Reading the View Camera Web Site
Largformat
They should be readable on your screen. If not, try printng them out.
To be honest this putting things on the site seems to be a fruitless adventure.
If we post them as pdf's which makes them more readable people who have web tv
complain. Or people who don't like Acrobat complain. If we post things as lower
res jpegs people complain that they aren't more readable. I am also accused of
trying to hustle sales (how I can do this by putting free articles on the wb is
beynd me but these accusations have been going on for years).
Of course, those who complain about the free artricles are generally not
subscribers any way, so ??????????????????????????????????????
Perhaps the best thing for me to do is to quietly publish and leave the
naysayers to their own happiness.
steve simmons
J Stafford
largf...@aol.com (Largformat) wrote:
(Forgive the top-posting, please)
Steve, I am not encouraging you to give away yet more of your time and
work, but eventually someone will point out that the articles can be made
into regular web pages (real print, real images) fairly easily and thereby
eliminiate the JPEG fuzzy type and the need for Adobe Reader. (Automating
such tasks is one of the ways I put food on the table.)
However that might raise expectations so that you will always have to
publish your facsimilies that way.
> Perhaps the best thing for me to do is to quietly publish and leave the
> naysayers to their own happiness.
What you are doing now works and works well. I don't think you are going
to lose any sincere subscribers because they don't like a page or two of
your web presence.
Bill Van Antwerp
some nice graphic without permission. For my $0.02 keep posting PDF.
A subscriber.
"J Stafford" <jo...@stafford.net> wrote in message
news:john-17020...@m-0-104.docsis.hbci.com...
J Stafford
<bi...@minimed.com> wrote:
> In the science world, everything is PDF, that way no-one can cut and paste
> some nice graphic without permission.
If you believe that, then you are in trouble. It's child's play to pick a
graphic from a PDF.
Matt Clara
"Bill Van Antwerp" <bi...@minimed.com> wrote in message
news:v52q839...@news.supernews.com...
> In the science world, everything is PDF, that way no-one can cut and paste
> some nice graphic without permission.
Unless they have Adobe Illustrator. Or unless they just do a screen
capture.
>For my $0.02 keep posting PDF.
I agree. They are easy to create and can be viewed on any system, including
most hand-helds.
> A subscriber.
An occasional purchaser.
mc
J Stafford
news:v52q839...@news.supernews.com...
> In the science world, everything is PDF, that way no-one can cut and paste
> some nice graphic without permission.
I need to correct my comment and apologize to Mr. Van Antwerp. One _can_
lock down a PDF file with a password to obviate the appropriation of
embedded images.
Jean-David Beyer
I thought Adobe at first tried to prosecute some high school student who
cracked their trivial encryption scheme. The program to decrypt a locked
.pdf file was about 5 lines of Perl.
Then Adobe tried to stop the prosecution because they were embarassed.
--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ Registered Machine 73926.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
^^-^^ 9:10pm up 10 days, 21:18, 3 users, load average: 2.30, 2.27, 2.20
Graham Stewart
> J Stafford wrote:
>> "Bill Van Antwerp" <bi...@minimed.com> wrote in message
>> news:v52q839...@news.supernews.com...
>>
>>>In the science world, everything is PDF, that way no-one can cut and paste
>>>some nice graphic without permission.
>>
>>
>> I need to correct my comment and apologize to Mr. Van Antwerp. One _can_
>> lock down a PDF file with a password to obviate the appropriation of
>> embedded images.
>
> I thought Adobe at first tried to prosecute some high school student who
> cracked their trivial encryption scheme. The program to decrypt a locked
> .pdf file was about 5 lines of Perl.
>
> Then Adobe tried to stop the prosecution because they were embarassed.
That was their ebook software and it was cracked by a russian programmer
with elcommsoft.
You are thinking of the dvd encryption which was cracked (or credited to)
Jon Johansen, who was indeed 16 or 17 when he did it.
It's relatively trivial to extract the graphics from most pdfs, since you
can convert all but the most recent (and least compatible) ones into
postscript files using the pdf2ps utility.
Then you can find ways to extract the images.
Graham
Chris Hutcheson
However, I find that most of the clients I send materials to are happy
they can turn their computer on and run Office. Hacking a PDF is low on
their list of things to do.
In article <john-17020...@m-0-104.docsis.hbci.com>,
jo...@stafford.net (J Stafford) wrote:
--
Cheers!
Chris Hutcheson
chrishutcheson.com
Gregory Blank
Hutcheson <c...@ideaworldhq.com> wrote:
> It is easy for people who are in the know about this kind of thing.
> However, I find that most of the clients I send materials to are happy
> they can turn their computer on and run Office. Hacking a PDF is low on
> their list of things to do.
> Chris Hutcheson
> chrishutcheson.com
Especially if all they are going to get is a measlely 72 Dpi image for the
trouble,
same goes for screen capturing images, If you imbed your © symbol+your name
in the image and turn down the layers opacity in PS then your all set with a
encrypted PDF.
