All Forum Comments
As someone whose work is constantly being stolen and it is theft, I cant tell you how much of my time is spent scouring the internet looking for my stolen work, invoicing & suing etc. this new legislation is going to make photographers lives so much worse.
What no one seems to mention whether that be media, government & campaigners is that photographers are business people, we pay taxes on our profits. My images are my stock. This law is like giving people the right to handle stolen goods (most orphans are created through image theft) been caught with stolen goods aw dont worry heres an honesty tin put in what you think those goods are worth and be on your way, the world is going my mad....
What no one seems to mention whether that be media, government & campaigners is that photographers are business people, we pay taxes on our profits. My images are my stock. This law is like giving people the right to handle stolen goods (most orphans are created through image theft) been caught with stolen goods aw dont worry heres an honesty tin put in what you think those goods are worth and be on your way, the world is going my mad....
Comment by cabstar posted on New Copyright Laws Imminent at 03/05/2013 - 16:18
How much is the flash?
Comment by cabstar posted on Full pentax gear at 03/05/2013 - 16:07
Fletcher8 wrote:
Hi Gary
I would have thought the 58 AF2 would suite your needs better? I originally had two 52 AF-1s but after using the 58 AF2 I sold them to a member on here. I know the 58 AF2 is a lot more money, but it;s worth every penny. without a doubt the best flash currently available for Pentax. Not trying to teach you to suck eggs, but I went for the less expensive route and ended up paying more in the long run. Anyway I hope you find what you are looking for at a fair price.
I looked at the 540 but its over kill for my needs. If younguo 560 where reliable I would buy a loas of them but they just keep breaking on me where as my Metz 48 has lasted me around four years now and does everything I need Hi Gary
I would have thought the 58 AF2 would suite your needs better? I originally had two 52 AF-1s but after using the 58 AF2 I sold them to a member on here. I know the 58 AF2 is a lot more money, but it;s worth every penny. without a doubt the best flash currently available for Pentax. Not trying to teach you to suck eggs, but I went for the less expensive route and ended up paying more in the long run. Anyway I hope you find what you are looking for at a fair price.
Comment by cabstar posted on WTB metz 48af1 or metz 52af at 02/05/2013 - 14:08
Plenty of cheap k-7 around at the moment around £250 with warranty from srs.
Comment by cabstar posted on Which camera to advise for a novice at 02/05/2013 - 10:54
Facebook compresses terribly too...
Comment by cabstar posted on Flickr vs Photobucket at 02/05/2013 - 10:46
http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=WJ1qr1nKQ1k&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DWJ1qr1nKQ1k
Comment by cabstar posted on national geographic shooter shoots rare bird with pentax at 02/05/2013 - 08:43
Im in the market for either one of these flashes, looking to buy new, but if i can buy used if the right price even better.
Comment by cabstar posted on WTB metz 48af1 or metz 52af at 02/05/2013 - 00:37
CMW wrote:
Cabstar, is that a response to my post? I don't doubt what you say. I'm not sure it modifies anything I've said. Why go to law when a watermark or similar may prevent the necessity in the first place. And in the case you mention, as so often, it seems to have been pure chance that revealed the breach of rights.
No it was a reply to thisCabstar, is that a response to my post? I don't doubt what you say. I'm not sure it modifies anything I've said. Why go to law when a watermark or similar may prevent the necessity in the first place. And in the case you mention, as so often, it seems to have been pure chance that revealed the breach of rights.
dougf8 wrote:
A little like radio DJ's might now foresee the likelihood that a prank might tip a vulnerable person over the edge to suicide.
Its not so much copyright as defamation. Would the originator of this work be for example pro-fascist? Why was it used to promote Sunderland FC's manager?
greynolds999 wrote:
But you miss the point. It's simply that I cannot change the past.
I would not allow any of my photographs to be used by a company which I considered unethical and at the moment if they asked to use one of my images I would refuse.
But now, they could use my image and although (assuming I found out later) I could claim a fee and tell them to stop, but I could not undo what they had already done.
I think any organization that has the cash to commission new images "just like" an orphaned work would find they are on dodgy ground in not doing this. It would be just seen as lazy by a court and foreseeable that the originator of the work may not share the outlook of the organization.But you miss the point. It's simply that I cannot change the past.
I would not allow any of my photographs to be used by a company which I considered unethical and at the moment if they asked to use one of my images I would refuse.
But now, they could use my image and although (assuming I found out later) I could claim a fee and tell them to stop, but I could not undo what they had already done.
A little like radio DJ's might now foresee the likelihood that a prank might tip a vulnerable person over the edge to suicide.
Its not so much copyright as defamation. Would the originator of this work be for example pro-fascist? Why was it used to promote Sunderland FC's manager?
dougf8 wrote:
A little like radio DJ's might now foresee the likelihood that a prank might tip a vulnerable person over the edge to suicide.
Its not so much copyright as defamation. Would the originator of this work be for example pro-fascist? Why was it used to promote Sunderland FC's manager?
What about photographers who licence work out, i for example cannot watermark my i ages that get used on say the Sun's website, those images also contain no metadata, so a quick right click, quick tineye check and payment to the governments new orphan works honesty box and you have yourself a cheap image.greynolds999 wrote:
But you miss the point. It's simply that I cannot change the past.
I would not allow any of my photographs to be used by a company which I considered unethical and at the moment if they asked to use one of my images I would refuse.
But now, they could use my image and although (assuming I found out later) I could claim a fee and tell them to stop, but I could not undo what they had already done.
I think any organization that has the cash to commission new images "just like" an orphaned work would find they are on dodgy ground in not doing this. It would be just seen as lazy by a court and foreseeable that the originator of the work may not share the outlook of the organization.But you miss the point. It's simply that I cannot change the past.
I would not allow any of my photographs to be used by a company which I considered unethical and at the moment if they asked to use one of my images I would refuse.
But now, they could use my image and although (assuming I found out later) I could claim a fee and tell them to stop, but I could not undo what they had already done.
A little like radio DJ's might now foresee the likelihood that a prank might tip a vulnerable person over the edge to suicide.
Its not so much copyright as defamation. Would the originator of this work be for example pro-fascist? Why was it used to promote Sunderland FC's manager?
And newspapers like e mail that are well known for stealing images from facebook, twitter and other social networking sites, marking them in some cases (c) the internet sigh, will have a field day when this legislation comes in.
Comment by cabstar posted on New Copyright Laws Imminent at 02/05/2013 - 00:19
