Posted on 06/06/2016 9:27:21 AM PDT by patriot08
Now THAT’S funny (Lincoln pic) Thanks for the laugh.
Thanks
Who is that?
Digital sucks period
I think you are right, but only in part because of the photography. Those plates were large and because of their size really did have much better resolution than digital. We are also seeing harsher lighting than today’s subjects are willing to tolerate and an absence of makeup, plus perhaps a rougher life than people today experience.
For a variety of reasons, Lincoln at age 56 had a whole lot more facial irregularities than the much older Hillary and Trump show.
It’s my cousin, more or less.
They know they can get away with it, b/c lil' joe6pack isn't going to go after deep pockets.
Here's what I learned about Fair Use:
It doesn't matter...
NONE OF THAT releases you from liability. You are violating copyright if you have not gotten express PERMISSION from the copyright holder OR are using pics that are public domain, creative commons, etc.
So what can you do?
1. If you've been using images without approval from the Internet on your blogs, know that you are probably violating copyright and could be sued for it.
Is the chance high? Probably not. Is it possible? I'm proof that it is. So you may want to consider going through your posts and delete pics that aren't yours.
2. Search for photos that are approved for use.
3. Take your own photos and share the love.
Almost all of us have camera phones these days. Instead of just taking photos of our family, think of images you could use on posts. See a stop sign. Snap a picture and save it. Whatever. And if you want to give back and not just take, open up a Flickr account (here's mine) and list your own images as creative commons so that you can share the love. (You can set it up to where whatever pic you load from you camera is under that license.)
4. Use sites like Pinterest and Tumblr with caution.
I have read way too many terms of service over the last two months. And I'm not a lawyer, so the legalspeak can be confusing, and I am NOT giving legal advice. BUT both Pinterest and Tumblr (and most other social sites) say that if you load something into their site (i.e. Pin It or Tumble it) YOU are claiming that YOU have a legal right to that picture. And if the owner of that photo comes after the company, you will be the responsible party. Yes, if that's enforced, it would seem to mean that 99% of people on Pinterest are doing something illegal. Will that ever come up? Maybe. Maybe not. But I'm leaning on the paranoid side now. I don't want to be the test case. And I don't want to pin something the owner of the photo wouldn't want pinned.
So pin your own photos, pin things from sites that have a Pin It button (but use the Pin It button with caution too. If that blogger is using pics they don't own the copyright for, you still don't have the right to pin without permission of the copyright owner.) I pin book covers and movie posters because I figure that it's advertisement for said movies or books. But other stuff? All those pretty mancandy photos? I'm going to look but not touch. This would also apply sharing pics on Facebook. Same rules apply.
And it should go without saying at this point: NEVER use Pinterest or Tumblr or Facebook or Twitter as a source for images to use on your own blog, unless you've asked for permission.
5. Assume that something is copyrighted until proven otherwise.
That's your safest bet. If you're not 100% sure it's okay to use, don't. This includes things like celebrity photos. Someone owns those. There are enough free pics out there that you don't need to risk violating someone's copyright. Source: http://www.blogher.com/bloggers-beware-you-can-get-sued-using-photos-your-blog-my-story
Anyone remember the magazine photo, published around 1970, of some man from that era who had a mole and looked like hell warmed over? The finder tried to pass it off as a photo of Lincoln before he combed his hair and cleaned up for the Brady photo session.
It was so funny some letters to the editor claimed it was Lincoln after an all night drunk and others said it was the first photo of George Washington. All in jest.
I do not remember that one.
I have family photos taken over one hundred years ago outside with Brownie type camera, and the photos are so sharp even the people in the distance can be recognized.
Digital may be OK, but the old Brownie was took far better photos, plus, when you tripped the shutter it caught the photo at that second, not two or three seconds later when everyone moves.
Wow! Who knew? Thanks for all the info
Thing is, I wish the moderator(s) would list the reason a post was pulled not just pull them without stating why.
patriot08 - I was probably the guy who posted the photos you mentioned. And for the record, I took every one of them.