Gb
--
website{ members.bellatlantic.net/~gblank }
Gregory W. Blank Photography
Largformat
can convert all but the most recent (and least compatible) ones into
postscript files using the pdf2ps utility.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
By extract I think you mean steal. Thanks for making this info even more
widespread!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
steve simmons
CamArtsMag
that makes me wonder about some of the people in the world. The authors have
worked with us and given us permission to put their material on the web and
this yahoo now wants to inform people how to steal the images.
I am sure you/he has some excuse for putting this info out but it won't fly
with me.
steve simmons
Largformat
graphic from a PDF.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Thanks John for encouraging people. Once again your contribution to this forum
is off the topic and negative.
steve simmons
J Stafford
largf...@aol.com (Largformat) wrote:
> By extract I think you mean steal. Thanks for making this info even more
> widespread!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Actually, Steve, those who would steal know all about this stuff, and for
the casual user it's too hard. In the end, they would get less than they
would if they simply tore pages from your magazine.
But that said, there are some reasonable ways to protect images on the
web, and I would be happy to share that information with you, offline of
course. (It is another part of my trade.)
J Stafford
largf...@aol.com (Largformat) wrote:
Easy, easy, Steve. Nothing to get excited about. See my follow-up to the
gentleman who wrote that his material is protected by PDF files - they may
very well be if they are password protected, but if they are not (or they
are still using a crippled facility) then I'm sure he wants to know. The
FIRST mistake is drawing attention to material that he wants to protect,
regardless.
I didn't start the thead, and you apparently didn't read my direct
follow-up to the post in question. (And you chose me to fillet - spread
around the abuse, Steve.)
FWIW, Steve, I am deeply concerned about protecting intellectual propery
and make measures to protect it. It is part of my work. One day someone
you know and have published will tap you on the shoulder to tell you
exactly that. You can also surf - deep - and see my name in the archives
concerning security issues and software. I go back as far in networking as
you do in photography. And I go back in photography longer than you have
been in the net. :)
GP
"Largformat" <largf...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030218100808...@mb-ct.aol.com...
Give him a break, no "secret" has been uncovered, he is actually doing us a
favor by informing of the potential security issues of PDF documents. As
for the document in question "Sheet film holder choices", nobody needs to
steal it, you are making it available for everybody, besides, no image has
to be extracted from it, it is already an image.
G.Penate
Andreas Schmidt
Hey Steve, calm down. Nobody here has encouraged anybody to steal
images but pointed out the most common knowledge about file security.
Just like telling that by throwing a stone into the window somebody
can break it and get into the house.
Whatever popular format (and that's what you want to use, otherwise
nobody will read it) you will take to publish your articles in the
internet, it is easy for everybody to extract the content (whether it
is text or images doesn't matter). You don't need any special tools
for doing that and there are zillions of people who know how to do it.
And extracting itself is not stealing, since it may be for personal
use only.
I hope this will not keep you off from publishing more of your
interesting articles on your website.
Andreas
Largformat
From: long...@mse.biglobe.ne.jp (Andreas Schmidt)
Date: 2/18/2003 9:47 PM Mountain Standard Time
Message-id: <3a283115.03021...@posting.google.com>
Andreas>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
If you give people information that they can use to help them 'extract'
material from web pages then you get to share some of the responsibility for
what happens.
Since when is stealing for personal use not stealing. This is the same twisted
logic thieves use all the time. To 'extract an image, or anything else, and use
it for any but the intended use is stealing in my book.
steve simmons
John
Steve,
I respect the work that you have done with your magazines but you sure
have an awful lot to learn about computers !
Regards
John S. Douglas Photographer & Webmaster
Formulas, Facts and Info on the Photographic Process
http://www.darkroompro.com
John
>If you give people information that they can use to help them 'extract'
>material from web pages then you get to share some of the responsibility for
>what happens.
So Samuel Colt, J. Robert Oppenheimer and others are responsible for ....
?
>Since when is stealing for personal use not stealing. This is the same twisted
>logic thieves use all the time. To 'extract an image, or anything else, and use
>it for any but the intended use is stealing in my book.
Yes it is but stating that a file format is far less than secure (which is
a very well known fact) is hardly criminal. That info has been around since the
date that the first PDF file was published . Heck, I guess you never heard of
Corel Draw, Jaws PDF or FreePDF !
BTW, check out Win2PDF sometime.
J Stafford
largf...@aol.com (Largformat) wrote:
> If you give people information that they can use to help them 'extract'
> material from web pages then you get to share some of the responsibility for
> what happens.
TOTAL MISUNDERSTANDING, STEVE!
If you right-click on a web image you will see that browsers were built to
appropriate images. It is no trick.
The point is the Internet was built from the ground up with the intent to
facilitate free trade of ideas and material. A lot of the things you wish
to forbid are built-in. Maybe it would be a good idea for you to be
educated regarding what the Web is, what it can do, what it does - you
know a thorough education. Your ignorance regarding these things is simply
astounding! Embarassing, in fact.
Perhaps the Web is simply a bad fit for you and your enterprise.
