[Foundation-l] Dead Sea Scrolls

[Nikola Smolenski]

On 29/09/11 04:12, Anthony wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 8:34 AM, Nikola Smolenski<smolensk at eunet.rs>  wrote:
>> On 28/09/11 13:44, Anthony wrote:
>>> On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 11:52 PM, Nikola Smolenski<smolensk at eunet.rs>    wrote:
>>>> The photograph does not constitute an origin or beginning.
>>>
>>> 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.

>>>> The photograph 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?

No.

>>>> The 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 definitely
>>
>> Post-processing could be creative, but the original photographs still
>> are not.
>
> 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.

>>> together, etc.
>>
>> 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.

So what?