Digital BW, The Print

AZinn@... wrote:

>>...

>>In the Piezography manual it says: "Although images print with
>>clarity at 240dpi, there will be a remarkable increase in detail if
>>you can obtain your images at 720 dpi and higher."  ...

C. David Tobie wrote:

>...
>The dpi in the Cone Driver is significantly higher than that of the
>Epson drivers ... allowing files of high resolution to produce even
>finer results. ...

My resolution tests sure do not show an advantage to the Piezo driver with
respect to the detail that can be printed.  See the scan of test prints that
had high resolution line pairs.  The image file name is "Piezo-Epson
Resolution Test.jpg."

Go to the Files section of this forum at

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/

Then follow the path to Message Related Files > 10_2001 uploads.

The bottom line is that in this test the Epson driver seems to have a bit of
an advantage in rendering sharp fine detail.  I tried this same test with
50% gray bars instead of 100% black, and it produced the same results.

I think the Piezo image quality advantage is limited to smoothness on older
quad printers.  Of course, there can be other factors at well.  The Piezo
driver seems more susceptible to microbanding, but the Epson driver needs
workflows and image adjustment curves that may be sensitive to differences
in printers and platforms.

I have the Piezo driver but prefer to use the Epson driver for most prints.
I don't see any significant image quality differences even on the 3000 in my
16x20 display prints.  The Tmax 100 grain is the limiting factor, not the
Epson driver dots (with a proper partitioning workflow).

Don't get me wrong, I think the Piezo driver has some real advantages for
some things (paper profiles, for example) and some people (beginners who
need plug & play).  But I've always had a problem with some of the
"over-the-top" representations and implications that have been made for that
system.

Paul
http://www.PaulRoark.com

> Don't get me wrong, I think the Piezo driver has some real advantages for
> some things (paper profiles, for example) and some people (beginners who
> need plug & play).  But I've always had a problem with some of the
> "over-the-top" representations and implications that have been
> made for that
> system.

Hi Paul,

I wrote an alignment utility for the Epson 3000 using the Epson printer
command language, since I was having alignment problems, and the Epson
service centers were not technically able to fix the banding, and I paid
them twice to do so, and they, nor Epson, would give me the alignment
utility that they used.  Needless to say, my printer works find now.

No where in the printer command language could I find a way to get this
printer to do 2160DPI, which, I believe, Piezo claims it works at.  I asked
in the Piezo group about this, and never got a satisfactory explanation.
Now, whether there may be some "secret commands" or something, I don't know,
but I am reasonably familiar with the mechanics of this printer, I don't
believe it can do 2160...  It's a claim that has never sat well with me.

I will say that using the standard Epson driver, in grayscale mode, the
prints are yuck...as it only uses the black ink...and when Piezo first came
out, that is what they were up against...and theirs was vastly superior.

Regards,

Austin

> >Austin,
> >
> >Knowing printer command language, you have got to be the wizard who knows
> >what the 240 dpi limiting figure I'm asking about pertains to.
> >
> >
> >thanks,
> >
> >AZ
> >Maker of Lookaround panoramic camera.
> >http://www.panoramacamera.us
> >         or
> >keyword.com lookaround
> >
> >
>
> Hey wait a minute...
>
> Could it be that the 240dpi figure had to do with the eyes resolving power
> and not anything to do with the printer? In other words below that the dot
> pattern become too noticeable for most viewers?
>
> AZ
>
> Maker of Lookaround panoramic camera.
> http://www.panoramacamera.us
>          or
> keyword.com lookaround

Hi Alan,

I have no idea what 240DPI "limiting figure" you are talking about...since
that is certainly not printer imposed...but probably dither pattern imposed.
The Epson dither pattern may in fact have a cap at 240DPI, I don't know and
haven't run any experiments (and really have no need to)...but when using
the Epson driver in grayscale, it only uses ONE ink, the black ink...and the
dither pattern would be pretty large (look like TMax 3200, coarse and chunky
;-).  I do know, for a fact, that when using the Piezo driver, I can see
differences in prints up to over 480DPI...so that "limit" isn't part of
Piezo (or the physical printer).

Regards,

Austin

At 04:04 PM 5/4/2002 -0700, you wrote:
>
>AZinn@... wrote:
>
>>>...
>
>>>In the Piezography manual it says: "Although images print with
>>>clarity at 240dpi, there will be a remarkable increase in detail if
>>>you can obtain your images at 720 dpi and higher."  ...
>
>C. David Tobie wrote:
>
>>...
>>The dpi in the Cone Driver is significantly higher than that of the
>>Epson drivers ... allowing files of high resolution to produce even
>>finer results. ...
>
>My resolution tests sure do not show an advantage to the Piezo driver with
>respect to the detail that can be printed.  See the scan of test prints that
>had high resolution line pairs.  The image file name is "Piezo-Epson
>Resolution Test.jpg."
>
>Go to the Files section of this forum at
>
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
>
>Then follow the path to Message Related Files > 10_2001 uploads.
>
>The bottom line is that in this test the Epson driver seems to have a bit of
>an advantage in rendering sharp fine detail.  I tried this same test with
>50% gray bars instead of 100% black, and it produced the same results.
>
>I think the Piezo image quality advantage is limited to smoothness on older
>quad printers.  Of course, there can be other factors at well.  The Piezo
>driver seems more susceptible to microbanding, but the Epson driver needs
>workflows and image adjustment curves that may be sensitive to differences
>in printers and platforms.
>
>I have the Piezo driver but prefer to use the Epson driver for most prints.
>I don't see any significant image quality differences even on the 3000 in my
>16x20 display prints.  The Tmax 100 grain is the limiting factor, not the
>Epson driver dots (with a proper partitioning workflow).
>
>Don't get me wrong, I think the Piezo driver has some real advantages for
>some things (paper profiles, for example) and some people (beginners who
>need plug & play).  But I've always had a problem with some of the
>"over-the-top" representations and implications that have been made for that
>system.
>
>Paul
>http://www.PaulRoark.com
>
>

Paul,

I still don't understand where the 240dpi figure comes from. I could swear
that I read it was some bottom parameter to do with either the way the Epson
handles data or some darn thing.

thanks,

AZ
Maker of Lookaround panoramic camera.
http://www.panoramacamera.us
         or
keyword.com lookaround

At 10:03 PM 5/4/2002 -0400, you wrote:
>> Don't get me wrong, I think the Piezo driver has some real advantages for
>> some things (paper profiles, for example) and some people (beginners who
>> need plug & play).  But I've always had a problem with some of the
>> "over-the-top" representations and implications that have been
>> made for that
>> system.
>
>Hi Paul,
>
>I wrote an alignment utility for the Epson 3000 using the Epson printer
>command language, since I was having alignment problems, and the Epson
>service centers were not technically able to fix the banding, and I paid
>them twice to do so, and they, nor Epson, would give me the alignment
>utility that they used.  Needless to say, my printer works find now.
>
>No where in the printer command language could I find a way to get this
>printer to do 2160DPI, which, I believe, Piezo claims it works at.  I asked
>in the Piezo group about this, and never got a satisfactory explanation.
>Now, whether there may be some "secret commands" or something, I don't know,
>but I am reasonably familiar with the mechanics of this printer, I don't
>believe it can do 2160...  It's a claim that has never sat well with me.
>
>I will say that using the standard Epson driver, in grayscale mode, the
>prints are yuck...as it only uses the black ink...and when Piezo first came
>out, that is what they were up against...and theirs was vastly superior.
>
>Regards,
>
>Austin
>
>

Austin,

Knowing printer command language, you have got to be the wizard who knows
what the 240 dpi limiting figure I'm asking about pertains to. 


thanks,

AZ
Maker of Lookaround panoramic camera.
http://www.panoramacamera.us
         or
keyword.com lookaround

At 09:12 AM 5/5/2002 -0700, you wrote:
>At 10:03 PM 5/4/2002 -0400, you wrote:
>>> Don't get me wrong, I think the Piezo driver has some real advantages for
>>> some things (paper profiles, for example) and some people (beginners who
>>> need plug & play).  But I've always had a problem with some of the
>>> "over-the-top" representations and implications that have been
>>> made for that
>>> system.
>>
>>Hi Paul,
>>
>>I wrote an alignment utility for the Epson 3000 using the Epson printer
>>command language, since I was having alignment problems, and the Epson
>>service centers were not technically able to fix the banding, and I paid
>>them twice to do so, and they, nor Epson, would give me the alignment
>>utility that they used.  Needless to say, my printer works find now.
>>
>>No where in the printer command language could I find a way to get this
>>printer to do 2160DPI, which, I believe, Piezo claims it works at.  I asked
>>in the Piezo group about this, and never got a satisfactory explanation.
>>Now, whether there may be some "secret commands" or something, I don't know,
>>but I am reasonably familiar with the mechanics of this printer, I don't
>>believe it can do 2160...  It's a claim that has never sat well with me.
>>
>>I will say that using the standard Epson driver, in grayscale mode, the
>>prints are yuck...as it only uses the black ink...and when Piezo first came
>>out, that is what they were up against...and theirs was vastly superior.
>>
>>Regards,
>>
>>Austin
>>
>>
>
>Austin,
>
>Knowing printer command language, you have got to be the wizard who knows
>what the 240 dpi limiting figure I'm asking about pertains to. 
>
>
>thanks,
>
>AZ
>Maker of Lookaround panoramic camera.
>http://www.panoramacamera.us
>         or
>keyword.com lookaround
>
>

Hey wait a minute...

Could it be that the 240dpi figure had to do with the eyes resolving power
and not anything to do with the printer? In other words below that the dot
pattern become too noticeable for most viewers? 

AZ

Maker of Lookaround panoramic camera.
http://www.panoramacamera.us
         or
keyword.com lookaround

Alan-

I think these discussions about print resolution get confused by 
interchangeably using the xxxdpi term to include the IMAGE resolution 
as well as the PRINTER resolution.

There is a lingering group that still believes you should save your 
print at some dpi setting that is divisible into the resolution at 
which you will print for optimum output (Austin or Paul might comment 
on this). An example would be to save the image at 180 or 360 dpi if 
you were printing at 720 or 1440. The PRINT dpi measures the actual 
number of dots that CAN be sprayed per inch by the printer (new 
variable dot printers might spray less if the color warrants it).

It is my belief (subject to correction by my betters) that the old 
theory of divisibility has been debunked. I generally save at 300 dpi 
for everything. I've tried larger numbers but can't see the 
difference and the image files start getting HUGE.

Tom O'Connell

TomOC@...
www.thomasoconnell.com



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Paul Roark" 
<paul.roark@v...> wrote:
> 
> AZinn@n... wrote:
> 
> >>...
> 
> >>In the Piezography manual it says: "Although images print with
> >>clarity at 240dpi, there will be a remarkable increase in detail 
if
> >>you can obtain your images at 720 dpi and higher."  ...
> 
> C. David Tobie wrote:
> 
> >...
> >The dpi in the Cone Driver is significantly higher than that of the
> >Epson drivers ... allowing files of high resolution to produce even
> >finer results. ...
> 
> My resolution tests sure do not show an advantage to the Piezo 
driver with
> respect to the detail that can be printed.  See the scan of test 
prints that
> had high resolution line pairs.  The image file name is "Piezo-Epson
> Resolution Test.jpg."
> 
> Go to the Files section of this forum at
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
> 
> Then follow the path to Message Related Files > 10_2001 uploads.
> 
> The bottom line is that in this test the Epson driver seems to have 
a bit of
> an advantage in rendering sharp fine detail.  I tried this same 
test with
> 50% gray bars instead of 100% black, and it produced the same 
results.
> 
> I think the Piezo image quality advantage is limited to smoothness 
on older
> quad printers.  Of course, there can be other factors at well.  The 
Piezo
> driver seems more susceptible to microbanding, but the Epson driver 
needs
> workflows and image adjustment curves that may be sensitive to 
differences
> in printers and platforms.
> 
> I have the Piezo driver but prefer to use the Epson driver for most 
prints.
> I don't see any significant image quality differences even on the 
3000 in my
> 16x20 display prints.  The Tmax 100 grain is the limiting factor, 
not the
> Epson driver dots (with a proper partitioning workflow).
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I think the Piezo driver has some real 
advantages for
> some things (paper profiles, for example) and some people 
(beginners who
> need plug & play).  But I've always had a problem with some of the
> "over-the-top" representations and implications that have been made 
for that

> system.
> 
> Paul
> http://www.PaulRoark.com

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Paul Roark" 
<paul.roark@v...> wrote:
> 
> AZinn@n... wrote:
> 
> >>...
> 
> >>In the Piezography manual it says: "Although images print with
> >>clarity at 240dpi, there will be a remarkable increase in detail 
if
> >>you can obtain your images at 720 dpi and higher."  ...
> 
> C. David Tobie wrote:
> 
> >...
> >The dpi in the Cone Driver is significantly higher than that of the
> >Epson drivers ... allowing files of high resolution to produce even
> >finer results. ...
> 
> My resolution tests sure do not show an advantage to the Piezo 
driver with
> respect to the detail that can be printed.  See the scan of test 
prints that
> had high resolution line pairs.  The image file name is "Piezo-Epson
> Resolution Test.jpg."
> 
> Go to the Files section of this forum at
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
> 
> Then follow the path to Message Related Files > 10_2001 uploads.
> 
> The bottom line is that in this test the Epson driver seems to have 
a bit of
> an advantage in rendering sharp fine detail.  I tried this same 
test with
> 50% gray bars instead of 100% black, and it produced the same 
results.
> 
> I think the Piezo image quality advantage is limited to smoothness 
on older
> quad printers.  Of course, there can be other factors at well.  The 
Piezo
> driver seems more susceptible to microbanding, but the Epson driver 
needs
> workflows and image adjustment curves that may be sensitive to 
differences
> in printers and platforms.
> 
> I have the Piezo driver but prefer to use the Epson driver for most 
prints.
> I don't see any significant image quality differences even on the 
3000 in my
> 16x20 display prints.  The Tmax 100 grain is the limiting factor, 
not the
> Epson driver dots (with a proper partitioning workflow).
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I think the Piezo driver has some real 
advantages for
> some things (paper profiles, for example) and some people 
(beginners who
> need plug & play).  But I've always had a problem with some of the
> "over-the-top" representations and implications that have been made 
for that

> system.
> 
> Paul
> http://www.PaulRoark.com

In a message dated 5/4/02 7:07:54 PM, paul.roark@... writes:

>I think the Piezo image quality advantage is limited to smoothness on older
>quad printers.  


