Dan Masters wrote;
> From: DANMAS@aol.com
> Subject: Re: TR3 OCT. Moss cat. cover
> In a message dated 98-11-10 20:15:24 EST, Gbouff@aol.com writes:
>> Having once been an avid photograher ( but more than likely I'm
jealous
>> because of my inability to paint) I think that Mr. James should
share some of
>> the credit with the photographer, Simon Clay. My wife and I have
this
>> arguement quite often, as she was an illustrater and used to
teach painting.
My wife and I are both Technical Illustrators and my second profession is in
photography. I took up photography to shoot reference photos for illustrations.
Some good fortune in the photographic area led me to concentrate more on that
side of the art and less on illustration though I still make my living in
illustration, albeit now using a computer.
> Gary,
> As a photographer myself, I agree with you totally. As a matter
of fact, not
> too many years ago, a photographer sued an artist for copyright
infringment
> for using his photo as a basis for a painting (for a commercial
illustration,
> I believe). If I remember correctly, the case went all the way to
the supreme
> court. It went at least to a federal appeals court and the
photographer won.
Essentially, the photographer, as creator of the image holds a very strong
copyright, even if the image is sold for publication. I have a friend who wrote
a book using photos obtained from the Ford PR department. His publisher was
sued by the photographer because the photos were used without his permission
and he was not an employee of Ford when he took the photos so Ford was not
technically owners of the image. Very complicated.
> Far too many people assume that if you used a machine (camera) to
make the
> picture, it isn't really art, and anyone with a good camera could
have made
> the picture. Too little credit is given to the artistic ability
of the
> photographer.
Oh, this is so true! The camera is just a tool, it is how it is used that makes
the difference! How many people have gone to Yosemite and tried to be Ansel
Adams. I have stood elbow to elbow with John Lamm at Monterey and I don't get
the same shots he does!
> The new cameras, with all the auto focus, auto exposure, auto
everything, have
> made it easy to make "technically correct" pictures, but it's as
hard as ever
> to make "good" pictures. There is still the ART factor involved.
> Dan Masters,
> Alcoa, TN
Also very true! I tell people that automatic cameras will screw up your photos
automatically! I have two very good modern cameras (Canon EOS-1 and A2) but I
will not buy a camera without a "manual" setting. My favorite camera is my mid
'60s vintage Zenza-Bronica medium format that is completely mechanical, all
metal and very heavy! Some of the best artistic photos I have taken were with
simple fully mechanical SLR's.
Also a note to everyone out there with web sites. You should not scan a photo
out of a book or magazine and post it to your web site without permission of
the copyright holder. Even though a personal web site is not a commercial
enterprise per se, it is still, technically, in violation of copyright laws to
reproduce photos and distribute them by posting on a web site. Odds are small
that someone would come after you but why take the chance!
Cheers,
Kurt Oblinger
Sr. Publications Analyst, The Boeing Co. Long Beach, Ca.
Contributing Writer/Photographer BRITISH CAR Magazine
|