for gain.
To a writer, inventor, or photographer, that "number" is the summation of countless hours of effort and toil. I'll be damned if it's okay for someone to just come and take it.
Perhaps you should rethink your reasoning just a bit because I"m sure that what you said is not really what you ment to say. ;)
|
|
|
|
|
fracture
Jan 23, 2004, 5:17 AM
Post #45 of 81
(7044 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2003
Posts: 1814
|
In reply to: In reply to: The entire idea that anyone should be able to "own" information sucks. A digital picture is just a sequence of bits---i.e. a number---should we really allow people to have exclusive rights to a number? Dude. If I go out, and make the investment in time, effort, cash, and blood, to learn how to be a good photographer, and take good pictures, it's not fair for someone else to just "take" my photo's and use them for gain.
If they take a physical print or negative, sure, that's stealing. But no one has deprived you of anything if they simply made a copy of some digital information.
In reply to: To a writer, inventor, or photographer, that "number" is the summation of countless hours of effort and toil. I'll be damned if it's okay for someone to just come and take it.
For some writers, inventors, or photographers.... Others view the inventing as an end in itself. I suggest you familiarize yourself with free software---many people out there are willing to spend "countless hours of effort and toil", and simply give the end result away.
In reply to: Perhaps you should rethink your reasoning just a bit because I"m sure that what you said is not really what you ment to say. ;)
:angel:
|
|
|
|
|
onelung
Jan 23, 2004, 5:19 AM
Post #46 of 81
(7044 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 8, 2002
Posts: 436
|
In reply to: I looked at that damn magazine for nearly half an hour and I couldn't see it. I even bought the damn thing to bring it home to look at. I've been starring at it like one of those damn hidden image pictures and I still don't see it. Where the hell is it?
Dood, Its right between the beth dairy and tommy's struggles at the metropolis.
|
|
|
|
|
the_pirate
Jan 23, 2004, 5:45 AM
Post #47 of 81
(7044 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 20, 2003
Posts: 3984
|
In reply to: In reply to: I looked at that damn magazine for nearly half an hour and I couldn't see it. I even bought the damn thing to bring it home to look at. I've been starring at it like one of those damn hidden image pictures and I still don't see it. Where the hell is it? Dood, Its right between the beth dairy and tommy's struggles at the metropolis.
You some kind of wiseass?
|
|
|
|
|
roughster
Jan 23, 2004, 5:46 AM
Post #48 of 81
(7044 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2002
Posts: 4003
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: I looked at that damn magazine for nearly half an hour and I couldn't see it. I even bought the damn thing to bring it home to look at. I've been starring at it like one of those damn hidden image pictures and I still don't see it. Where the hell is it? Dood, Its right between the beth dairy and tommy's struggles at the metropolis. You some kind of wiseass?
Too funny :lol:
|
|
|
|
|
hangdoggypound
Jan 23, 2004, 6:14 AM
Post #49 of 81
(7044 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 23, 2002
Posts: 169
|
In reply to: In reply to: The entire idea that anyone should be able to "own" information sucks. A digital picture is just a sequence of bits---i.e. a number---should we really allow people to have exclusive rights to a number? Dude. If I go out, and make the investment in time, effort, cash, and blood, to learn how to be a good photographer, and take good pictures, it's not fair for someone else to just "take" my photo's and use them for gain. To a writer, inventor, or photographer, that "number" is the summation of countless hours of effort and toil. I'll be damned if it's okay for someone to just come and take it. Perhaps you should rethink your reasoning just a bit because I"m sure that what you said is not really what you meant to say. ;)
With this instance of the manipulated photo, who got paid by Climbing? Did climbsomething? After all it was her JPG that was uploaded to this site and subsequently saved, manipulated, and submitted to the Mag by cryder. Did cryder? I think this issue is just as noteable as is copyright infringement. So they get their names in print for credit while the fine folks who submitted photos for the Gallery a few pages back get their names in print and on a check? Are the two artists at hand supposed to be grateful or something? I wouldn't be. I'd be saying, "Hey! I might not be Greg Child or Simon Carter, but you used my work. Here's my invoice, net 30."
|
|
|
|
|
sixter
Jan 23, 2004, 6:54 AM
Post #50 of 81
(7044 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 25, 2003
Posts: 262
|
In reply to: If they take a physical print or negative, sure, that's stealing. But no one has deprived you of anything if they simply made a copy of some digital information. In reply to: To a writer, inventor, or photographer, that "number" is the summation of countless hours of effort and toil. I'll be damned if it's okay for someone to just come and take it. For some writers, inventors, or photographers.... Others view the inventing as an end in itself. I suggest you familiarize yourself with free software---many people out there are willing to spend "countless hours of effort and toil", and simply give the end result away.
It's called intellectual property rights. People have fought long and hard to get and keep those rights. It is a choice to give up your right when you do freeware. I am familiar with it, and hey, any time I can get something free, I am quite happy. What is the difference if it is just 1s and 0s, or just some molecules that happen to make up a print, or negative? As a photographer, I have allowed use of my photos for photo credit only, but that was a choice I made. To take someone else's work without permission can rob them of future income, it is the same as stealing. How would you like someone to come to your jobsite, and take home your paycheck? Same thing. In some cases it is someone's paycheck that is taken when someone violates these rights.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