Could be; my testing has been with the 3000, where the Piezo driver outshines 
the Epson driver, or even full function RIPs.

C. David Tobie
Design Cooperative
CDTobie@...

In a message dated 5/4/02 10:06:18 PM, darkroom@... writes:

>No where in the printer command language could I find a way to get this
>printer to do 2160DPI, which, I believe, Piezo claims it works at.  I asked
>in the Piezo group about this, and never got a satisfactory explanation.
>Now, whether there may be some "secret commands" or something, I don't
>know,
>but I am reasonably familiar with the mechanics of this printer, I don't
>believe it can do 2160...  It's a claim that has never sat well with me.

This is connected with Paul's inability to find increased resolution on a 
line test; a line test is black and white only, while the advantages in the 
Piezo driver are based on using all the color heads to print shades of gray. 
This allows more grays, more smoothness, more info, but not more black and 
white line pairs. As the Epson printers print smaller and smaller dots, this 
advantage shows less and less, which is why the 3000 and 7000 are the 
ultimate models for taking advantage of the Peizo drivers.

C. David Tobie
Design Cooperative
CDTobie@...

At 10:01 AM 5/5/2002 -0400, you wrote:
>> >Austin,
>> >
>> >Knowing printer command language, you have got to be the wizard who knows
>> >what the 240 dpi limiting figure I'm asking about pertains to.
>> >
>> >
>> >thanks,
>> >
>> >AZ
>> >Maker of Lookaround panoramic camera.
>> >http://www.panoramacamera.us
>> >         or
>> >keyword.com lookaround
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Hey wait a minute...
>>
>> Could it be that the 240dpi figure had to do with the eyes resolving power
>> and not anything to do with the printer? In other words below that the dot
>> pattern become too noticeable for most viewers?
>>
>> AZ
>>
>> Maker of Lookaround panoramic camera.
>> http://www.panoramacamera.us
>>          or
>> keyword.com lookaround
>
>Hi Alan,
>
>I have no idea what 240DPI "limiting figure" you are talking about...since
>that is certainly not printer imposed...but probably dither pattern imposed.
>The Epson dither pattern may in fact have a cap at 240DPI, I don't know and
>haven't run any experiments (and really have no need to)...but when using
>the Epson driver in grayscale, it only uses ONE ink, the black ink...and the
>dither pattern would be pretty large (look like TMax 3200, coarse and chunky
>;-).  I do know, for a fact, that when using the Piezo driver, I can see
>differences in prints up to over 480DPI...so that "limit" isn't part of
>Piezo (or the physical printer).
>
>Regards,
>
>Austin
>


Austin,

I found this on the Piezo "knowledge base" pages:

"5 - So what is the optimal resolution?  I can say that 72 DPI is way too
few.  We sort of drew a line in the sand and said that minimum is 240 DPI."  

Must be where I saw it first although I have seen the same number mentioned
in other discussions - probably based on the same source.

My next question is whether the 240dpi line in the sand is a general rule
that applies to other drivers???  Where I am going with this is to find a
general printing/scanning work flow recommendation for lower rez scanners.
Something like: 
"scan at the maximum optical resolution so that your output at whatever size
is 240dpi or better without interpolation."  I'll have to explain that the
240 figure is arbitrary but based on practice.


AZ
  
Maker of Lookaround panoramic camera.
http://www.panoramacamera.us
         or
keyword.com lookaround

At 05:20 PM 5/5/2002 -0000, you wrote:
>Alan-
>
>I think these discussions about print resolution get confused by 
>interchangeably using the xxxdpi term to include the IMAGE resolution 
>as well as the PRINTER resolution.
>
>There is a lingering group that still believes you should save your 
>print at some dpi setting that is divisible into the resolution at 
>which you will print for optimum output (Austin or Paul might comment 
>on this). An example would be to save the image at 180 or 360 dpi if 
>you were printing at 720 or 1440. The PRINT dpi measures the actual 
>number of dots that CAN be sprayed per inch by the printer (new 
>variable dot printers might spray less if the color warrants it).
>
>It is my belief (subject to correction by my betters) that the old 
>theory of divisibility has been debunked. I generally save at 300 dpi 
>for everything. I've tried larger numbers but can't see the 
>difference and the image files start getting HUGE.
>
>Tom O'Connell
>
>TomOC@...
>www.thomasoconnell.com
>

Tom,

I think you may be correct.  I scan 1:1 at my scanner's highest effective
optical rez, save that then output to a size that scales without
interpolation - usually around 300DPI which gives me an image height of
around 7-8 inches from a 1800DPI scan. The piezo people mention that any
odd-ball DPI conversion size makes no difference to their system. They say
also, given their druthers, 740DPI would be an excellent top output limit. 

AZ



Maker of Lookaround panoramic camera.
http://www.panoramacamera.us
         or
keyword.com lookaround

> >No where in the printer command language could I find a way to get this
> >printer to do 2160DPI, which, I believe, Piezo claims it works
> at.  I asked
> >in the Piezo group about this, and never got a satisfactory explanation.
> >Now, whether there may be some "secret commands" or something, I don't
> >know,
> >but I am reasonably familiar with the mechanics of this printer, I don't
> >believe it can do 2160...  It's a claim that has never sat well with me.
>
> This is connected with Paul's inability to find increased resolution on a
> line test; a line test is black and white only, while the
> advantages in the
> Piezo driver are based on using all the color heads to print
> shades of gray.
> This allows more grays, more smoothness, more info, but not more
> black and
> white line pairs. As the Epson printers print smaller and smaller
> dots, this
> advantage shows less and less, which is why the 3000 and 7000 are the
> ultimate models for taking advantage of the Peizo drivers.

Hi CD,

I do not see how they are connected.  The print head mechanics and carriage
mechanics are what controls this...and mechanically, I do not find a way to
do 2160...no matter what inks you use.

Why do you believe the are connected?

Regards,

Austin

> It is my belief (subject to correction by my betters) that the old
> theory of divisibility has been debunked.

Hi Tom,

You are right, it has been debunked for Epson printers at least.

The best results you can achieve are to scan at optical resolution, and
resize the image without interpolating/decimating, and providing the output
PPI to the printer is 240 or greater (and 180 or greater for large prints),
you're going to get the best/most accurate print you can achieve from that
scan.

Regards,

Austin

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Austin Franklin" 
<darkroom@i...> wrote:
> > >No where in the printer command language could I find a 
way to get this
> > >printer to do 2160DPI, which, I believe, Piezo claims it works
> > at.  I asked
> > >in the Piezo group about this, and never got a satisfactory 
explanation.
> > >Now, whether there may be some "secret commands" or 
something, I don't
> > >know,
> > >but I am reasonably familiar with the mechanics of this 
printer, I don't
> > >believe it can do 2160...  It's a claim that has never sat well 
with me.
> >
> > This is connected with Paul's inability to find increased 
resolution on a
> > line test; a line test is black and white only, while the
> > advantages in the
> > Piezo driver are based on using all the color heads to print
> > shades of gray.
> > This allows more grays, more smoothness, more info, but 
not more
> > black and
> > white line pairs. As the Epson printers print smaller and 
smaller
> > dots, this
> > advantage shows less and less, which is why the 3000 and 
7000 are the
> > ultimate models for taking advantage of the Peizo drivers.
> 
> Hi CD,
> 
> I do not see how they are connected.  The print head 
mechanics and carriage
> mechanics are what controls this...and mechanically, I do not 
find a way to
> do 2160...no matter what inks you use.
> 
> Why do you believe the are connected?
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Austin

I entirely agree that there's no way for the Piezo driver to make 
the printer move in a way that it wasn't designed to do.
I've always viewed the 2160dpi number as martketing hype
that loosely translates to "the piezo driver because of the fact
that there are 4 gray inks prints a grayscale image as if the 
printer were capable of the higher 2160dpi"  

Now that epson has printers printing at 2880x720 and we can
also take advantage of multiple grays using the epson driver
most of the Piezo vs Epson Driver comparisons are pretty
hard to differentiate.

Roy

In a message dated 5/5/02 9:27:48 PM, darkroom@... writes:

>I do not see how they are connected.  The print head mechanics and carriage
>mechanics are what controls this...and mechanically, I do not find a way
>to
>do 2160...no matter what inks you use.
>
>Why do you believe the are connected?

Depends on whether your definition of resolution is based on the number of 
black only dots that can be placed in a straight line, or the number of grays 
that can be mixed for a given area... a contone printer at 300 dpi offers a 
lot more "resolution" for eight bit per channel images than an on-off printer 
like an inkjet at 720 (which is Epson's one bit resolution), even if the 720 
printer offers slightly sharper text, which is defined by the one bit 
resolution. Epson's advanced resolution numbers are similarly only obtainable 
as extra dithering levels, not actual black and white resolution.

C. David Tobie
Design Cooperative
CDTobie@...

Hi Roy,

> I entirely agree that there's no way for the Piezo driver to make
> the printer move in a way that it wasn't designed to do.

That's what I believe, but it was alluded to that there was some "secret
command set" that would somehow make it do this...and since I don't have
access to the lever II documentation, it's hard to dispute...except for the
fact that the hard specs for the printheads are in the Epson 3000 Service
Manual...and again, no physically possible way to get more than 1440 is
apparent.

Regards,

Austin

In a message dated 5/6/02 2:08:53 AM, roy@... writes:

>I entirely agree that there's no way for the Piezo driver to make 
>the printer move in a way that it wasn't designed to do.
>I've always viewed the 2160dpi number as martketing hype
>that loosely translates to "the piezo driver because of the fact
>that there are 4 gray inks prints a grayscale image as if the 
>printer were capable of the higher 2160dpi" 

As long as you view Epson's 2880 claims in approxomately the same light, then 
we are in agreement.. 
 
>
>Now that epson has printers printing at 2880x720 and we can
>also take advantage of multiple grays using the epson driver
>most of the Piezo vs Epson Driver comparisons are pretty
>hard to differentiate.
>
I've felt that the new Epson "duo-tone" black capabilities would put a big 
crimp in the entire quadtone/smallgamut market from the first time I saw 
them... I just couldn't comment on the fact until recently.

C. David Tobie
Design Cooperative
CDTobie@...

Hi everyone:

This is just an experience that I have had so take from it what you 
will. My wife wanted some Weston veggie pictures for our kitchen. I 
didn't want to put my real Cole-Edward "China Cove" in the kitchen so 
I searched Google for some Weston favorites. Found Pepper No. 30, the 
Cabbage leaves, the halved Artichoke and a few others. I found the 
largest (pixel size) and best contrast and detail images I could 
find. All save one were 400 pixels or less on the long dimension. I 
was able to find a full size Pepper No 30 @ 72 dpi. After playing 
with various sharpening techniques and the levels a little I printed 
them out on Piezo at 4x5" or close to it. I have to tell you that 
these little web snips look beautiful on Piezo and Archival Matte 
paper. Now they adorn our kitchen.

Rich
www.rcodaphotography.com

Rich

That's some pretty illegal stuff you're up to there. I wouldn't advertise it
so much if I were you.

Todd Flashner

> Hi everyone:
> 
> This is just an experience that I have had so take from it what you
> will. My wife wanted some Weston veggie pictures for our kitchen. I
> didn't want to put my real Cole-Edward "China Cove" in the kitchen so
> I searched Google for some Weston favorites. Found Pepper No. 30, the
> Cabbage leaves, the halved Artichoke and a few others. I found the
> largest (pixel size) and best contrast and detail images I could
> find. All save one were 400 pixels or less on the long dimension. I
> was able to find a full size Pepper No 30 @ 72 dpi. After playing
> with various sharpening techniques and the levels a little I printed
> them out on Piezo at 4x5" or close to it. I have to tell you that
> these little web snips look beautiful on Piezo and Archival Matte
> paper. Now they adorn our kitchen.
> 
> Rich
> www.rcodaphotography.com

On 5/6/02 6:32 AM, "CDTobie@..." <CDTobie@...> wrote:

> I've felt that the new Epson "duo-tone" black capabilities would put a big
> crimp in the entire quadtone/smallgamut market from the first time I saw
> them... I just couldn't comment on the fact until recently.

