On 29/09/11 04:12, Anthony wrote:
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 8:34 AM, Nikola
On 28/09/11 13:44, Anthony wrote:
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 11:52 PM, Nikola
The photograph does not constitute an origin or
Sure it does. Is there any such thing as an "original photograph"?
Yes there is, and this isn't it.
Why not? What constitutes an original photograph, as opposed to
whatever this photograph is?
An original photograph is a photograph that fixes an original image.
is not the first instance.
The original photograph is the first instance of the photograph. This
Copyright does not protect physical objects. The image that is fixed on
the first instance of the physical photograph is not the first instance
of the image.
Sure it is. I'm not sure where you're getting that from.
Sure it is not in this case.
And if it isn't (which, you'll have to
explain), can that be said
about *any* photograph?
is not independent or creative.
Someone most likely selected the F-stop, the shutter speed, and the
lighting. I doubt they just pointed the camera on auto and used the
The fact that you can devise a creative method to create an image does
not mean that the image itself is creative.
No, it doesn't. However, I am contending that creativity most likely
*did* go into creating the image.
So then why are you mentioning F-stop, shutter speed and lighting,
neither of which add any creativity to these images?
built in flash. Someone most likely selected how to
convert the raw
image into a jpeg or png or whatever they're using. They may have
How the hell is that creative?
Have you ever converted a raw image into a jpeg? If you have, then I
would think you'd know how the hell it is creative.
For one thing, you're converting 12 or 14 bits of color data per pixel
into 8. So you have to select what information to lose, and what
information to keep.
I would assume that in this case the goal of the conversion was to
preserve the most data, and not to add a creative touch to the images.
even done some significant post-processing. Someone
Post-processing could be creative, but the original photographs still
The original photographs (*) are not what are displayed on the website.
(*) I thought you said these weren't "original photographs".
Now you're just trolling. The original physical photographs, as opposed
to unoriginal images displayed on the photographs.
selected which camera to use, how many separate
photographs to tile
This must be the worst pro-copyright argument of all times.
You need to reread what I said. I was not making a pro-copyright argument.
You need to rewrite what you wrote so that it reflects what you meant.
You were making a pro-copyright argument.
So I have
two copiers in my company, and since I selected one of them the
photocopies I made are *original* and copyrighted by me? They are not.
And I didn't say they were.
Yes you did.
This choice is limited by technical possibilities of the devices and not
by someone's creative decision.
Our choices are always limited by the technical possibilities of the
devices we are using.