On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 5:58 AM, Nikola Smolenski <smolensk(a)eunet.rs> wrote:
On 29/09/11 04:12, Anthony wrote:
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.
You're just restating the question. What constitutes an original
image, as opposed to whatever this photograph depicts?
Where is the original image? When was it created? Who created it?
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?
They are examples of the creative input which likely went into making
I would assume that in this case the goal of the
conversion was to
preserve the most data
That's one place you are wrong, then. The goal is to preserve the
most important data, not the most data. And choosing the most
important data is an act of creativity. Selection is, in fact, one of
the most important skills involved in photography.
(*) 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.
It's not trolling just because I pointed out that you're contradicting
yourself. I said "the photograph *is* original". Now you are
conceding exactly this point.
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.
Please quote where I said this.