Have you actually seen sample prints with the new technology (7600/9600)?  I
was just speaking with someone this weekend that has been using the new
printers for a month.  He also uses quad ink sets on similar class
(7000/9000) machines.  He suggested that the new epson printers do a better
job than the old ones making BW images with color inks...but that the quad
prints were still far superior for critical BW work.  I haven't seen
prints...but I'm hoping to spend an afternoon with one of the printers soon.
Anyone have any direct experience making BW's with the new printers?

Robert

Jon Cone has told us that his system prints at 2160 dpi. That is the
only place I have ever heard this number mentioned. I doubt if the
printer really prints at this level of sharpness.

Jerry



Austin Franklin wrote:

> 
> > >No where in the printer command language could I find a way to get this
> > >printer to do 2160DPI, which, I believe, Piezo claims it works
> > at.  I asked
> > >in the Piezo group about this, and never got a satisfactory explanation.
> > >Now, whether there may be some "secret commands" or something, I don't
> > >know,
> > >but I am reasonably familiar with the mechanics of this printer, I don't
> > >believe it can do 2160...  It's a claim that has never sat well with me.
> >
> > This is connected with Paul's inability to find increased resolution on a
> > line test; a line test is black and white only, while the
> > advantages in the
> > Piezo driver are based on using all the color heads to print
> > shades of gray.
> > This allows more grays, more smoothness, more info, but not more
> > black and
> > white line pairs. As the Epson printers print smaller and smaller
> > dots, this
> > advantage shows less and less, which is why the 3000 and 7000 are the
> > ultimate models for taking advantage of the Peizo drivers.
> 
> Hi CD,
> 
> I do not see how they are connected.  The print head mechanics and carriage
> mechanics are what controls this...and mechanically, I do not find a way to
> do 2160...no matter what inks you use.
> 
> Why do you believe the are connected?
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Austin
> 
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various resources on the homepage.
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Hi Todd:

I don't believe it's illegal unless I try to sell them or even give 
them away. I'm just putting them up in my kitchen. It's no different 
than if I took my Edward Weston: 50 Years signed, slipcased 
monograph, and cut out those pictures to frame them. I've seen people 
do it with Ansel Adams calendars. As long as it's for your personal 
enjoyment and you are not depriving anyone of any income, it's not 
illegal.

I was just trying to make a point that even with low quality scans 
you can achieve a decent print (if you know what you're doing, of 
course).

Rich

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Todd Flashner <tflash@e...> 
wrote:
> Rich
> 
> That's some pretty illegal stuff you're up to there. I wouldn't 
advertise it

> so much if I were you.
> 
> Todd Flashner
>

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., CDTobie@a... wrote:
> 
> In a message dated 5/6/02 2:08:53 AM, roy@h... writes:
> 
> >I entirely agree that there's no way for the Piezo driver to make 
> >the printer move in a way that it wasn't designed to do.
> >I've always viewed the 2160dpi number as martketing hype
> >that loosely translates to "the piezo driver because of the fact
> >that there are 4 gray inks prints a grayscale image as if the 
> >printer were capable of the higher 2160dpi" 
> 
> As long as you view Epson's 2880 claims in approxomately the 
same light, then 
> we are in agreement.. 
> 
> C. David Tobie
> Design Cooperative
> CDTobie@d...

I haven't any inside knowledge of Piezo or Epson so I can only
read the claims that they both make.  No doubt there's 
marketing hype throughout the high tech business.  For this
case though at least Epson is making a claim about their own
printer hardware.  It's probably worthwhile taking all claims with
a grain of salt -- i.e. the 2880 printer isn't twice as good as a
1440 printer but that's because there are other factors beside
the dpi of the printer.  

The Piezo claim seems to me to be quite different.  They claim
that they make the printer hardware do something (2160dpi)
that the manufacturer of the hardware (Epson) doesn't claim
is possible.  If the Epson 3000 printer was capable of 2160dpi
why has Epson always stated in their specs that it is a 1440dpi
printer?

Here's a couple of other interesting claims on Piezo's website:
See the following for the whole paragraph:  
http://www.inkjetmall.com/store/piezography-comparisons.html

What does this mean? 
"It (Piezography) renders more than 1000 gray values in 8-bit 
mode."
8-bit = 256 levels so where do the 1000 grays come from?

What about this one?
Unlike EPSON drivers which interpolate at 1440 and 2880, the 
Piezography™BW driver delivers true optical resolution!
I just don't see this as having any real technical meaning.
Its just marketing words -- and thats OK.  But when numbers
creep into the marketing language putting precise technical
meaning to them is suspect.

Roy

"rcoda" <rcoda@...> writes:

> Hi Todd:
> 
> I don't believe it's illegal unless I try to sell them or even give 
> them away. I'm just putting them up in my kitchen. It's no different 
> than if I took my Edward Weston: 50 Years signed, slipcased 
> monograph, and cut out those pictures to frame them. I've seen people 
> do it with Ansel Adams calendars. As long as it's for your personal 
> enjoyment and you are not depriving anyone of any income, it's not 
> illegal.

I *strongly* suggest you consult a lawyer before doing anything
important based on your current understanding of copyright.  Or at
least look at http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html . 

You're certainly right that you can cut up a book or calendar that you
already legally own and frame the pictures and hang them on your
walls; no question about that.

The case of printing the images from the web is not so clear.  It
*might* fit fair use somehow.

And your assertion that "personal enjoyment" and "not depriving anyone
of income" make it legal is *incorrect*.

In my unofficial and untrained opinion.
-- 
David Dyer-Bennet, dd-b@...  /  Ghugle: the Fannish Ghod of Queries
 John Dyer-Bennet 1915-2002 Memorial Site http://john.dyer-bennet.net
        Book log: http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/Ouroboros/booknotes/
                 Photos: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/

I can't believe you really believe this.

> Hi Todd:
> 
> I don't believe it's illegal unless I try to sell them or even give
> them away. 
This is wrong. It is illegal to use a copyright image for _any_ purpose
without the copyright owner's permission.  The only possible way this could
be legal is if you used the small image as part of a larger 'original work'
where the small image did not form a material or recognizable part.

> I'm just putting them up in my kitchen. It's no different
> than if I took my Edward Weston: 50 Years signed, slipcased
> monograph, and cut out those pictures to frame them.

The only way this is the same is if you stole the material you then cut up.

> I've seen people do it with Ansel Adams calendars.
> As long as it's for yourpersonal enjoyment and you are not depriving
> anyone of any income, it's not illegal.

You are depriving people of income by using their images without paying for
them. If you really believe this then I assume I am free to plaster my home
with the best quality reproductions I can achieve from the images you post
on your web site. 
  
> I was just trying to make a point that even with low quality scans
> you can achieve a decent print (if you know what you're doing, of
> course).
I understand.

> 
> Rich
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Todd Flashner <tflash@e...>
> wrote:
>> Rich
>> 
>> That's some pretty illegal stuff you're up to there. I wouldn't
> advertise it
>> so much if I were you.
>> 
>> Todd Flashner
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other
> resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
> them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
> resources on the homepage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> 
> 
>

Copywrite laws are complex at best, some say convoluted.  While it is 
technically illegal to even copy a page out of a book, it is recognized 
that it is not in violation of copywriter laws if this is done for 
personal use, say a student doing a paper, a graduate student 
researching his thesis, etc.

There is also the issue of age of the item being protected. Copywriter 
protection does not last forever. At some points an item - be it a song, 
a play, etc., enters "public domain" where it belongs to the public. I 
believe 50 to 75  years is the limit to copywrites (depending on what 
the item is). There was a push last year to overhaul the copyright laws, 
but I am not sure what happened to that.

So depending on a lot of particulars, there may or may not be an issue 
of using these images for personal reasons based on copywrite laws. I am 
not saying it's the "proper" thing to do, but it is not necessarily in 
violation of copywrite since they may have expired.

Truman

Kevin Gulstene wrote:

> I can't believe you really believe this.
>
> > Hi Todd:
> >
> > I don't believe it's illegal unless I try to sell them or even give
> > them away.
> This is wrong. It is illegal to use a copyright image for _any_ purpose
> without the copyright owner's permission.  The only possible way this 
> could
> be legal is if you used the small image as part of a larger 'original 
> work'
> where the small image did not form a material or recognizable part.
>
> > I'm just putting them up in my kitchen. It's no different
> > than if I took my Edward Weston: 50 Years signed, slipcased
> > monograph, and cut out those pictures to frame them.
>
> The only way this is the same is if you stole the material you then 
> cut up.
>
> > I've seen people do it with Ansel Adams calendars.
> > As long as it's for yourpersonal enjoyment and you are not depriving
> > anyone of any income, it's not illegal.
>
> You are depriving people of income by using their images without 
> paying for
> them. If you really believe this then I assume I am free to plaster my 
> home
> with the best quality reproductions I can achieve from the images you post
> on your web site.
>  
> > I was just trying to make a point that even with low quality scans
> > you can achieve a decent print (if you know what you're doing, of
> > course).
> I understand.
> >
> > Rich
> >
> > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Todd Flashner <tflash@e...>
> > wrote:
> >> Rich
> >>
> >> That's some pretty illegal stuff you're up to there. I wouldn't
> > advertise it
> >> so much if I were you.
> >>
> >> Todd Flashner
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls 
> and other
> > resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
> >
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> >
> > Please follow these basic guidelines:
> > - Include your full name with your message.
> > - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> > - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages 
> to keep
> > them short.
> > - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject 
> header.
> > - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or 
> "flames."
> > - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> > - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
> > resources on the homepage.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to 
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> ADVERTISEMENT
> [Click Here!] 
> <http://rd.yahoo.com/M=194081.2021092.3499911.1829184/D=egroupweb/S=1705019182:HM/A=1036972/R=0/*http://www.ediets.com/start.cfm?code=3466> 
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls 
> and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to 
> keep them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the 
> various resources on the homepage.
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service 
> <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

>> I don't believe it's illegal unless I try to sell them or even give
>> them away. 
> This is wrong. It is illegal to use a copyright image for _any_ purpose
> without the copyright owner's permission.

Copyright or not, it is certainly theft. How can you not recognize that.


>> I've seen people do it with Ansel Adams calendars.
>> As long as it's for yourpersonal enjoyment and you are not depriving
>> anyone of any income, it's not illegal.

Those people paid for the calendars. No comparison.

Carolyn

hmm .. i think that if someone takes a 640x480 image from the web --
manipulates it, and prints it .. (to hang on their refrigerator) -- they
willl get a print that is far below in quality from something that the
original photographer might be selling

.. the kind of person that would print a low-res scan .. would not have
otherwise bought the print from the photographer -- so i dont see where the
income is lost (he was never part of the market) ..

.. if someone wants to enjoy a low-res, low quality print of one of my
photographs -- more power to them ..

from  a 640x480  image -- at best you could make a 2x3 printout -- and you
would also suffer from artifacts fromt he jpg compression... etc..

i've even posted 800x600 images -- which could print 4x3 -- (with the same
problems of jpg compression) ..

.. the prints i'd like to sell are framed up to 16x20 -- the print itself is
the range of 11x14 ...  quite a different product than a 2x3 or 4x3 print ..
(and much better sharpness, tonal range, etc)

-- ricardo




----- Original Message -----
From: "Kevin Gulstene" <kevin@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, May 06, 2002 11:41 AM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Image theft


> I can't believe you really believe this.
>
> > Hi Todd:
> >
> > I don't believe it's illegal unless I try to sell them or even give
> > them away.
> This is wrong. It is illegal to use a copyright image for _any_ purpose
> without the copyright owner's permission.  The only possible way this
could
> be legal is if you used the small image as part of a larger 'original
work'
> where the small image did not form a material or recognizable part.
>
> > I'm just putting them up in my kitchen. It's no different
> > than if I took my Edward Weston: 50 Years signed, slipcased
> > monograph, and cut out those pictures to frame them.
>
> The only way this is the same is if you stole the material you then cut
up.
>
> > I've seen people do it with Ansel Adams calendars.
> > As long as it's for yourpersonal enjoyment and you are not depriving
> > anyone of any income, it's not illegal.
>
> You are depriving people of income by using their images without paying
for
> them. If you really believe this then I assume I am free to plaster my
home
> with the best quality reproductions I can achieve from the images you post
> on your web site.
>
> > I was just trying to make a point that even with low quality scans
> > you can achieve a decent print (if you know what you're doing, of
> > course).
> I understand.
> >
> > Rich
> >
> > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Todd Flashner <tflash@e...>
> > wrote:
> >> Rich
> >>
> >> That's some pretty illegal stuff you're up to there. I wouldn't
> > advertise it
> >> so much if I were you.
> >>
> >> Todd Flashner
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
other
> > resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
> >
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> >
> > Please follow these basic guidelines:
> > - Include your full name with your message.
> > - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> > - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to
keep
> > them short.
> > - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject
header.
> > - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
"flames."
> > - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> > - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
> > resources on the homepage.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage.

>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

Kevin,

> I can't believe you really believe this.

Now hold on, Kevin.  This is hardly a serious violation (if really at all)
that you need to get all "puffed up" about here, and ESPECIALLY for you to
make a direct claim of image theft is entirely inappropriate.

From this web page:

http://www.benedict.com/info/fairUse/fairUse.asp

"In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a
fair use the factors to be considered shall include -

1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a
commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the
copyrighted work as a whole; and

4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the
copyrighted work."