Largformat
I respect the work that you have done with your magazines but you sure
have an awful lot to learn about computers
!>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It is not computers I need to learn about. It just never occurred to me that
epople would try and steal images out of a pdf file. It is human nature that
continues to surprise me.
steve simmons
Leonard Evens
Calm down Steve. You presumably have copyrights on your work. That
gives you certain rights about its use, but it also gives others rights,
including the right of fair use. For example, anyone can quote things
you say as long as they are attributed to you. A public library can buy
a copy of your book---indeed I just talked mine into reordering it---and
lend it out to others. And there are many other uses included under the
fair use doctrine. A teacher can photocopy very limited sections to
distribute to a class under certain circumstances. What is illegal is
making a copy to sell or otherwise distribute which would interfere with
your commercial rights to do that. In point of fact, the more people
make use of their fair use rights, the better off you are because it
makes your work more valuable.
>
> steve simmons
--
Leonard Evens l...@math.northwestern.edu 847-491-5537
Dept. of Mathematics, Northwestern Univ., Evanston, IL 60208
Brian Ellis
"John" <jo...@darkroompro.com> wrote in message
news:8v665vsmotat98ddm...@4ax.com...
John Stafford
> It is not computers I need to learn about. It just never occurred to me that
> epople would try and steal images out of a pdf file. It is human nature that
> continues to surprise me.
PDF files are, by implication of design, intended to be opened to
appropriate images and ALSO designed to NOT permit it if one chooses to
password protect the file.
The fact that the password protection might be 'challenged' is a
different story and I assure you the very minority who would do so is
not a threat.
You should be more concerned with people who cut your magazine apart,
frame the pictures and sell them at various 'craft' shops for
considerably more than the cost of the magazine.
Nandakumar Sankaran
and re-read this thread, I'm sure you will realize that you are going way
overboard on this issue.
(1) Nobody mentioned stealing images from your website.
(2) The possibility that images can be extracted from a document on the web
was not published in this thread for the very first time.
(3) There are safeguards to protect your website from others stealing stuff.
If you want to make information available on your website, you have to be
aware about the mechanics of protecting them as well.
(4) Finally, the copyright laws are on your side. If somebody steals your
material, you can take them to court. I'm sure you know how this works.
Nandakumar
"CamArtsMag" <camar...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030218103506...@mb-ch.aol.com...
Chris Hutcheson
downlaod images from a site (or for that matter the whole site), or
because I can crack a PDF document, does it make it OK? I don't think
so, particularly when it comes down to materials I produce for a living.
Perhaps if we were to spend more time focusing on and educating others
about the ethics and impact of this kind of appropriation (I prefer to
call it theft), we could determine whether the web is a bad fit for View
Camera, or for folks who don't respect others' ownership of their work.
In article <john-19020...@m-0-104.docsis.hbci.com>,
jo...@stafford.net (J Stafford) wrote:
> TOTAL MISUNDERSTANDING, STEVE!
>
> If you right-click on a web image you will see that browsers were built to
> appropriate images. It is no trick.
>
> The point is the Internet was built from the ground up with the intent to
> facilitate free trade of ideas and material. A lot of the things you wish
> to forbid are built-in. Maybe it would be a good idea for you to be
> educated regarding what the Web is, what it can do, what it does - you
> know a thorough education. Your ignorance regarding these things is simply
> astounding! Embarassing, in fact.
>
> Perhaps the Web is simply a bad fit for you and your enterprise.
--
Cheers!
Chris Hutcheson
chrishutcheson.com
John Stafford
> This raises the question of ethics, IMHO. Because a browser allows me to
> downlaod images from a site (or for that matter the whole site), or
> because I can crack a PDF document, does it make it OK? I don't think
> so, particularly when it comes down to materials I produce for a living.
Chris, you commingle two important issues: *first, a browser which
allows one to save an image or page follows quite perfectly the ethics
and vision of the Internet: ask what you need and share what you know.
If you don't like it, then you will be an unhappy person.
However, you are right about cracking a password or protection schema.
It is truly unethical, and often illegal.
> Perhaps if we were to spend more time focusing on and educating others
> about the ethics and impact of this kind of appropriation [...]
What are you doing to educate yourself? Read * above.
CamArtsMag
here is sometimes troublesome.
steve simmons
Andreas Schmidt
I could not imagine that you are so ignorant of the terms used in the
web as well as the way it works. So lets translate it to some
examples, which you are more familiar with:
largf...@aol.com (Largformat) wrote in message news:<20030219000916...@mb-cp.aol.com>...
> If you give people information that they can use to help them 'extract'
> material from web pages then you get to share some of the responsibility for
> what happens.
if the police teaches the people how to protect their houses they have
to share responsibility if a thief uses that information to break in
at some other place??? If you re-read the thread you will notice that
nobody here has encouraged stealing nor given any advice in doing so,
which is not known to nearly everybody. People here simply told you to
lock the doors and windows, when you leave your house.
> Since when is stealing for personal use not stealing. This is the
> same twisted logic thieves use all the time.
there is a fundamental difference here: a thief takes away some good,
so that you cannot use it any more. The effect is a damage to your
property. You, on the other hand, give an article to the readers of
your website. You can still use it, it is still there on your website.
And the reader of the article can do anything with it, as long as he
does not damage your property by doing so (like e.g. selling or
distributing it or part of it).
> To 'extract an image, or anything else, and use
> it for any but the intended use is stealing in my book.
