Random Photo thread XIX - DO NOT QUOTE PHOTOS 800PX SIZE LIMIT.

RoryW

Two photos from today and first photos in a number of months.

NORTH1

NORTH1

Kintarō Hattori

NORTH1 wrote: »

...

Oohh it's Gollum. :eek:

humberklog

pixbyjohn

keps wrote: »

I have to apologise to midnight shadow - whom i see has only 4 posts and therefore has no 'thanks' to bestow:):)

It is indeed a strange life.

Nebezpeci Mys

Dandellion Time

pixbyjohn

keps wrote: »

I see that both Pixbyjohn and Midnight Shadow have made very positive comments about HBR's fantastic photo


But neither of them have said' thanks'


Is ait an mac an saol

I have rectified that now, I apologise for confusing you :D

NORTH1

Kintarō Hattori wrote: »

Oohh it's Gollum. :eek:

White Horse's

pbt20

Kintarō Hattori

NORTH1 wrote: »

White Horse's

I had guessed it was a horse from your other photos but Gollum was more fun.

keps

[QUOTE=Kintarō Hattori;65806434


]Oohh it's Gollum. :eek:[/QUOTE]


I promise every aspect of the photo is mine - but when we saw it in France we agreed that Gollum had to be placed on the rock.

and then we had more vino

dinneenp

Michael D Higgins, who very kindly launched our photo exhibition on
Saturday. It's in Ballybane library, Galway until the end of May.
There's a selection of photos from 6 of us.



Peeping out

Heebie

So.. you re ray-traced Gollum after building your own computer models from scratch, or licensing them from the appropriate parties? =O

It sure looks like a "derivative" work to me. Gollum looks cute & pasted out of one of the LOTR films... and placed into a context very similar to where he would have come from. Peter Jackson might be cross with you.

I'm not a copyright law expert, so I have no idea if that photo would be original enough to qualify legally as a derivative work. If it does qualify as derivative work.. then it's a "fair use" and not a violation of the copyright. If it doesn't qualify.. then it could be actionable by the copyright holder. (If you're in a country where a copyright on the original work has been registered etc..)

My advice would be.. don't try & make any money off of that image.

keps wrote: »

I promise every aspect of the photo is mine - but when we saw it in France we agreed that Gollum had to be placed on the rock

keps

pixbyjohn wrote: »

It is indeed a strange life.

keps

Heebie wrote: »

So.. you re ray-traced Gollum after building your own computer models from scratch, or licensing them from the appropriate parties? =O

It sure looks like a "derivative" work to me. Gollum looks cute & pasted out of one of the LOTR films... and placed into a context very similar to where he would have come from. Peter Jackson might be cross with you.

I'm not a copyright law expert, so I have no idea if that photo would be original enough to qualify legally as a derivative work. If it does qualify as derivative work.. then it's a "fair use" and not a violation of the copyright. If it doesn't qualify.. then it could be actionable by the copyright holder. (If you're in a country where a copyright on the original work has been registered etc..)

My advice would be.. don't try & make any money off of that image.

The entire background photo was mine - I took it on a photo course in France in 2008,

I did not take the gollum photo - and freely admit to stealing it -OK

kelly1

Covey

keps wrote: »

I did not take the gollum photo - and freely admit to stealing it -OK

Well delete it then! .It's infringement of copyright and against the T&C's of boards. Why post here and put Boards.ie at risk?

It's quite easy to take photos of your own these days.

challengemaster

Covey wrote: »

It's quite easy to take photos of your own these days.

Of gollum? :pac:

Chorcai

Heebie wrote: »

So.. you re ray-traced Gollum after building your own computer models from scratch, or licensing them from the appropriate parties? =O

It sure looks like a "derivative" work to me. Gollum looks cute & pasted out of one of the LOTR films... and placed into a context very similar to where he would have come from. Peter Jackson might be cross with you.

I'm not a copyright law expert, so I have no idea if that photo would be original enough to qualify legally as a derivative work. If it does qualify as derivative work.. then it's a "fair use" and not a violation of the copyright. If it doesn't qualify.. then it could be actionable by the copyright holder. (If you're in a country where a copyright on the original work has been registered etc..)

My advice would be.. don't try & make any money off of that image.

This is just madness, PC gone way over board, if ya want to be all techy law like he could say he was using as a satirical reference, he isnt making any money from it and cited the owner/maker.