Obviously, 1) it is non-commercial in nature, 2) yes, it is copyrighted, 3)
I would say this work stands on it's own as a copyrighted piece, and 4)
pretty much zero, and not worth a note really...especially, since the person
owns a copy of this work in the first place, and this could be considered
the same as making a cassette compilation from a bunch of CDs that you own.

I, personally, see nothing wrong with making a copy of a work that I own (as
in an image in a book, or a song on a CD) and scanning and printing it for
display on my kitchen.  This is entirely different than borrowing or
stealing a copy of a book and making a copy of it.

Obviously, taking someone's image that you just find on the web, and
reproducing it for display, except as noted for fair use, is a copyright
violation, and I believe is entirely different than the case here.  Yes, I
know that he didn't scan in the image from his book...but I do not believe
that mitigates fair use in this case.

Austin

You make some good points, and reproducing a web image for your kitchen is a
small transgression but:

1. Presumably you would not want someone to attribute the crappy little
image to you as an example of your work (inadvertently or not) without being
sure the full context of its reproduction was included (e.g. Oh that, well
yes, that is an example of Ricardo Lagos' work ...)

2.  It is a slippery slope.  Where do you draw the line. If you could create
a 5x7 from your 800x600 is that ok?  What if someone came across a 1024x768?
What if they scanned in a print that was hanging in a friend's house.  It
may not be as good as the original but is that appropriate.

3.  Even if there is no 'real' harm,  isn't there a principle here as well.
If you enjoy an image enough to frame it and hang it in your house shouldn't
you pay for it?

Perhaps I'm was a little over the top.  Each person is going to have their
own view.  It's one of my hot buttons.

Kevin Gulstene

On 5/6/02 12:16 PM, "Ricardo Lagos" <ricardo@...> wrote:

> hmm .. i think that if someone takes a 640x480 image from the web --
> manipulates it, and prints it .. (to hang on their refrigerator) -- they
> willl get a print that is far below in quality from something that the
> original photographer might be selling
> 
> .. the kind of person that would print a low-res scan .. would not have
> otherwise bought the print from the photographer -- so i dont see where the
> income is lost (he was never part of the market) ..
> 
> .. if someone wants to enjoy a low-res, low quality print of one of my
> photographs -- more power to them ..
> 
> from  a 640x480  image -- at best you could make a 2x3 printout -- and you
> would also suffer from artifacts fromt he jpg compression... etc..
> 
> i've even posted 800x600 images -- which could print 4x3 -- (with the same
> problems of jpg compression) ..
> 
> .. the prints i'd like to sell are framed up to 16x20 -- the print itself is
> the range of 11x14 ...  quite a different product than a 2x3 or 4x3 print ..
> (and much better sharpness, tonal range, etc)
> 
> -- ricardo
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Kevin Gulstene" <kevin@...>
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Monday, May 06, 2002 11:41 AM
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Image theft
> 
> 
>> I can't believe you really believe this.
>> 
>>> Hi Todd:
>>> 
>>> I don't believe it's illegal unless I try to sell them or even give
>>> them away.
>> This is wrong. It is illegal to use a copyright image for _any_ purpose
>> without the copyright owner's permission.  The only possible way this
> could
>> be legal is if you used the small image as part of a larger 'original
> work'
>> where the small image did not form a material or recognizable part.
>> 
>>> I'm just putting them up in my kitchen. It's no different
>>> than if I took my Edward Weston: 50 Years signed, slipcased
>>> monograph, and cut out those pictures to frame them.
>> 
>> The only way this is the same is if you stole the material you then cut
> up.
>> 
>>> I've seen people do it with Ansel Adams calendars.
>>> As long as it's for yourpersonal enjoyment and you are not depriving
>>> anyone of any income, it's not illegal.
>> 
>> You are depriving people of income by using their images without paying
> for
>> them. If you really believe this then I assume I am free to plaster my
> home
>> with the best quality reproductions I can achieve from the images you post
>> on your web site.
>> 
>>> I was just trying to make a point that even with low quality scans
>>> you can achieve a decent print (if you know what you're doing, of
>>> course).
>> I understand.
>>> 
>>> Rich
>>> 
>>> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Todd Flashner <tflash@e...>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Rich
>>>> 
>>>> That's some pretty illegal stuff you're up to there. I wouldn't
>>> advertise it
>>>> so much if I were you.
>>>> 
>>>> Todd Flashner
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
> other
>>> resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>>> 
>>> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>>> 
>>> Please follow these basic guidelines:
>>> - Include your full name with your message.
>>> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
>>> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to
> keep
>>> them short.
>>> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject
> header.
>>> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
> "flames."
>>> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
>>> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
>>> resources on the homepage.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
> other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>> 
>> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>> 
>> Please follow these basic guidelines:
>> - Include your full name with your message.
>> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
>> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
> them short.
>> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
>> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
>> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
>> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
> resources on the homepage.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other
> resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
> them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
> resources on the homepage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> 
> 
>

--- Ricardo Lagos <ricardo@...> wrote:
> hmm .. i think that if someone takes a 640x480
> image from the web --
> manipulates it, and prints it .. (to hang on
> their refrigerator) -- they
> willl get a print that is far below in quality
> from something that the
> original photographer might be selling
>
> .. the kind of person that would print a
> low-res scan .. would not have
> otherwise bought the print from the
> photographer -- so i dont see where the
> income is lost (he was never part of the
> market) ..
> 

I don't think that whether the artist is selling
any images or not is the real issue. If an image
is posted on a website, it can be enjoyed by all,
on the web, in the environment that the creator
displayed it. 

> .. if someone wants to enjoy a low-res, low
> quality print of one of my
> photographs -- more power to them ..

That is your decision to make about your images.
Other people may not make the same choice.

Don Eby

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - your guide to health and wellness
http://health.yahoo.com

On 5/6/02 12:34 PM, "Austin Franklin" <darkroom@...> wrote:

> Kevin,
> 
>> I can't believe you really believe this.
> 
> Now hold on, Kevin.  This is hardly a serious violation (if really at all)
> that you need to get all "puffed up" about here, and ESPECIALLY for you to
> make a direct claim of image theft is entirely inappropriate.
> 
Perhaps "image use" would be more appropriate.  As I said in another post it
is a hot button for me.
>> From this web page:
> 
> http://www.benedict.com/info/fairUse/fairUse.asp
> 
> "In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a
> fair use the factors to be considered shall include -
> 
> 1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a
> commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
> 
> 2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
> 
> 3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the
> copyrighted work as a whole; and
> 
> 4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the
> copyrighted work."
> 
> Obviously, 1) it is non-commercial in nature, 2) yes, it is copyrighted, 3)
> I would say this work stands on it's own as a copyrighted piece, and 4)
> pretty much zero, and not worth a note really...especially, since the person
> owns a copy of this work in the first place, and this could be considered
> the same as making a cassette compilation from a bunch of CDs that you own.
> 
> I, personally, see nothing wrong with making a copy of a work that I own (as
> in an image in a book, or a song on a CD) and scanning and printing it for
> display on my kitchen.
Agreed, this is arguably fair use.
> This is entirely different than borrowing or
> stealing a copy of a book and making a copy of it.
> 
> Obviously, taking someone's image that you just find on the web, and
> reproducing it for display, except as noted for fair use, is a copyright
> violation, and I believe is entirely different than the case here.
This is precisely the case here.  Seeking out the "...largest (pixel size)
and best..." image so as to reproduce it for display.

>Yes, I
> know that he didn't scan in the image from his book...but I do not believe
> that mitigates fair use in this case.
> 
As someone else noted copyright laws are complex and convoluted and no
'real' harm is done with making small copies (as opposed to big ones which
would compete with the original).  None the less, if you like someone elses
work enough to adorn your home with it, "I" believe you should pay for.
More, I think you should pay for it no matter what side of copyright you
land on.

> Austin
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other
> resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
> them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
> resources on the homepage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> 
> 
>

Kevin,You are not over the top. You are right on 
the money. (no pun intended). Any one who 
make their living selling photos should feel 
this way. Keep up the good fight.

Steve Schaefer


On Mon, 06 May 2002 13:19:56 -0700 Kevin 
Gulstene <kevin@...> wrote:





You make some good points, and 
reproducing a web image for your kitchen is a

small transgression but:


1. Presumably you would not want someone 
to attribute the crappy little

image to you as an example of your work 
(inadvertently or not) without being

sure the full context of its reproduction was 
included (e.g. Oh that, well

yes, that is an example of Ricardo Lagos' work 
...)


2.� It is a slippery slope.� Where 
do you draw the line. If you could create

a 5x7 from your 800x600 is that ok?� 
What if someone came across a 1024x768?

What if they scanned in a print that was 
hanging in a friend's house.� It

may not be as good as the original but is that 
appropriate.


3.� Even if there is no 'real' harm,� 
isn't there a principle here as well.

If you enjoy an image enough to frame it and 
hang it in your house shouldn't

you pay for it?


Perhaps I'm was a little over the top.� 
Each person is going to have their

own view.� It's one of my hot buttons.


Kevin Gulstene



On 5/6/02 12:16 PM, "Ricardo 
Lagos" <ricardo@...> 
wrote:


> hmm .. i think that if someone takes a 
640x480 image from the web --

> manipulates it, and prints it .. (to hang on 
their refrigerator) -- they

> willl get a print that is far below in quality 
from something that the

> original photographer might be selling

> 

> .. the kind of person that would print a 
low-res scan .. would not have

> otherwise bought the print from the 
photographer -- so i dont see where the

> income is lost (he was never part of the 
market) ..

> 

> .. if someone wants to enjoy a low-res, 
low quality print of one of my

> photographs -- more power to them ..

> 

> from� a 640x480� image -- at 
best you could make a 2x3 printout -- and you

> would also suffer from artifacts fromt he 
jpg compression... etc..

> 

> i've even posted 800x600 images -- which 
could print 4x3 -- (with the same

> problems of jpg compression) ..

> 

> .. the prints i'd like to sell are framed up to 
16x20 -- the print itself is

> the range of 11x14 ...� quite a 
different product than a 2x3 or 4x3 print ..

> (and much better sharpness, tonal range, 
etc)

> 

> -- ricardo

> 

> 

> 

> 

> ----- Original Message -----

> From: "Kevin Gulstene" 
<kevin@...>

> To: 
<DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogrou
ps.com>

> Sent: Monday, May 06, 2002 11:41 AM

> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Image theft

> 

> 

>> I can't believe you really believe this.

>> 

>>> Hi Todd:

>>> 

>>> I don't believe it's illegal unless I 
try to sell them or even give

>>> them away.

>> This is wrong. It is illegal to use a 
copyright image for _any_ purpose

>> without the copyright owner's 
permission.� The only possible way this

> could

>> be legal is if you used the small 
image as part of a larger 'original

> work'

>> where the small image did not form a 
material or recognizable part.

>> 

>>> I'm just putting them up in my 
kitchen. It's no different

>>> than if I took my Edward Weston: 
50 Years signed, slipcased

>>> monograph, and cut out those 
pictures to frame them.

>> 

>> The only way this is the same is if you 
stole the material you then cut

> up.

>> 

>>> I've seen people do it with Ansel 
Adams calendars.

>>> As long as it's for yourpersonal 
enjoyment and you are not depriving

>>> anyone of any income, it's not 
illegal.

>> 

>> You are depriving people of income by 
using their images without paying

> for

>> them. If you really believe this then I 
assume I am free to plaster my

> home

>> with the best quality reproductions I 
can achieve from the images you post

>> on your web site.

>> 

>>> I was just trying to make a point 
that even with low quality scans

>>> you can achieve a decent print (if 
you know what you're doing, of

>>> course).

>> I understand.

>>> 

>>> Rich

>>> 

>>> --- In 
DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Todd 
Flashner <tflash@e...>

>>> wrote:

>>>> Rich

>>>> 

>>>> That's some pretty illegal stuff 
you're up to there. I wouldn't

>>> advertise it

>>>> so much if I were you.

>>>> 

>>>> Todd Flashner

>>>> 

>>> 

>>> 

>>> 

>>> 

>>> Please visit the Group Homepage 
to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and

> other

>>> resources as they are often being 
updated. The page is at:

>>> 

>>> <a 
href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBl
ackandWhiteThePrint">http://groups.yahoo.co
m/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint</a>

>>> 

>>> Please follow these basic 
guidelines:

>>> - Include your full name with your 
message.

>>> - Include the address of your 
website, if you have one.

>>> - As threads develop, trim off 
excess portions of earlier messages to

> keep

>>> them short.

>>> - As the topic of a thread changes 
remember to change the subject

> header.

>>> - Good manners are required at 
all time. No personal attacks or

> "flames."

>>> - Complete your Yahoo profile.

>>> - Before posting a question, 
search the message archives and the various

>>> resources on the homepage.

>>> 

>>> 

>>> 

>>> 

>>> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is 
subject to

> <a 
href="http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/">http://
docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/</a>

>>> 

>>> 

>>> 

>> 

>> 

>> 

>> Please visit the Group Homepage to 
check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and

> other resources as they are often being 
updated. The page is at:

>> 

>> <a 
href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBl
ackandWhiteThePrint">http://groups.yahoo.co
m/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint</a>

>> 

>> Please follow these basic guidelines:

>> - Include your full name with your 
message.

>> - Include the address of your website, 
if you have one.

>> - As threads develop, trim off excess 
portions of earlier messages to keep

> them short.