As a photographer for many years, copyright issues are a common topic among us. That’s why I put a watermark on mine, there are lots of people online who will download pictures they do not own, then try to use them to make money. The watermark is to discourage this.
I also post pictured online in a small pixel size, if you try to print them larger than about the size of a playing card, they start to lose a lot of image quality. On screen, they will show up nice on your monitor at 1024x768 pixel size, printers work differently and will start to lose resolution quick at that pixel size unless you have one that can print at 100 dots per inch (DPI). Most print more like 300 DPI and up. Even though you have a good looking on screen image, it doesn’t have enough DPI in the digital image to print well. Hard to explain, but onscreen pixels and printed DPI are twp different critters.
Your monitor in wide screen format probably is 1366 pixels wide by 768 pixels tall. My camera gets 4928x3264. That’s huge, compared to what the screen size is. At 100% resolution, that equates to a 46 inch wide picture while the screen is about 15 inches wide. That would be about the equivalent of a 45 inch plate if it were a Lincoln era camera...before you figure in the size difference due to the lens.
You can see the kind of detail that is possible in some of my cropped bird shots, if I crop a section of a shot at 1024x768, you can see the detail in the individual feathers.
A more common issue is how to handle pictures of people. Originally, it was legal to take pictures of anyone in any location they did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy, like on a city street. You could use them for personal use, but not sell them. This is being challenged now and being curtailed in some cases.
What you cannot do, is sit on the street and take pictures of a person with a telephoto lens in their house, or sell their pictures (taken anywhere) without a model’s release.
The recent obsession with “selfies” is bringing up all kinds of issues. You can take an innocent selfie, get someone else in the background and post it online, you don’t have their permission, and might get into trouble, when they actually don’t have any reasonable expectation of privacy on a city street. It’s legal according to the letter of the law, but is being challenged.
A little searching online can bring up a ton of sites that offer public domain images you can use for almost any reason, and you can make simple modifications and use them for profit.
FourtySeven - Some good explanations have already been offered, but black and white photography can often also result in much more contrast than color, and can often emphasize detail in pictures, especially in faces. The lighting, sometimes natural and sometimes the early powder flash method, can make a difference too. Modern electronic flash units produce different lightwave frequencies, and even in black and white images might not produce similar detail. Most photographers prefer flash, since sunlight can be harsh at times. Early morning and late evening are preferred if natural light is to be used, or in some cases reflectors.
That said, the difference in plate size vs film size is becoming a moot point, with sensor sizes in digital cameras getting into the 20 megapixel range, we can now get the kind of resolution that can result in amazing detail. My Pentax K30, for example, gets pictures around 6MB per shot, and they can be printed at 36 inch poster size easily without losing image resolution. Try that with a 35mm negative.
You can see it in old music advertising posters, like those of Jim Morrison or Jimi Hendrix. When you look at those, you see a very grainy image. Take the same image at a low ISO level with a modern DSLR, and it could be as sharp as the 4x6 print that was originally made with the 35mm negative. Some of my above comments relate to this as well.
LMAO! Groveling should be banned as well. :-)
Most all formats earlier that 35mm used larger negatives. The Brady photo was probably taken with an 8x10 inch glass negative.
The camera my parents had when I was little (1960s) used 120 film, which is 60mm wide. This is the same size film used in the Kodak Box Brownie cameras from around the turn of the 20th Century.
Right turn, Clyde.
Thanks for all the info!
I wish I knew how to ‘watermark’ my photos.
How do you do that?
What I wanted to ask you; are you the man who posts the
‘Occasional Bird or birdy threads’? Can’t remember his handle, but he posts some absolutely spectacular bird photos.
If you are not, you might want to keep an eye out for these threads, since you’re so good with a camera and like shooting birds.
HAH!!!
Thanks. Appreciate that
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.