Covey wrote: »

Well delete it then! .It's infringement of copyright and against the T&C's of boards. Why post here and put Boards.ie at risk?

It's quite easy to take photos of your own these days.

The this would be as well ? http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055900584

They are using images that are copyright.

Pinch of salt lads...

zerohamster

shot a few months ago...it was freezing out there lol

The_Joker

Does your Dog bite?

Heebie

A pinch of salt doesn't help you in a lawsuit if someone takes you to task for duplicating their copyrighted works.

That photo of the dogs is actually a more clear violation of copyright, as it's pretty much just a duplicate of the original work. (which appears to be a painting.) If the painting is old enough to be in the public domain, or has been released to the public domain by the original artist (or their estate/heirs etc..) then there's no issue.. but if it hasn't then the copyright holder could come after the photographer.. and probably boards for displaying it.

At least with the photo with Gollum inserted into it isn't just a direct duplicate. (although it's similar enough to a scene in The Two Towers that some might argue the point) It MIGHT be a "derivative work" as I mentioned before. (like Andy Warhol's idiotic Campbell's Soup Can labels with the colors changed is considered to be.)

I'm not trying to be a dick.. just suggesting that it's not a good idea to go using other people's work within your own without asking permission, or at least making work that is obviously a derivative work.

The pic with Gollum inserted is definitely a cute "in joke" between friends or whatever.. but a PUBLIC display of work reproduced from one of the LOTR films becomes something else entirely.

Chorcai wrote: »

Pinch of salt lads...

NORTH1

NooSixty

harr

.

NORTH1

dinneenp wrote: »

Michael D Higgins, who very kindly launched our photo exhibition on
Saturday. It's in Ballybane library, Galway until the end of May.
There's a selection of photos from 6 of us.

[IMG]http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4002/4593136467_9553034754.jpg Peeping out[/img]

Wow, two photos of gollum in as many posts!?!

Kintarō Hattori

Heebie wrote: »

So.. you re ray-traced Gollum after building your own computer models from scratch, or licensing them from the appropriate parties? =O

...My advice would be.. don't try & make any money off of that image.

Buzz Kilington?

Xiney

ffs

a bit of a copy & paste job for fun = fair use, no doubt about it.

and I doubt keps is going to try and sell that image - no offence intended keps, it's just not something that anyone would buy really since it's just a bit of fun!

dave66

Xiney

too bad about the bottom of the seed getting cut off

breadbin

harr wrote: »

.

brave:) but worth it , its gorgeous like an angel;)

breadbin

humberklog wrote: »

is this stitched?

dave66

Xiney wrote: »

too bad about the bottom of the seed getting cut off

Yeah, pity about the tip of the seed.

It was a spur of the moment decision to try the shot, had difficulty holding the seed (used a sticky pad). Will definitely be taking the shot again, just working out how to hold the seed. Was happy with this as a starting point.

zerohamster

And just for fun my first macro attempt using a reverse ring adaprter

LJ3103

[URL="http://pix.ie/lj3103/1661810]"][/url]

Borderfox

dave66

Larger version is on my Flickr (have linked image to my Flickr)

The_Joker

harr wrote: »

.

That's a really nice pic harr

The_Joker

Heebie wrote: »

A pinch of salt doesn't help you in a lawsuit ...........................

Geez alright already

Strictly speaking a lot of photographs posted on threads could possibly have copyright or other infringement issues e.g Places, buildings, people, animals or items some people could take the high moral ground on and pursue ownership rights from a legal point of view.

For example a calf in a field or a dog on a beach that doesn't belong to the photographer and has not received permission by the owner to reproduce an image of well these could all fall into the Gollum category.

pixbyjohn

DaireQuinlan

Helios 44-2 | Ektar 100

pixbyjohn

Xiney

ahaha I love chickens so much

is that your shadow or the chicken's?

pixbyjohn

Xiney wrote: »

ahaha I love chickens so much

is that your shadow or the chicken's?

Thank you
Its the camera shadow, I used on camera flash with a 10-20 lens and the hood caused the shadow.

pixbyjohn

Xiney

aaah yeah, that makes sense.

that chicken's eye is so sharp though. nice job.

trooney

Diabhal_Glas

Bigger

bernard0368