>> - As the topic of a thread changes 
remember to change the subject header.

>> - Good manners are required at all 
time. No personal attacks or 
"flames."

>> - Complete your Yahoo profile.

>> - Before posting a question, search 
the message archives and the various

> resources on the homepage.

>> 

>> 

>> 

>> 

>> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject 
to <a 
href="http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/">http://
docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/</a>

>> 

>> 

>> 

> 

> 

> 

> Please visit the Group Homepage to 
check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other

> resources as they are often being 
updated. The page is at:

> 

> <a 
href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBl
ackandWhiteThePrint">http://groups.yahoo.co
m/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint</a>

> 

> Please follow these basic guidelines:

> - Include your full name with your 
message.

> - Include the address of your website, if 
you have one.

> - As threads develop, trim off excess 
portions of earlier messages to keep

> them short.

> - As the topic of a thread changes 
remember to change the subject header.

> - Good manners are required at all time. 
No personal attacks or "flames."

> - Complete your Yahoo profile.

> - Before posting a question, search the 
message archives and the various

> resources on the homepage.

> 

> 

> 

> 

> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to 
<a 
href="http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/">http://
docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/</a>

> 

> 

> 










Yahoo! Groups Sponsor


ADVERTISEMENT
<a 
href="http://rd.yahoo.com/M=226014.2032696.
3508022.1829184/D=egroupweb/S=1705019
182:HM/A=1000239/R=0/*http://ads.x10.com/?
bHlhaG9vaG0xLmRhd=1020716403%3eM=2
26014.2032696.3508022.1829184/D=egroup
web/S=1705019182:HM/A=1000239/R=1" 
target=_top></a>









Please visit the Group Homepage to check the 
Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other resources 
as they are often being updated. The page is 
at:


<a 
href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBl
ackandWhiteThePrint">http://groups.yahoo.co
m/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint</a>


Please follow these basic guidelines:

- Include your full name with your message.

- Include the address of your website, if you 
have one.

- As threads develop, trim off excess portions 
of earlier messages to keep them short.

- As the topic of a thread changes remember 
to change the subject header.

- Good manners are required at all time. No 
personal attacks or "flames."

- Complete your Yahoo profile.

- Before posting a question, search the 
message archives and the various resources 
on the homepage. 







Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the <a 
href="http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/">Yaho
o! Terms of Service</a>.

Kevin,

> Perhaps "image use" would be more appropriate.  As I said in
> another post it
> is a hot button for me.

Well, for me too...but when it is warranted.

> >Yes, I
> > know that he didn't scan in the image from his book...but I do
> not believe
> > that mitigates fair use in this case.
> >
> As someone else noted copyright laws are complex and convoluted

Actually, they are VERY clear here.  If you own a CD and make a cassette of
it (or a compilation), it is entirely within your right to do so.  I believe
the exact same applies here.

> and no
> 'real' harm is done with making small copies (as opposed to big ones which
> would compete with the original).

I don't believe size or quality matter at all, it is completely within your
rights to make a copy of something you own and display it.  Of course, it
would be questionable if you make twenty copies and put one in each room of
your house, and especially if you gave them away, but making ONE, of an
image you already own a copy of, and putting the book on the shelf, I
believe, is entirely within the scope of fair use.

> None the less, if you like
> someone elses
> work enough to adorn your home with it, "I" believe you should pay for.

Absolutely, but the poster DID in fact pay for it.  He said he had a book
that had that very image in it.

Austin

With a Photo it is 50 years pulse the life of the 
Photographer before the image goes in to 
"public domain".

a play, etc., enters "public domain" 
where it belongs to the public. I 

believe 50 to 75� years is the limit to 
copywrites (depending on what 

the item is). There was a push last year to 
overhaul the copyright laws, 

but I am not sure what happened to that.


So depending on a lot of particulars, there 
may or may not be an issue 

of using these images for personal reasons 
based on copywrite laws. I am 

not saying it's the "proper" thing to 
do, but it is not necessarily in 

violation of copywrite since they may have 
expired.


Truman


Kevin Gulstene wrote:


> I can't believe you really believe this.

>

> > Hi Todd:

> >

> > I don't believe it's illegal unless I try to 
sell them or even give

> > them away.

> This is wrong. It is illegal to use a 
copyright image for _any_ purpose

> without the copyright owner's 
permission.� The only possible way this 

> could

> be legal is if you used the small image as 
part of a larger 'original 

> work'

> where the small image did not form a 
material or recognizable part.

>

> > I'm just putting them up in my kitchen. 
It's no different

> > than if I took my Edward Weston: 50 
Years signed, slipcased

> > monograph, and cut out those 
pictures to frame them.

>

> The only way this is the same is if you 
stole the material you then 

> cut up.

>

> > I've seen people do it with Ansel 
Adams calendars.

> > As long as it's for yourpersonal 
enjoyment and you are not depriving

> > anyone of any income, it's not illegal.

>

> You are depriving people of income by 
using their images without 

> paying for

> them. If you really believe this then I 
assume I am free to plaster my 

> home

> with the best quality reproductions I can 
achieve from the images you post

> on your web site.

>� 

> > I was just trying to make a point that 
even with low quality scans

> > you can achieve a decent print (if you 
know what you're doing, of

> > course).

> I understand.

> >

> > Rich

> >

> > --- In 
DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Todd 
Flashner <tflash@e...>

> > wrote:

> >> Rich

> >>

> >> That's some pretty illegal stuff 
you're up to there. I wouldn't

> > advertise it

> >> so much if I were you.

> >>

> >> Todd Flashner

> >>

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > Please visit the Group Homepage to 
check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls 

> and other

> > resources as they are often being 
updated. The page is at:

> >

> > <a 
href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBl
ackandWhiteThePrint">http://groups.yahoo.co
m/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint</a>

> >

> > Please follow these basic guidelines:

> > - Include your full name with your 
message.

> > - Include the address of your website, 
if you have one.

> > - As threads develop, trim off excess 
portions of earlier messages 

> to keep

> > them short.

> > - As the topic of a thread changes 
remember to change the subject 

> header.

> > - Good manners are required at all 
time. No personal attacks or 

> "flames."

> > - Complete your Yahoo profile.

> > - Before posting a question, search 
the message archives and the various

> > resources on the homepage.

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject 
to 

> <a 
href="http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/">http://
docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/</a>

> >

> >

> >

>

>

> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

> ADVERTISEMENT

> [Click Here!] 

> <<a 
href="http://rd.yahoo.com/M=194081.2021092.
3499911.1829184/D=egroupweb/S=1705019
182:HM/A=1036972/R=0/*http://www.ediets.co
m/start.cfm?code=3466">http://rd.yahoo.com/
M=194081.2021092.3499911.1829184/D=egr
oupweb/S=1705019182:HM/A=1036972/R=0/*
http://www.ediets.com/start.cfm?code=3466</
a>> 

>

>

>

> Please visit the Group Homepage to 
check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls 

> and other resources as they are often 
being updated. The page is at:

>

> <a 
href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBl
ackandWhiteThePrint">http://groups.yahoo.co
m/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint</a>

>

> Please follow these basic guidelines:

> - Include your full name with your 
message.

> - Include the address of your website, if 
you have one.

> - As threads develop, trim off excess 
portions of earlier messages to 

> keep them short.

> - As the topic of a thread changes 
remember to change the subject header.

> - Good manners are required at all time. 
No personal attacks or "flames."

> - Complete your Yahoo profile.

> - Before posting a question, search the 
message archives and the 

> various resources on the homepage.

>

>

>

>

> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to 
the Yahoo! Terms of Service 

> <<a 
href="http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/">http://
docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/</a>> .





[Non-text portions of this message have been 
removed]










Yahoo! Groups Sponsor


ADVERTISEMENT
<a 
href="http://rd.yahoo.com/M=226014.2032696.
3508022.1829184/D=egroupweb/S=1705019
182:HM/A=1000239/R=0/*http://ads.x10.com/?
bHlhaG9vaG0xLmRhd=1020712585%3eM=2
26014.2032696.3508022.1829184/D=egroup
web/S=1705019182:HM/A=1000239/R=1" 
target=_top></a>









Please visit the Group Homepage to check the 
Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other resources 
as they are often being updated. The page is 
at:


<a 
href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBl
ackandWhiteThePrint">http://groups.yahoo.co
m/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint</a>


Please follow these basic guidelines:

- Include your full name with your message.

- Include the address of your website, if you 
have one.

- As threads develop, trim off excess portions 
of earlier messages to keep them short.

- As the topic of a thread changes remember 
to change the subject header.

- Good manners are required at all time. No 
personal attacks or "flames."

- Complete your Yahoo profile.

- Before posting a question, search the 
message archives and the various resources 
on the homepage. 







Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the <a 
href="http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/">Yaho
o! Terms of Service</a>.

This is not correct. If you own a photo you can 
hang any were you like, but you can not copy it 
unless you own the copy right. 

Steve



I don't believe size or quality matter at all, it is 
completely within your

rights to make a copy of something you own 
and display it.� Of course, it

would be questionable if you make twenty 
copies and put one in each room of

your house, and especially if you gave them 
away, but making ONE, of an

image you already own a copy of, and putting 
the book on the shelf, I

believe, is entirely within the scope of fair use.


> None the less, if you like

> someone elses

> work enough to adorn your home with it, 
"I" believe you should pay for.


Absolutely, but the poster DID in fact pay for 
it.� He said he had a book

that had that very image in it.


Austin










Yahoo! Groups Sponsor


ADVERTISEMENT
<a 
href="http://rd.yahoo.com/M=226014.2032696.
3508022.1829184/D=egroupweb/S=1705019
182:HM/A=1000239/R=0/*http://ads.x10.com/?
bHlhaG9vaG0xLmRhd=1020718901%3eM=2
26014.2032696.3508022.1829184/D=egroup
web/S=1705019182:HM/A=1000239/R=1" 
target=_top></a>









Please visit the Group Homepage to check the 
Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other resources 
as they are often being updated. The page is 
at:


<a 
href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBl
ackandWhiteThePrint">http://groups.yahoo.co
m/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint</a>


Please follow these basic guidelines:

- Include your full name with your message.

- Include the address of your website, if you 
have one.

- As threads develop, trim off excess portions 
of earlier messages to keep them short.

- As the topic of a thread changes remember 
to change the subject header.

- Good manners are required at all time. No 
personal attacks or "flames."

- Complete your Yahoo profile.

- Before posting a question, search the 
message archives and the various resources 
on the homepage. 







Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the <a 
href="http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/">Yaho
o! Terms of Service</a>.

Steve,

And you base that on what?  As I said, it is EXACTLY the same as owning a CD
and making a tape from some of the songs on the CD.  Are you claiming that
(making a copy of a CD to tape) is not legal...because it is, and the courts
have upheld it.

Austin

> This is not correct. If you own a photo you can
> hang any were you like, but you can not copy it
> unless you own the copy right.
>
> Steve
>
>
>
> I don't believe size or quality matter at all, it is
> completely within your
>
> rights to make a copy of something you own
> and display it.� Of course, it
>
> would be questionable if you make twenty
> copies and put one in each room of
>
> your house, and especially if you gave them
> away, but making ONE, of an
>
> image you already own a copy of, and putting
> the book on the shelf, I
>
> believe, is entirely within the scope of fair use.
>
>
> > None the less, if you like
>
> > someone elses
>
> > work enough to adorn your home with it,
> "I" believe you should pay for.
>
>
> Absolutely, but the poster DID in fact pay for
> it.� He said he had a book
>
> that had that very image in it.
>
>
> Austin

I know nothing about music copy rights. All I 
know is that it is a copy right violation to copy a 
photo unless you own the copy rights of that 
image. So if that was what you were saying 
then we are in agreement.

Steve


Steve,


And you base that on what?  As I said, it 
is EXACTLY the same as owning a CD

and making a tape from some of the songs on 
the CD.  Are you claiming that

(making a copy of a CD to tape) is not 
legal...because it is, and the courts

have upheld it.

No doubt some will agree and some will not.  You've staked out your position
and I've staked out mine.

I don't make copies of an artist's work for any use.  Fair or not.  If I
want a copy I'll buy a copy.  If I want two copies, I'll buy two copies.

I would never display a compromised version of someone's art.  They sold it
to me in the way they wanted it viewed and undoubtedly took great pride in
the craft they used to produce it.


Kevin 'puffy' Gulstene

On 5/6/02 2:01 PM, "Austin Franklin" <darkroom@...> wrote:

> Kevin,
> 
>> Perhaps "image use" would be more appropriate.  As I said in
>> another post it
>> is a hot button for me.
> 
> Well, for me too...but when it is warranted.
> 
>>> Yes, I
>>> know that he didn't scan in the image from his book...but I do
>> not believe
>>> that mitigates fair use in this case.
>>> 
>> As someone else noted copyright laws are complex and convoluted
> 
> Actually, they are VERY clear here.  If you own a CD and make a cassette of
> it (or a compilation), it is entirely within your right to do so.  I believe
> the exact same applies here.
> 
>> and no
>> 'real' harm is done with making small copies (as opposed to big ones which
>> would compete with the original).
> 
> I don't believe size or quality matter at all, it is completely within your
> rights to make a copy of something you own and display it.  Of course, it
> would be questionable if you make twenty copies and put one in each room of
> your house, and especially if you gave them away, but making ONE, of an
> image you already own a copy of, and putting the book on the shelf, I
> believe, is entirely within the scope of fair use.
> 
>> None the less, if you like
>> someone elses
>> work enough to adorn your home with it, "I" believe you should pay for.
> 
> Absolutely, but the poster DID in fact pay for it.  He said he had a book
> that had that very image in it.
> 
> Austin
> 
> 
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other
> resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
> them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
> resources on the homepage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> 
> 
>

Steve,

I don't mean to be crass, but you don't know what you're talking about here.
There CLEARLY are circumstances that are entirely and completely legal to
make a copy of a photo when you do NOT own the copyrights to that image.
Plain and simple.  It's written INTO the laws!  Intentionally!