If I buy your book and cut out a picture or a table from it so that I
can glue it onto some of my equipment, is that stealing just because
you could not imagine that somebody would do that with your book? Now,
if I make a copy the page (extract it) and glue the copy onto my
equipment, will it become stealing?
Does it become clearer?
Andreas
Cathy
She also said - "You are the company that you keep."
Cathy
--
.... __~o
.. \ -\<,
......(_)/(_)....................... http://www.VoodooInk.net
te amo mucho mi amor
Bill Van Antwerp
"Brian Ellis" <bell...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:ShP4a.10755$YU4.9...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> Not to mention copyright law.
>
> "John" <jo...@darkroompro.com> wrote in message
> news:8v665vsmotat98ddm...@4ax.com...
> > On 18 Feb 2003 18:04:52 GMT, largf...@aol.com (Largformat) wrote:
> >
> > >If you believe that, then you are in trouble. It's child's play to pick
a
> > >graphic from a PDF.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
science publishing area (at least the journals that we read) the whole thing
is indeed password protected. As for personal use, I thought that I can
make photocopies of any journal article ( I don't know about photographs)
that I want as long as my company/institution paid some fairly nominal fee.
If that isn't the case then I think grad schools will go out of business.
Bill
John Stafford
> [...] As for personal use, I thought that I can
> make photocopies of any journal article ( I don't know about photographs)
> that I want as long as my company/institution paid some fairly nominal fee.
> If that isn't the case then I think grad schools will go out of business.
Grad schools would, for all practical purposes, cease to function! How
can one build upon and then add to knowledge in a field if he cannot
know what has been done, researched, considered, tested, trialed?
Steve Simmons has no such academic interest. His is a purely commercial
enterprise, completely independent of the personal beliefs and
intentions of most of his contributors.
But regardless of Steve's wishes, we in education can copy material from
his publications under the guidelines of Fair Use. And owners of his
magazine(s) can make copies for their own use.
An interesting thing has come of his presence in this Usenet group. I
now have material to show students some of the inside thinking of a
publisher.
Always adding to the literature,
jjs
Ralph Barker
Naturally, you can do whatever you wish, Steve. But, I would point out
that most of the posts in this thread have been polite, cordial, and
aimed at trying to help you understand the technology and customs
associated with the Web presence of your magazines. As such, I suspect
that I'm not the only one confused by your apparent resistance to that
assistance.
Robert Monaghan
yes, just look at what other photo mag publishers are doing (e.g.,
shutterbug, popphoto..). The point of having a website is to publicize
your photo mags, as an outreach tool to attract potential subscribers and
book purchasers etc. You can't afford to reach most of these folks by
conventional mailouts or other ads, but the web makes it very
affordable for them to find you. But they may hesitate to buy sight
unseen if they don't have some sense of what your magazine provides or
covers...
in the mid-term, many content providers (e.g., mags), esp. with limited
press run sizes, are likely to migrate to entirely online publication,
using digital watermarks and "millicent" downloading fees for archived
articles.
in the longer term, it is unlikely that ad based mags are going to survive
in small specialty mags anyway, because advertisers are learning they can
do much more for rather lower costs online. Look at the drop in ads in
shutterbug, for example. Very few mags will be able to afford to publish
on paper without these ad revenues, and those that don't go online will
most likely go under, IMHO...
so best plan on investing some time and energy into seeing what the
technology can do for you now and in the future ;-)
bobm
--
* Robert Monaghan POB752182 So. Methodist Univ., Dallas Tx 75275 *
* Third Party 35mm Lenses: http://medfmt.8k.com/third/index.html *
* Medium Format Cameras: http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/index.html *
John Stafford
> yes, just look at what other photo mag publishers are doing (e.g.,
> shutterbug, popphoto..).
But, but, but... seriously, look at those magazines' nature: they have
always been lightweight, blatently advertiser driven and ephemeral rags
which absolutely required that each issue be obsolete by the time it's
read. The should be the first to go to the Web. It is a near perfect fit.
On the other hand, there are publications where a certain tactile
ownership is important to the subscribers, and where the nature of the
book is not to become obsolete. Steve's publications are like that. (My
mate also works for such an enterprise, and I have as well.)
> The point of having a website is to publicize
> your photo mags, as an outreach tool to attract potential subscribers and
> book purchasers etc. You can't afford to reach most of these folks by
> conventional mailouts or other ads, but the web makes it very
> affordable for them to find you. But they may hesitate to buy sight
> unseen if they don't have some sense of what your magazine provides or
> covers...
True.
> in the mid-term, many content providers (e.g., mags), esp. with limited
> press run sizes, are likely to migrate to entirely online publication,
> using digital watermarks and "millicent" downloading fees for archived
> articles.
The millicent thing? Not in our lifetime. More in a moment.
> so best plan on investing some time and energy into seeing what the
> technology can do for you now and in the future ;-)
Here is one. Given: it is possible to transmit high-quality
reproductions via the net, especially if one takes a sophisticated and
possibly proprietary approach to be certain the receiving printer(s)
will be properly accomodated. (They might be printed by the user, but
also by any contract printer nearby.) We can get off on the technical
tangent in a separate thread. Suffice to say, I believe it can be done.