Do you somehow believe that copyright laws are different for images as they
are for music?  The exact same principles apply to both, as they are both
"works" or art.

Austin

>
>  I know nothing about music copy rights. All I
> know is that it is a copy right violation to copy a
> photo unless you own the copy rights of that
> image. So if that was what you were saying
> then we are in agreement.
>
> Steve
>
>
> Steve,
>
>
> And you base that on what?� As I said, it
> is EXACTLY the same as owning a CD
>
> and making a tape from some of the songs on
> the CD.� Are you claiming that
>
> (making a copy of a CD to tape) is not
> legal...because it is, and the courts
>
> have upheld it.

Pufmeister,

> I don't make copies of an artist's work for any use.  Fair or not.  If I
> want a copy I'll buy a copy.  If I want two copies, I'll buy two copies.

That doesn't have anything to do with it being legal or not though...  You
have NEVER made a cassette from an album or CD etc., or recorded a movie off
TV etc.?  Never?  Never made a photocopy of an article in a magazine?  You
bought another copy of the magazine instead?  Never printed out a web page?
NEVER?

> Kevin 'puffy' Gulstene

Becoming a rap star, eh ;-)

Regards,

Austin

Austin Franklin wrote:

>
> Absolutely, but the poster DID in fact pay for it.  He said he had a book
> that had that very image in it.
>
>
Actually he never SAID that, for illustrative purposes (which may or may 
NOT indicate he actually own it) he said:

" It's no different
than if I took my Edward Weston: 50 Years signed, slipcased
monograph, and cut out those pictures to frame them."

In fact, it is QUITE different.  Copyright allows one to buy a copy or 
copies of a print, certainly.  However, it does not give one 
non-exclusive usage rights to an image contained in a copyrighted 
volume.  If I buy a copy of Weston images in a monograph, I might 
reasonably expect to be able to use those VERY images, those very 
prints, assuming I am willing to cut them free.  However, it would not 
give me license to include said images in a book I write, nor would it 
give me title to a poster of the same image(s).  

Similarly, if I license an image to a client for use in in-house 
publications, they don't have any right to resell that image (even to a 
sponsor).  

Although I find it highly unlikely anyone would be willing to endure the 
trouble and negative publicity of prosecuting behavior like "rcoda's" 
actions, it certainly looks like a clear copyright violation on its 
face.  However, were he to scan prints in his monograph (assuming he has 
one) and place them on his own walls, the violation is not so clear. 
 Fair use would likely turn on whether a reasonable person would have 
seen that as implicit in the use license granted when purchasing the 
copyrighted monograph.  I would guess the answer on a legal basis would 
still be "no."  

To look at this from a slightly different angle let's look at patent 
law, based upon the same premises..  I can buy a patented item.  But, if 
I blueprint it and/or copy it, I have violated the patent and probably 
voided my own usage license.

Basically, the real issue comes down to what the author/artist/inventor 
would have considered a reasonably expectable use of the item once it is 
purchased.


Keith

Truman Prevatt <tprevatt@...> writes:

> Copywrite laws are complex at best, some say convoluted.  While it is 
> technically illegal to even copy a page out of a book, it is recognized 
> that it is not in violation of copywriter laws if this is done for 
> personal use, say a student doing a paper, a graduate student 
> researching his thesis, etc.

It is not, in fact, technically illegal.  "Fair use" is the concept
that allows this, and it's explicitly written into the law.  (Not
explicitly *enough*, many people think -- the exact limits are not
defined at all in the statute).
-- 
David Dyer-Bennet, dd-b@...  /  Ghugle: the Fannish Ghod of Queries
 John Dyer-Bennet 1915-2002 Memorial Site http://john.dyer-bennet.net
        Book log: http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/Ouroboros/booknotes/
                 Photos: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/

The copy right law that govern photography are 
different that other mediums.

And you are crass for no apparent reason.


Steve,


I don't mean to be crass, but you don't know 
what you're talking about here.

There CLEARLY are circumstances that are 
entirely and completely legal to

make a copy of a photo when you do NOT own 
the copyrights to that image.

Plain and simple.� It's written INTO the 
laws!� Intentionally!


Do you somehow believe that copyright laws 
are different for images as they

are for music?� The exact same 
principles apply to both, as they are both

"works" or art.


Austin



>

>� I know nothing about music copy 
rights. All I

> know is that it is a copy right violation to 
copy a

> photo unless you own the copy rights of 
that

> image. So if that was what you were 
saying

> then we are in agreement.

>

> Steve

>

>

> Steve,

>

>

> And you base that on what?  
As I said, it

> is EXACTLY the same as owning a CD

>

> and making a tape from some of the 
songs on

> the CD.  Are you claiming that

>

> (making a copy of a CD to tape) is not

> legal...because it is, and the courts

>

> have upheld it.










Yahoo! Groups Sponsor


ADVERTISEMENT
<a 
href="http://rd.yahoo.com/M=194081.2021092.
3499911.1829184/D=egroupweb/S=1705019
182:HM/A=1036972/R=0/*http://www.ediets.co
m/start.cfm?code=3466"targe
t=_top></a>









Please visit the Group Homepage to check the 
Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other resources 
as they are often being updated. The page is 
at:


<a 
href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBl
ackandWhiteThePrint">http://groups.yahoo.co
m/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint</a>


Please follow these basic guidelines:

- Include your full name with your message.

- Include the address of your website, if you 
have one.

- As threads develop, trim off excess portions 
of earlier messages to keep them short.

- As the topic of a thread changes remember 
to change the subject header.

- Good manners are required at all time. No 
personal attacks or "flames."

- Complete your Yahoo profile.

- Before posting a question, search the 
message archives and the various resources 
on the homepage. 







Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the <a 
href="http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/">Yaho
o! Terms of Service</a>.

As I said, I have staked out my position.  It's a position I'm comfortable
with and one which rewards artists for their work and displays it they way
they had intended.

As to whether something is legal or not under the doctrine of fair use, it
is never, in my experience, "VERY" clear (neither for the gifted nor the
simple).  I have more than a passing familiarity with copyright law, and a
compelling argument can be made that this is not fair use. The devil is in
the details.  As you may have inferred by now, I'm not going to engage in a
long discussion of our individual, relatively untrained interpretation of
fair use.  I'll accept we can both make reasoned arguments supporting our
case.

In practical terms fair use is mostly irrelevant since the expense of
enforcement means only the most egregious offenses are pursued or even
clarified.  Consequently, in small skirmishes like this, we are most often
guided by principle and common practice.

In my view, for this forum to accept reproduction of an artist's image found
on the web as common practice will put us well on our way down the slippery
slope.



Kevin (uberpuffer) Gulstene

On 5/6/02 3:07 PM, "Austin Franklin" <darkroom@...> wrote:

> Pufmeister,
> 
>> I don't make copies of an artist's work for any use.  Fair or not.  If I
>> want a copy I'll buy a copy.  If I want two copies, I'll buy two copies.
> 
> That doesn't have anything to do with it being legal or not though...  You
> have NEVER made a cassette from an album or CD etc., or recorded a movie off
> TV etc.?  Never?  Never made a photocopy of an article in a magazine?  You
> bought another copy of the magazine instead?  Never printed out a web page?
> NEVER?
> 
>> Kevin 'puffy' Gulstene
> 
> Becoming a rap star, eh ;-)
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Austin
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other
> resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
> them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
> resources on the homepage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> 
> 
>

Rich,

I really hate to disagree with you, but I believe that you are wrong. It 
is illegal to copy any copyrighted material except for certain purposes 
as outlined in the laws of the country of origin.

Mike

On Monday, May 6, 2002, at 01:22 PM, rcoda wrote:

> Hi Todd:
>
> I don't believe it's illegal unless I try to sell them or even give
> them away. I'm just putting them up in my kitchen. It's no different
> than if I took my Edward Weston: 50 Years signed, slipcased
> monograph, and cut out those pictures to frame them. I've seen people
> do it with Ansel Adams calendars. As long as it's for your personal
> enjoyment and you are not depriving anyone of any income, it's not
> illegal.
>
> I was just trying to make a point that even with low quality scans
> you can achieve a decent print (if you know what you're doing, of
> course).
>
> Rich
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Todd Flashner <tflash@e...>
> wrote:
>> Rich
>>
>> That's some pretty illegal stuff you're up to there. I wouldn't
> advertise it
>> so much if I were you.
>>
>> Todd Flashner
>>
>
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls 
> and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to 
> keep them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject 
> header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or 
> "flames."
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the 
> various resources on the homepage.
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to 
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

Keith,

> Austin Franklin wrote:
> >
> > Absolutely, but the poster DID in fact pay for it.  He said he
> had a book
> > that had that very image in it.
> >
> >
> Actually he never SAID that, for illustrative purposes (which may or may
> NOT indicate he actually own it) he said:
>
> " It's no different
> than if I took my Edward Weston: 50 Years signed, slipcased
> monograph, and cut out those pictures to frame them."

What IS important is that HE owns a copy of the image.

> Copyright allows one to buy a copy or
> copies of a print, certainly.  However, it does not give one
> non-exclusive usage rights to an image contained in a copyrighted
> volume.

Of course, no one said it does.

> If I buy a copy of Weston images in a monograph, I might
> reasonably expect to be able to use those VERY images, those very
> prints, assuming I am willing to cut them free.  However, it would not
> give me license to include said images in a book I write, nor would it
> give me title to a poster of the same image(s).

It DOES entitle you to make at least one copy of any image in the book for
YOUR use.  Exactly the same as you buying CDs and making a compilation
cassette from the music on the CDs.

> Similarly, if I license an image to a client for use in in-house
> publications, they don't have any right to resell that image (even to a
> sponsor).

Of course, that's correct...unless you have a contract that says
differently.

> Although I find it highly unlikely anyone would be willing to endure the
> trouble and negative publicity of prosecuting behavior like "rcoda's"
> actions, it certainly looks like a clear copyright violation on its
> face.

How?  He owns a copy of the image, it is in a book he owns.  He is not
selling the copy, and he is solely using the ONE copy for his own use to
view, critique etc.

> However, were he to scan prints in his monograph (assuming he has
> one) and place them on his own walls, the violation is not so clear.

Well, the result of what he did was the same.  I see no problem with it,
especially since it's a degraded copy anyway.  Now, if he were to have a
post card of that image, and then get a copy of a large print of it, that
would be different.

>  Fair use would likely turn on whether a reasonable person would have
> seen that as implicit in the use license granted when purchasing the
> copyrighted monograph.  I would guess the answer on a legal basis would
> still be "no."

Why?  Again, you can copy songs from a CD to a tape for your own use, why
not an image?

> To look at this from a slightly different angle let's look at patent
> law, based upon the same premises..  I can buy a patented item.  But, if
> I blueprint it and/or copy it, I have violated the patent and probably
> voided my own usage license.

Absolutely not true.  You can use ANY patent you want, providing you do not
sell (and technically, give away too) what you make.  But, for YOUR OWN USE,
that is not a patent violation at all.

> Basically, the real issue comes down to what the author/artist/inventor
> would have considered a reasonably expectable use of the item once it is
> purchased.

Again, what do you have to say about the allowable use, that is clearly
legal, with regards to music?

Austin

Truman,

What we are doing here is adding to the urban myth. I remind everyone 
that they would be wise to read the law if in doubt. I recently won a 
copyright suit on one of my projects. And BTW, the statute of limitation 
on one of my works is 75 years after my death. So beware, do not copy 
one of my buildings. ;-)

Mike

On Monday, May 6, 2002, at 03:13 PM, Truman Prevatt wrote:

> Copywrite laws are complex at best, some say convoluted.  While it is
> technically illegal to even copy a page out of a book, it is recognized
> that it is not in violation of copywriter laws if this is done for
> personal use, say a student doing a paper, a graduate student
> researching his thesis, etc.
>
> There is also the issue of age of the item being protected. Copywriter
> protection does not last forever. At some points an item - be it a song,
> a play, etc., enters "public domain" where it belongs to the public. I
> believe 50 to 75  years is the limit to copywrites (depending on what
> the item is). There was a push last year to overhaul the copyright laws,
> but I am not sure what happened to that.
>
> So depending on a lot of particulars, there may or may not be an issue
> of using these images for personal reasons based on copywrite laws. I am
> not saying it's the "proper" thing to do, but it is not necessarily in
> violation of copywrite since they may have expired.
>
> Truman
>
> Kevin Gulstene wrote:
>
>> I can't believe you really believe this.
>>
>>> Hi Todd:
>>>
>>> I don't believe it's illegal unless I try to sell them or even give
>>> them away.
>> This is wrong. It is illegal to use a copyright image for _any_ purpose
>> without the copyright owner's permission.  The only possible way this
>> could
>> be legal is if you used the small image as part of a larger 'original
>> work'
>> where the small image did not form a material or recognizable part.
>>
>>> I'm just putting them up in my kitchen. It's no different
>>> than if I took my Edward Weston: 50 Years signed, slipcased
>>> monograph, and cut out those pictures to frame them.
>>
>> The only way this is the same is if you stole the material you then
>> cut up.
>>
>>> I've seen people do it with Ansel Adams calendars.
>>> As long as it's for yourpersonal enjoyment and you are not depriving
>>> anyone of any income, it's not illegal.
>>
>> You are depriving people of income by using their images without
>> paying for
>> them. If you really believe this then I assume I am free to plaster my
>> home
>> with the best quality reproductions I can achieve from the images you 
>> post
>> on your web site.
>>
>>> I was just trying to make a point that even with low quality scans
>>> you can achieve a decent print (if you know what you're doing, of
>>> course).
>> I understand.
>>>
>>> Rich
>>>
>>> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Todd Flashner <tflash@e...>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Rich
>>>>
>>>> That's some pretty illegal stuff you're up to there. I wouldn't
>>> advertise it
>>>> so much if I were you.
>>>>
>>>> Todd Flashner
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls
>> and other
>>> resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>>>
>>> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>>>
>>> Please follow these basic guidelines:
>>> - Include your full name with your message.
>>> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
>>> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages
>> to keep
>>> them short.
>>> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject
>> header.
>>> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
>> "flames."
>>> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
>>> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the 
>>> various
>>> resources on the homepage.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
>> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>> ADVERTISEMENT
>> [Click Here!]
>> <http://rd.yahoo.com/M=194081.2021092.3499911.1829184/D=egroupweb/S=1705019182:
>> HM/A=1036972/R=0/*http://www.ediets.com/start.cfm?code=3466>
>>
>>
>>
>> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls
>> and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>>
>> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>>
>> Please follow these basic guidelines:
>> - Include your full name with your message.
>> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
>> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to
>> keep them short.
>> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject 
>> header.
>> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or 
>> "flames."
>> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
>> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the
>> various resources on the homepage.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
>> <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls 
> and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to 
> keep them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject 
> header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or 
> "flames."
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the 
> various resources on the homepage.
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to 
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

Austin Franklin wrote:

> Steve,
>
> And you base that on what?  As I said, it is EXACTLY the same as 
> owning a CD
> and making a tape from some of the songs on the CD.  Are you claiming that
> (making a copy of a CD to tape) is not legal...because it is, and the 
> courts
> have upheld it.
>
>
The courts have treated music and  imagery differently if you think 
about it superficially.  Yes, you can make a copy of  a recording you 
already own for personal use. With imagery you cannot automatically do 
so,  there are two differences upon which this is based:

1)    Fair use is based upon a common sense notion of the fact that with 
music you can only really enjoy a single copy of the music at any one 
time.  Twenty copies playing at once is possible but silly.  With 
images, that is not the case.  I could make a copy and place it on a 
billboard above my house and still enjoy the monograph.  Therefore, 
multiple copies with a single concurrent use is an unfruitful line of 
inquiry.

2)    Imagery and writing is licensed for "fair use" - basically uses an 
owner of the copyright could reasonably expect a buyer of a copy of the 
image might put it to.  In the preceding example, certainly, a prudent 
copyright owner would not expect my billboard.

I can license imagery for a client to use in in-house publications and 
resale is barred (even to sponsors of my client).

The PPA (httP;//www.ppa.com),  for example, engaged in a long series of 
battles with KMart and some other retailers over the automated Kodak 
kiosks..  Photographers when they shoot graduation photos license the 
individual image, they do not grant a license for reproduction 
(otherwise who would ever buy more than one image?).  Accordingly, those 
Kiosks are not supposed to be used to reproduce copyrighted imagery such 
as "senior" photos.  We all know they are though, as does KMart.  So, a 
deal was reached whereby KMart instructs  employees to oversee such 
copying as much as possible AND the PPA gets a few cents on EVERY image 
copied via the automated kiosks..  (Some interesting stuff can be found 
at:  http://www.ppa.com/public/articles/index.cfm?cat=75 )  Similarly, 
in the record and movie industries, money from each VHF tape and CD is 
set aside from tape and CD sales to re-imburse copyright holders for the 
estimated losses they incur from  reproductions of copyrighted materials.

Hope that makes it a bit clearer.

Keith

Austin Franklin wrote:

> Steve,
>
> And you base that on what?  As I said, it is EXACTLY the same as 
> owning a CD
> and making a tape from some of the songs on the CD.  Are you claiming that
> (making a copy of a CD to tape) is not legal...because it is, and the 
> courts
> have upheld it.
>
>
The courts have treated music and  imagery differently if you think 
about it superficially.  Yes, you can make a copy of  a recording you 
already own for personal use. With imagery you cannot automatically do 
so,  there are two differences upon which this is based:

1)    Fair use is based upon a common sense notion of the fact that with 
music you can only really enjoy a single copy of the music at any one 
time.  Twenty copies playing at once is possible but silly.  With 
images, that is not the case.  I could make a copy and place it on a 
billboard above my house and still enjoy the monograph.  Therefore, 
multiple copies with a single concurrent use is an unfruitful line of 
inquiry.

2)    Imagery and writing is licensed for "fair use" - basically uses an 
owner of the copyright could reasonably expect a buyer of a copy of the 
image might put it to.  In the preceding example, certainly, a prudent 
copyright owner would not expect my billboard.

I can license imagery for a client to use in in-house publications and 
resale is barred (even to sponsors of my client).

The PPA (httP;//www.ppa.com),  for example, engaged in a long series of 
battles with KMart and some other retailers over the automated Kodak 
kiosks..  Photographers when they shoot graduation photos license the 
individual image, they do not grant a license for reproduction 
(otherwise who would ever buy more than one image?).  Accordingly, those 
Kiosks are not supposed to be used to reproduce copyrighted imagery such 
as "senior" photos.  We all know they are though, as does KMart.  So, a 
deal was reached whereby KMart instructs  employees to oversee such 
copying as much as possible AND the PPA gets a few cents on EVERY image 
copied via the automated kiosks..  (Some interesting stuff can be found 
at:  http://www.ppa.com/public/articles/index.cfm?cat=75 )  Similarly, 
in the record and movie industries, money from each VHS tape and CD is 
set aside from tape and CD sales to re-imburse copyright holders for the 
estimated losses they incur from  reproductions of copyrighted materials.

Hope that makes it a bit clearer.

Keith

Austin Franklin wrote:

>
> > To look at this from a slightly different angle let's look at patent
> > law, based upon the same premises..  I can buy a patented item.  But, if
> > I blueprint it and/or copy it, I have violated the patent and probably
> > voided my own usage license.
>
> Absolutely not true.  You can use ANY patent you want, providing you 
> do not
> sell (and technically, give away too) what you make.  But, for YOUR 
> OWN USE,
> that is not a patent violation at all.
>
Again we will have to return to fair use doctrine..

Is it reasonable to expect that I will blueprint a patented item and use 
it?  If so, to what extent?  Can I use a "clone" of that patented item 
as a component of a larger for profit operation without paying 
royalties?  Quite unlikely.. Could I use the original I purchased in 
such a way, certainly.

Keith

Austin Franklin wrote:

>
>  You
> have NEVER made a cassette from an album or CD etc., or recorded a 
> movie off
> TV etc.?

TV Programs and Movies retain copyrights, they get money from the VHS 
sales of blank tapes to offset those losses..  The fact that people copy 
the programs does not make it any more legal..

>   Never?  Never made a photocopy of an article in a magazine? 

Fair use would likely extend to such an instance..

> You
> bought another copy of the magazine instead?  Never printed out a web 
> page?

Again, fair use would have to be adjudicated..  It might well be 
different if I print out a web page for my own use as a reference 
material than if I did the same for display.

>
> NEVER?
>
Whether he has, or has not done so, as you yourself point out, has no 
bearing on the legality of the act.

Keith

Kevin Gulstene wrote:

>
> In my view, for this forum to accept reproduction of an artist's image 
> found
> on the web as common practice will put us well on our way down the 
> slippery
> slope.
>
>
100% Agreement from this corner..

Keith

> Austin Franklin wrote:
>
> >
> > > To look at this from a slightly different angle let's look at patent
> > > law, based upon the same premises..  I can buy a patented
> item.  But, if
> > > I blueprint it and/or copy it, I have violated the patent and probably
> > > voided my own usage license.
> >
> > Absolutely not true.  You can use ANY patent you want, providing you
> > do not
> > sell (and technically, give away too) what you make.  But, for YOUR
> > OWN USE,
> > that is not a patent violation at all.
> >
> Again we will have to return to fair use doctrine..
>
> Is it reasonable to expect that I will blueprint a patented item and use
> it?  If so, to what extent?

I have no idea what you mean by "blueprint a patented item"...

> Can I use a "clone" of that patented item
> as a component of a larger for profit operation without paying
> royalties?

No.

> Could I use the original I purchased in
> such a way, certainly.

Yes.

Austin

I am sorry that I opened a can of worms. Did not mean to. Started out 
as a discussion on what minimum dpi gives a decent print. 

I will take down the small prints from the kitchen and tear them up 
if that will make everyone happy. 

But would you put a real Weston in the kitchen? Where grease, smoke, 
water, heat, ... could easily destroy it? I know I wouldn't - and 
I "own" (that means bought) two Westons. And yes I did "buy" my EW 
monograph and would never cut it up.

"First thing we do, is kill all the lawyers."
William Shakespeare, Henry VI

Rich

You do know there are collage artists who use nothing but other peoples
photographs to make their "original" collages, don't you? How do they
get away with it?

I'd never worry about copying an old postcard for my own purposes. How
would you ever track down a copyright? Suppose you had hundreds of them
to do?  We used to do this at work all the time, and never had any
trouble. They were used for educational purposes, not to sell for a
profit, of course. Chances are the photographer's who shot those old
postcards have long since assumed room temperature. 

Jerry


Kevin Gullets wrote:

> 
> I can't believe you really believe this.
> 
> > Hi Todd:
> >
> > I don't believe it's illegal unless I try to sell them or even give
> > them away.
> This is wrong. It is illegal to use a copyright image for _any_ purpose
> without the copyright owner's permission.  The only possible way this could
> be legal is if you used the small image as part of a larger 'original work'
> where the small image did not form a material or recognizable part.
> 
> > I'm just putting them up in my kitchen. It's no different
> > than if I took my Edward Weston: 50 Years signed, slipcased
> > monograph, and cut out those pictures to frame them.
> 
> The only way this is the same is if you stole the material you then cut up.
> 
> > I've seen people do it with Ansel Adams calendars.
> > As long as it's for yourpersonal enjoyment and you are not depriving
> > anyone of any income, it's not illegal.
> 
> You are depriving people of income by using their images without paying for
> them. If you really believe this then I assume I am free to plaster my home
> with the best quality reproductions I can achieve from the images you post
> on your web site.
> 
> > I was just trying to make a point that even with low quality scans
> > you can achieve a decent print (if you know what you're doing, of
> > course).
> I understand.
> >
> > Rich
> >
> > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Todd Flashner <tflash@e...>
> > wrote:
> >> Rich
> >>
> >> That's some pretty illegal stuff you're up to there. I wouldn't
> > advertise it
> >> so much if I were you.
> >>
> >> Todd Flashner
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other
> > resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
> >
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> >
> > Please follow these basic guidelines:
> > - Include your full name with your message.
> > - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> > - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
> > them short.
> > - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> > - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
> > - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> > - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
> > resources on the homepage.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various resources on the homepage.
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

do you actually know of anyone who has NOT made a tape from their CD's? 
 I don't.

Jerry

And it IS legal to make copies for your own personal use, such as in
your car.



Austin Franklin wrote:

> 
> Steve,
> 
> And you base that on what?  As I said, it is EXACTLY the same as owning a CD
> and making a tape from some of the songs on the CD.  Are you claiming that
> (making a copy of a CD to tape) is not legal...because it is, and the courts
> have upheld it.
> 
> Austin
> 
> > This is not correct. If you own a photo you can
> > hang any were you like, but you can not copy it
> > unless you own the copy right.
> >
> > Steve
> >
> >
> >
> > I don't believe size or quality matter at all, it is
> > completely within your
> >
> > rights to make a copy of something you own
> > and display it.� Of course, it
> >
> > would be questionable if you make twenty
> > copies and put one in each room of
> >
> > your house, and especially if you gave them
> > away, but making ONE, of an
> >
> > image you already own a copy of, and putting
> > the book on the shelf, I
> >
> > believe, is entirely within the scope of fair use.
> >
> >
> > > None the less, if you like
> >
> > > someone elses
> >
> > > work enough to adorn your home with it,
> > "I" believe you should pay for.
> >
> >
> > Absolutely, but the poster DID in fact pay for
> > it.� He said he had a book
> >
> > that had that very image in it.
> >
> >
> > Austin
> 
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various resources on the homepage.
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Jerry,

I NEVER made a tape from a CD, but in my varied past I was know to 
record from vinyl record albums.