And it can have great value. Given: some readers will want an
editor-driven publication and other will not. Give them both! For the
later, thumbnails or small images for free, true high-quality content on
a custom, reader-selected basis, image for image, article for article,
for real money. (Although the image is more likely to have the requisite
exclusivity and value.) The Web can provide that.
And I will add, the artists should realize that they can/should/must
demand payment for every single print ordered, and the publisher
must/should made a special effort to guarantee (as best he can)
performance in that regard.
(Finally, real prints - you know, that Silver stuff, will continue to
maintain their value. Digital might even enhance the vaue of handmade,
true silver prints.)
This is something that's been on my mind a lot as my mate struggles to
keep the magazine she does alive and well.
The devil is in the details (an old printshop saying.)
M C Daily
As with many others, I agree with much/most of what is said here. As an
ex-offset printer and commercial lab mole, technology makes many things
possible. The Fair Use Doctrine of the US Copyright Law allows limited
copying of copyrighted material for personal or research purposes when
credit is given for the origin of the material. To NOT give credit is
theft of intellectual property and can carry very stiff penalties (up to
$100,000). Each technology has its own unique character--making
photographs look like 19th C. paintings can be done, but the original is
simply better. A copy is simply not the original. The quality of
Steve's VC magazine makes it a valuable contribution to the art and
craft of the fine print photo media. At this point several things need
to be noted:
1. Any time you come up with a foolproof method, someone invents a
better fool.
2. You can't push on a rope.
3. Luddites always lose. Even the hammer is a technical tool.
4. Embracing anachronism is not all bad.
5. In a highly technical world, the fine craftsman and artist can flourish.
6. There are artistic solutions to technical problems and technical
solutions to artistic problems, but technical solutions to technical
problems simply creats more technology, not more solutions.
Thanks, Steve, for all you do. I look forward to VC and even though I
don't read, agree with, or enjoy each and every item, I would not change
it. It is not done just for me, but for us all. What I don't appreciate
is my problem, not someone else's.
Michael
Dennis O'Connor
torrent...
I will pay for a book/magazine/etc., but I will not pay for web content...
<I could go into a long dissertation of perceived value, etc., but I won't>
I suspect that those of my inclination are legion out there..
Assuming that is so, I do not see how one can make a profit putting content
on the web...
Denny
"Andreas Schmidt" <long...@mse.biglobe.ne.jp> wrote in message
news:3a283115.03021...@posting.google.com...
John Stafford
> I have been out of this thread but I will cast one pebble into the
> torrent...
>
> I will pay for a book/magazine/etc., but I will not pay for web content...
> <I could go into a long dissertation of perceived value, etc., but I won't>
> I suspect that those of my inclination are legion out there..
You have company. I am of the same inclination for certain publications.
> Assuming that is so, I do not see how one can make a profit putting content
> on the web...
Either can I - presuming the enterprise is strictly limited to income
from web interaction and it is free, _and_ one isn't selling names and
market profile information of the receipients.
But free content can serve to make oney for a hard-publishing enterprise
that charges for other things, like subscriptions and benefits withheld
from the net.
John
>> I will pay for a book/magazine/etc., but I will not pay for web content...
>> <I could go into a long dissertation of perceived value, etc., but I won't>
>> I suspect that those of my inclination are legion out there..
>
>You have company. I am of the same inclination for certain publications.
>
>> Assuming that is so, I do not see how one can make a profit putting content
>> on the web...
>
>Either can I - presuming the enterprise is strictly limited to income
>from web interaction and it is free, _and_ one isn't selling names and
>market profile information of the receipients.
>
>But free content can serve to make oney for a hard-publishing enterprise
>that charges for other things, like subscriptions and benefits withheld
>from the net.
Why not an email subscription ?
konabear
cost? I understand that scanning an image from a magzine (or using any other
copyrighted image for that matter) and then printing multiple copies of it
and sell those would be breaking the law. But why can't I take what I paid
for, add value (a frame) and sell it again? I wouldn't be creating more
images than I paid for.
Now about extracting the images out of the .PFD... Seriously, what kind of
quality are those images? Probably quite low or the .pdf would take forever
to download. Sure, someone might make a personal screen saver or wallpaper
out of it, but they might be just as likely to scan a page in a magazine and
use that.
And why aren't people paying for Internet content? Some are... Some sites
are supported by ad revenue. Just like broadcast TV. Consumers pay for the
advertised goods and in turm pay for the content. Those of us paying for
View Camera subsciptions are paying for View Camera's web site. And here
and for that reason I feel Steve is with in his rights to configure his web
site in anyway he wishes. He is essentially using it for advertising his
magazine, and possibly to offer his advertizors another venue for marketing
their wares.
Some would argue that he should articles from back issues freely available.
Some would even argue he should make the current issues freely available. I
for one would love it. However, that in my opinion is a desicion for the
publisher to make. View Camera, while a valuable resource, is a business.
I'd hope that Steve finds a way to build that business to make him as
wealthy as Mr. Gates, though I doubt it ever will. He needs to see if the
website can make/save him money.
As far as pay for content directly via a subscription or millicent
technology... I haven't done that because the Internet has so much
information already that I usually don't need to go to subscription site.
Someday I may be doing that exactly. Either "free" content providers might
shrivel up and fold, or content may be compelling enough to buy for. I
already do in some cases. I have used download engines that require payment
for software I want. I also might consider a subscription to a digital
magazine, but then I'd spend even more time in front of this infernal
monitor. ;)
Todd
"John Stafford" <jo...@stafford.net> wrote in message
news:3E53C7B...@stafford.net...
Jean-David Beyer
> If I cut a magazine apart, and frame the work, why can't I sell it at any
> cost? I understand that scanning an image from a magzine (or using any other
> copyrighted image for that matter) and then printing multiple copies of it
> and sell those would be breaking the law. But why can't I take what I paid
> for, add value (a frame) and sell it again? I wouldn't be creating more
> images than I paid for.
>
it, the right to give away what you paid for (i.e., the paper and ink on
the paper, the right to read it, the right to give away what you paid
for (i.e., the paper and ink on the paper, the right to read ... .
What you did not pay for is the right to copy it, or any part of it,
other than what might be considered "fair use," which, as a practical
matter means copying small parts for reference by you, or brief passages
for review in another publication. Which means each case can be decided
in a court of law if necessary. Buying a copyrighted item entitles you
to none of the rights of copying (other than making "fair use" of it, as
determined by a court).
--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ Registered Machine 73926.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
^^-^^ 5:40pm up 15 days, 17:48, 2 users, load average: 2.06, 2.07, 2.08
J Stafford
<mau...@ameritech.net> wrote:
> If I cut a magazine apart, and frame the work, why can't I sell it at any
> cost?
Because it violates US copyright law.
>[...] I wouldn't be creating more images than I paid for.
Reselling the image alone, out of context, with no copyright information
clearly shown does not qualify as "for your own use". You can sell the
entire magazine for any amount because it includes the copyright
information.
That said, I don't think you are going to be busted for reselling a few
prints torn from magazines. There's no money in it for the lawyers.
However, there is a big thing with 'craft' shops, especially the wildlife
art people in which they collect catalogs and calendars and isolate images
from original art, frame it and sell it for a good buck. That's borderline
and I think some of them are setting themselves up because they have
plenty to yield in terms of lawsuit settlements: their entire business.
konabear
info to the back up the mounting board?
Todd
"J Stafford" <jo...@stafford.net> wrote in message
news:john-22020...@m-0-104.docsis.hbci.com...
J Stafford
<mau...@ameritech.net> wrote:
> So could one of this shops cover their a$$es buy simply gluing the copyright
> info to the back up the mounting board?
Good thought. I don't know!
M C Daily
copyright holder. See: http://www.copyright.iupui.edu/ for more info and
penalties. (Maximum $100,000).
Michael
John
>It is not computers I need to learn about. It just never occurred to me that
>epople would try and steal images out of a pdf file. It is human nature that
>continues to surprise me.
After dealing with the public for the last 15 years in a service
environment, they don't surprise me. Unfortunately.
To paraphrase something from a good movie , "Man by nature is a damned
mess. Only by picking up God's rhythms are we able to regain power and beauty.
All good things come by grace and grace comes by art. And art does not come
easy."
Given the number of people who lack appreciation for art, I would say that
society is somewhat worse than a "damned mess".
Gregory Blank
wrote:
> Not if they are selling the image and do not have permission of the
> copyright holder. See: http://www.copyright.iupui.edu/ for more info and
> penalties. (Maximum $100,000).
> Michael
Regrettably there are some criteria for suing someone in these cases,
which don't favor the plaintiff(s)
One, being that you must prove they willing sought to defraud or sought to
malicously cheat the owner of the copyright.
Two that the defrauder, has the were with all to pay compensation in the
amount you state.
Three the typical lawsuit involving a lawyer may cost you upwards of
100,000 dollars especially if it goes to trial.
--
website{ members.bellatlantic.net/~gblank }
Gregory W. Blank Photography
John Stafford
Gregory Blank wrote:
> In article <3E58D62C...@indy.rr.net>, M C Daily <mcd...@indy.rr.net>
> wrote:
> [...]
> Three the typical lawsuit involving a lawyer may cost you upwards of
> 100,000 dollars especially if it goes to trial.
How about if the copyright holder limits his complaint so that it can go
to Small Claims court? Can that be done?
Gregory Blank
I can regrettably state by personal experience in this type of matter
that Small Claims is the wiser approach, although not completely
flawless. You have to be able to identify the parties at fault before you
can file a claim,
which for instance: by nature of the publishing industry and the way
corporations in general
are structured against litigation in the event of thier failure makes
small claims
a somewhat daunting proposition. Owners may be distanced from their failed
buisness, and employees
creditors, etc who are owed money.
M C Daily
court does not apply... For other info, go to the website I listed and
read the segment on the law--the "where-with-all" is not relevant,
ignorance of the law is no excuse, nor is the willingness to pay the
penalty significant. Theft is theft--physical property or intellectual
property.
http://www.copyright.iupui.edu/
Michael
Gregory Blank
wrote:
> Copyright infringement is a violation of Federal statutes. Small claims
> court does not apply... For other info, go to the website I listed and
> read the segment on the law--the "where-with-all" is not relevant,
> ignorance of the law is no excuse, nor is the willingness to pay the
> penalty significant. Theft is theft--physical property or intellectual
> property.
> http://www.copyright.iupui.edu/
> Michael
I appreciate the link, I am sure its of some help. Surely
schools,publishing companies and
the type (ASMP "preferred" photographers) have the where with all to
pursue big
expensive litigation against companies. You should also be aware that one
must register
imagery through the copyright office to get any form of compensation in
the event
you can prove you were wronged, but registration must be prior to the wrongfull
usage not after the fact, it also cost money to register at a rate of $40
per application.
Have you personally be awarded a judgement? Ever?,...
we would like to hear the details of your success if that is the case.
I can only speak in regard to my own unsatisfactory experience of believing the
that the system would work for me by trusting a "recommended lawyer".
click76112
U.S. Copyright Office to be protected, but registration does provide some
legal and practical benefits.>>>
Greg this is off the site listed here. Plus the work is automatically
copyrighted and whoever made the photo is automatically the owner. The
circle c is not required anymore. We all need to reread the site to bone up
on the changes.
lee\c
"Gregory Blank" <gbl...@bellatlantic.net> wrote in message
news:gblank_-2502...@pool-151-196-173-106.balt.east.verizon.net...
Gregory Blank
<click...@charter.net> wrote:
> <<<Copyright Registration: No longer must the work be registered with the
> U.S. Copyright Office to be protected, but registration does provide some
> legal and practical benefits.>>>
>
> Greg this is off the site listed here. Plus the work is automatically
> copyrighted and whoever made the photo is automatically the owner. The
> circle c is not required anymore. We all need to reread the site to bone up
> on the changes.
> lee\c
I agree,....& the copyright is yours when the image is created. The issues
that arise from sale, fair use, and publication that one needs to always
keep current on/ I agree. However there are going to be those who feel
that they can
help themselves to creative work at no cost to themselves. Suing and
winning are two seperate
animals, for instance try getting a lawyer to take a small copyright
infringement
case on a contigency basis, and see how far you get.
click76112
A friend in San Antonio is a photographer and a drummer for the SA Symphony
and he made a portrait of a musician before he died. He gave the image to
the family and a short time later the image showed up in an ad in the
symphony magazine for the daughter's business (I forget what the business,
real estate I think). There was no mention of who did the work and my
friend was never asked if it could be used. I don't know what the
settlement was but he said his lawyer did a good job for him and that he was
happy with the settlement. Antidotal, yes, but so is all the internet or so
it seems. Another friend got involved with a stock agency and sent his
slides to LA. He sold a little bit but nothing to write home about. As it
happens, his girl friend was a flight attendent for American Airlines at the
time. He flew into LAX one time and there was his image on a billboard. He
won that lawsuit. It does happen.
=[8^).
lee/c
"Gregory Blank" <gbl...@bellatlantic.net> wrote in message
news:gblank_-2502...@pool-151-196-174-143.balt.east.verizon.net...
Gregory Blank
<click...@charter.net> wrote:
> Hi Gregory,
> A friend in San Antonio is a photographer and a drummer for the SA Symphony
> and he made a portrait of a musician before he died. He gave the image to
> the family and a short time later the image showed up in an ad in the
> symphony magazine for the daughter's business (I forget what the business,
> real estate I think). There was no mention of who did the work and my
> friend was never asked if it could be used. I don't know what the
> settlement was but he said his lawyer did a good job for him and that he was
> happy with the settlement. Antidotal, yes, but so is all the internet or so
> it seems. Another friend got involved with a stock agency and sent his
> slides to LA. He sold a little bit but nothing to write home about. As it
> happens, his girl friend was a flight attendent for American Airlines at the
> time. He flew into LAX one time and there was his image on a billboard. He
> won that lawsuit. It does happen.
> =[8^).
>
> lee/c
I guess I should clarify, but first let me say those are pretty good
examples of "egregious" use by someone other than the intended
owner or purchaser of the imagery, therefore a regular old lawyer could be
of benefit in that type of clear cut case.
In my case I can describe the circumstances but not the details (who and what)
as the lawsuit is still active. Almost two years ago a publication company
solicated
images for a book that I contributed to. All of the photographers were
given letters
and invoices stating how the images would be used and how much they would
be paid
for that use after publication. The book was published & all the
photographers received copies
of the book as well as our ©name credit on each image.
Upon publication a letter was sent to us stating that our checks would
be forth coming,
after a few months I started to call and email, as I am informed
photographers did throughout the
country. Apparently the company was in trouble. After additional letters
suggesting payment was
on the way and basically the company accounting dept ignoring my request
for return phone calls,
which by the way I was intially encouraged to make by their own editoral
staff. I decided I would send
a certified letter notorized that I was going to pursue litegation, if
they failed to pay within thirty days.
My intent was to file a small claims complaint in my home town.
Meanwhile other photographers in my area had gotten together to discuss
the issue, I was informed
at my Lab that I should contact a national photographers advocacy group as
they would find us
as a group a lawyer,... in the home state of the company. Ideally this
would been best, except the company
declared bankruptcy around the same time. Our lawyer then pursued the a
man who intially lent money to
the company with the intention of aquireing the assets of that company
should it go bankrupt. From what the
lawyers says he bankrupt as well. Out of a $100,000 law suit the
settlement is going to be about 13 % of the money
I was intially promised, or about half the money I have spent to pay the
lawyer on consignment.
(he required a $10,000) retainer in advance. Of course my part was a lot
less than $10,000 it was based on percentage of
the money owed. But looking back I would probably be less idealistic and
inclined to sue as opposed to filing locally for
a judgement as that is about $40.00 I just wonder how the photographer who
intitially encouraged me and others
to pursue the lawyer can live with himself knowing that he was screwed out
of $100,000
in promised compensation by the book publisher for the 100's of images
of his that they used. His decision ended up being not to contribute to
the lawsuit. The one shining part about this,...
I did not send them anything more than 5 images, since I did not know the
company I did not send them my best stuff.
Instead of an original trans I sent them a print from a
internegative,,,,,and a couple of "seconds" 4x5 trans. Surprisingly the
images looked very good when printed. They gave a two page spread in 9x12
hard bound coffee table book, my work along with
a hundred other really good photgraphers. I did get a free copy of the
book,....despite all else,.....it still makes me smile. :-)
click76112
I am certainly not trying to be contrary. With the information I had at
the time, it looked like you might not have all the facts. You obviously do
and forgive me if I made it seem that way. I did not ever intend to do that
. That you can smile after all that, is a testament to your resiliency and
character. Good on you. I might have tried the method that involves 9mm's
and 12 gauges, if you get my drift. You got a nice book but your case was
hurt when the other guy did not join the class action suit, if that is what
it is.
lee\c
"Gregory Blank" <gbl...@bellatlantic.net> wrote in message
news:gblank_-2602...@pool-151-196-172-9.balt.east.verizon.net...
Paul Butzi
Blank) wrote:
> I guess I should clarify, but first let me say those are pretty good
>examples of "egregious" use by someone other than the intended
>owner or purchaser of the imagery, therefore a regular old lawyer could be
>of benefit in that type of clear cut case.
>
> In my case I can describe the circumstances but not the details (who and what)
>as the lawsuit is still active. Almost two years ago a publication company
>solicated
>images for a book that I contributed to. All of the photographers were
>given letters
>and invoices stating how the images would be used and how much they would
>be paid
>for that use after publication. The book was published & all the
>photographers received copies
>of the book as well as our ©name credit on each image.
<snip>
That's a very sad (and interesting story) but I guess I would ask
"What the heck does this have to do with copyright infringement?"
You granted permission for the use, and then they failed to pay up
(presumably because they went bankrupt and folded). That has nothing
at all to do with copyright infringement, it has everything to do with
breach of contract.
I thought the discussion was about copyright enforcement, not all the
different ways you can get screwed when a business you'e dealing with
goes toes up.
-Paul
--
http://www.butzi.net
Gregory Blank
<bu...@nwlink.com> wrote:
> That's a very sad (and interesting story) but I guess I would ask
> "What the heck does this have to do with copyright infringement?"
>
> You granted permission for the use, and then they failed to pay up
> (presumably because they went bankrupt and folded). That has nothing
> at all to do with copyright infringement, it has everything to do with
> breach of contract.
>
> I thought the discussion was about copyright enforcement, not all the
> different ways you can get screwed when a business you'e dealing with
> goes toes up.
> -Paul
It indirectly has a lot to do with it .
Although the original buisness folded , the books were still being sold
in stores,
so in essence someone was infringing upon my work and the work of others, and
generating income from the sales (We hope we corrected that).
Also where and who knows where the image "files"
are that were generated to print that book. Once they default on payment,
to me
thats a pretty good disregard of the rights of the artist, Paul.
It also makes a pretty good case for getting money upfront from publishing
companies when possible. Maybe thats less than realistic.
Brian Ellis
> infringement
> case on a contigency basis, and see how far you get"
You certainly won't get anywhere. Why would a lawyer want to take a case on
a contingent fee basis when he or she may devote hundreds of hours in trial
preparation and trial time to your case so that he or she can earn 30% of a
$500 judgment?
.
"Gregory Blank" <gbl...@bellatlantic.net> wrote in message
news:gblank_-2502...@pool-151-196-174-143.balt.east.verizon.net...
Gregory Blank
"Brian Ellis" <bell...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> You certainly won't get anywhere. Why would a lawyer want to take a case on
> a contingent fee basis when he or she may devote hundreds of hours in trial
> preparation and trial time to your case so that he or she can earn 30% of a
> $500 judgment?
Correct, even if the lawsuit is for $100,000 at 30% that's 30,000 but only
if you win.
In the case where payment is not clearcut, a retainer to the lawyer of
$10,000 is a better
deal for the lawyer provided your willing to cough it up intially. (but
then there's
no incentive to get you the judgement of $100,000) kind of neat how these
lawyers have it all
figured out. Hey If I was a lawyer I'd take the 10,000 up front not to
have to win the case.