Mike

On Monday, May 6, 2002, at 07:34 PM, Jerry Olson wrote:

> do you actually know of anyone who has NOT made a tape from their CD's?
>  I don't.
>
> Jerry
>
> And it IS legal to make copies for your own personal use, such as in
> your car.
>
>
>
> Austin Franklin wrote:
>>
>> Steve,
>>
>> And you base that on what?  As I said, it is EXACTLY the same as 
>> owning a CD
>> and making a tape from some of the songs on the CD.  Are you claiming 
>> that
>> (making a copy of a CD to tape) is not legal...because it is, and the 
>> courts
>> have upheld it.
>>
>> Austin
>>
>>> This is not correct. If you own a photo you can
>>> hang any were you like, but you can not copy it
>>> unless you own the copy right.
>>>
>>> Steve
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I don't believe size or quality matter at all, it is
>>> completely within your
>>>
>>> rights to make a copy of something you own
>>> and display it.� Of course, it
>>>
>>> would be questionable if you make twenty
>>> copies and put one in each room of
>>>
>>> your house, and especially if you gave them
>>> away, but making ONE, of an
>>>
>>> image you already own a copy of, and putting
>>> the book on the shelf, I
>>>
>>> believe, is entirely within the scope of fair use.
>>>
>>>
>>> > None the less, if you like
>>>
>>> > someone elses
>>>
>>> > work enough to adorn your home with it,
>>> "I" believe you should pay for.
>>>
>>>
>>> Absolutely, but the poster DID in fact pay for
>>> it.� He said he had a book
>>>
>>> that had that very image in it.
>>>
>>>
>>> Austin
>>
>>
>> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls 
>> and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>>
>> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>>
>> Please follow these basic guidelines:
>> - Include your full name with your message.
>> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
>> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to 
>> keep them short.
>> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject 
>> header.
>> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or 
>> "flames."
>> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
>> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the 
>> various resources on the homepage.
>>
>>
>>
>> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to 
>> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls 
> and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to 
> keep them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject 
> header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or 
> "flames."
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the 
> various resources on the homepage.
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to 
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

On 5/6/02 4:24 PM, "Jerry Olson" <jerryolson@...> wrote:

> You do know there are collage artists who use nothing but other peoples
> photographs to make their "original" collages, don't you? How do they
> get away with it?
> 
That is part of fair use.  The collage is an original artwork in itself.
There are still conditions the collage would need to meet.  It would view
reviewed in terms of "the amount and substantiality of the portion used in
relation to the copyrighted work as a whole". For example if it was a
collage where one photograph represented 90% of the collage then that would
likely not be deemed fair use.

> I'd never worry about copying an old postcard for my own purposes. How
> would you ever track down a copyright? Suppose you had hundreds of them
> to do?  We used to do this at work all the time, and never had any
> trouble. They were used for educational purposes, not to sell for a
> profit, of course. Chances are the photographer's who shot those old
> postcards have long since assumed room temperature.

Yes.  Enforcement is difficult and so is compliance.  People are often
guided by common practice more than anything else.  That is why I feel so
strongly that deliberately seeking out an artists image on the web for the
purpose of creating a reproduction of that image should not be deemed, by
anyone, let alone this group, as an acceptable common practice.

In this case I doubt very much the Weston Estate cares at all.  However, it
is not too hard to imagine other circumstances or other artists who would
care a lot.

> 
> Jerry
> 
> 
> Kevin Gullets wrote:
>> 
>> I can't believe you really believe this.
>> 
>>> Hi Todd:
>>> 
>>> I don't believe it's illegal unless I try to sell them or even give
>>> them away.
>> This is wrong. It is illegal to use a copyright image for _any_ purpose
>> without the copyright owner's permission.  The only possible way this could
>> be legal is if you used the small image as part of a larger 'original work'
>> where the small image did not form a material or recognizable part.
>> 
>>> I'm just putting them up in my kitchen. It's no different
>>> than if I took my Edward Weston: 50 Years signed, slipcased
>>> monograph, and cut out those pictures to frame them.
>> 
>> The only way this is the same is if you stole the material you then cut up.
>> 
>>> I've seen people do it with Ansel Adams calendars.
>>> As long as it's for yourpersonal enjoyment and you are not depriving
>>> anyone of any income, it's not illegal.
>> 
>> You are depriving people of income by using their images without paying for
>> them. If you really believe this then I assume I am free to plaster my home
>> with the best quality reproductions I can achieve from the images you post
>> on your web site.
>> 
>>> I was just trying to make a point that even with low quality scans
>>> you can achieve a decent print (if you know what you're doing, of
>>> course).
>> I understand.
>>> 
>>> Rich
>>> 
>>> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Todd Flashner <tflash@e...>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Rich
>>>> 
>>>> That's some pretty illegal stuff you're up to there. I wouldn't
>>> advertise it
>>>> so much if I were you.
>>>> 
>>>> Todd Flashner
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
>>> other
>>> resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>>> 
>>> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>>> 
>>> Please follow these basic guidelines:
>>> - Include your full name with your message.
>>> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
>>> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
>>> them short.
>>> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
>>> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
>>> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
>>> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
>>> resources on the homepage.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
>> other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>> 
>> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>> 
>> Please follow these basic guidelines:
>> - Include your full name with your message.
>> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
>> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
>> them short.
>> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
>> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
>> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
>> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
>> resources on the homepage.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> 
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other
> resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
> them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
> resources on the homepage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> 
> 
>

Actually, yes.  My 87 year old grandmother...and my two year old son.

> do you actually know of anyone who has NOT made a tape from their CD's? 
>  I don't.
> 
> Jerry

rcoda wrote:

> I am sorry that I opened a can of worms. Did not mean to. Started out
> as a discussion on what minimum dpi gives a decent print.
>
> I will take down the small prints from the kitchen and tear them up
> if that will make everyone happy.

That's not the point.. Please, enjoy the prints!  What we are saying, I 
hope, is that what happens in practice, and what the law actually 
legally allows, and what we as artists should endorse is often at odds.

I, as an example, know many artists that use bootleg software or music, 
just as many software ppl I know use bootleg music or imagery... It's 
one kind of hypocrisy that many engage in, I myself am guilty at times.. 
BUT, to publicly say people have a RIGHT to do so, is something 
different.. Were I with the Weston Estate I would tell you and your wife 
to enjoy the images... I'm not though, but yet, I hope they brighten 
your kitchen..  

As for my own imagery, I expect that anything I put on the web will end 
up somewhere, somehow, copied.  I can't prevent it and I won't lose 
sleep over it.  I don't want to see crappy reproductions of my images, 
but, if they make someone else happy, maybe the repro is good enough.. 
So, I am careful about what goes online..  I understand copyright law, 
but I also live in the real world.

  

>
> But would you put a real Weston in the kitchen? Where grease, smoke,
> water, heat, ... could easily destroy it? I know I wouldn't -

agreed!

> and
> I "own" (that means bought) two Westons. And yes I did "buy" my EW
> monograph and would never cut it up.

I  hope I never implied any other, I just did not want to jump to that 
conclusion.. Assuming things when discussing or debating them is a 
surefire way to get smacked around by reality.

>
> "First thing we do, is kill all the lawyers."
> William Shakespeare, Henry VI
>
First up against the walls when the revolution comes, closely followed 
upon their heels by hairdressers, and marketing execs..  ;-)


[Keith]
 
 

****************************************************************
CONFIDENTIALITY & COPYRIGHT NOTICE:
This e-mail message, including attachments and contents, is © Copyright, 
Keith Krebs, 2001-2002, All Rights Reserved. It is expressly for the 
sole use of the intended recipient and may contain confidential and 
privileged information. Absent the express written authorization of the 
author, any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, transfer, or 
distribution is explicitly prohibited and taken at your own risk. If you 
are not, or are unsure whether you are, the intended recipient, please 
contact the sender immediately and destroy all copies of the original 
message. Violations will be prosecuted to the FULL extent allowed under 
applicable civil and criminal law. Imagery published or distributed in 
violation of these conditions shall be subject to a $1500/image 
liquidated damages charge, in addition to any applicable Copyright 
violation penalties.

[POV IMage Service Banner]
****************************************************************
{ The P.O.V. Image Service Website is still at http://www.p-o-v-image.com/ }




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

As an interesting note the estate of Gershwin has been lobbying to get 
the 75 year limit extended since Gershwin died in 1937 which means his 
estate will not be able to collect royalties past 2012 on all his songs. 
I had an interesting issue arise. I participate in the sport of  long 
distance horse races ( 50 to 100 miles). At many rides there is a 
photographer who takes pictures of the riders as they go past a point 
and then sells the prints.

I've bought these prints from time to time and one was particularly 
good. I wanted to use it in a calendar being produced to raise money for 
a non profit (501-C3) corporation. I asked the photographer and she 
informed me she had a copywrite on said picture and she had to be paid 
or each copy of the calendar and she would sue if it were used and she 
wasn't paid.

I asked a lawyer friend about it and he asked me if she got a signed 
agreement from me that she could take my picture and use it in marketing 
for her business.  I knew she was using - and could prove -  it as an 
example of her work. The answer was of course no. She was just on the 
trail. Then he said to tell her that I won't sue her for using my 
picture to advertise her work if she doesn't sue for inclusion in the 
calendar. I his opinion this photo was not valid copywrite material - 
since she was not a journalist, this was not a news worthy event and she 
didn't have my permission to use the photo.  

Truman

Michael J. Kravit wrote:

> Truman,
>
> What we are doing here is adding to the urban myth. I remind everyone
> that they would be wise to read the law if in doubt. I recently won a
> copyright suit on one of my projects. And BTW, the statute of limitation
> on one of my works is 75 years after my death. So beware, do not copy
> one of my buildings. ;-)
>
> Mike
>
>
> On Monday, May 6, 2002, at 03:13 PM, Truman Prevatt wrote:
>
> > Copywrite laws are complex at best, some say convoluted.  While it is
> > technically illegal to even copy a page out of a book, it is recognized
> > that it is not in violation of copywriter laws if this is done for
> > personal use, say a student doing a paper, a graduate student
> > researching his thesis, etc.
> >
> > There is also the issue of age of the item being protected. Copywriter
> > protection does not last forever. At some points an item - be it a song,
> > a play, etc., enters "public domain" where it belongs to the public. I
> > believe 50 to 75  years is the limit to copywrites (depending on what
> > the item is). There was a push last year to overhaul the copyright laws,
> > but I am not sure what happened to that.
> >
> > So depending on a lot of particulars, there may or may not be an issue
> > of using these images for personal reasons based on copywrite laws. I am
> > not saying it's the "proper" thing to do, but it is not necessarily in
> > violation of copywrite since they may have expired.
> >
> > Truman
> >
> > Kevin Gulstene wrote:
> >
> >> I can't believe you really believe this.
> >>
> >>> Hi Todd:
> >>>
> >>> I don't believe it's illegal unless I try to sell them or even give
> >>> them away.
> >> This is wrong. It is illegal to use a copyright image for _any_ purpose
> >> without the copyright owner's permission.  The only possible way this
> >> could
> >> be legal is if you used the small image as part of a larger 'original
> >> work'
> >> where the small image did not form a material or recognizable part.
> >>
> >>> I'm just putting them up in my kitchen. It's no different
> >>> than if I took my Edward Weston: 50 Years signed, slipcased
> >>> monograph, and cut out those pictures to frame them.
> >>
> >> The only way this is the same is if you stole the material you then
> >> cut up.
> >>
> >>> I've seen people do it with Ansel Adams calendars.
> >>> As long as it's for yourpersonal enjoyment and you are not depriving
> >>> anyone of any income, it's not illegal.
> >>
> >> You are depriving people of income by using their images without
> >> paying for
> >> them. If you really believe this then I assume I am free to plaster my
> >> home
> >> with the best quality reproductions I can achieve from the images you
> >> post
> >> on your web site.
> >>
> >>> I was just trying to make a point that even with low quality scans
> >>> you can achieve a decent print (if you know what you're doing, of
> >>> course).
> >> I understand.
> >>>
> >>> Rich
> >>>
> >>> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Todd Flashner <tflash@e...>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> Rich
> >>>>
> >>>> That's some pretty illegal stuff you're up to there. I wouldn't
> >>> advertise it
> >>>> so much if I were you.
> >>>>
> >>>> Todd Flashner
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls
> >> and other
> >>> resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
> >>>
> >>> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> >>>
> >>> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> >>> - Include your full name with your message.
> >>> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> >>> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages
> >> to keep
> >>> them short.
> >>> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject
> >> header.
> >>> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
> >> "flames."
> >>> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> >>> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the
> >>> various
> >>> resources on the homepage.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> >> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> >> ADVERTISEMENT
> >> [Click Here!]
> >> < 
> http://rd.yahoo.com/M=194081.2021092.3499911.1829184/D=egroupweb/S=1705019182: 
>
> >> HM/A=1036972/R=0/* http://www.ediets.com/start.cfm?code=3466 >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls
> >> and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
> >>
> >> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> >>
> >> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> >> - Include your full name with your message.
> >> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> >> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to
> >> keep them short.
> >> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject
> >> header.
> >> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
> >> "flames."
> >> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> >> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the
> >> various resources on the homepage.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
> >> <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ > .
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
> > Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls
> > and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
> >
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> >
> > Please follow these basic guidelines:
> > - Include your full name with your message.
> > - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> > - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to
> > keep them short.
> > - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject
> > header.
> > - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
> > "flames."
> > - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> > - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the
> > various resources on the homepage.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> ADVERTISEMENT
> <http://rd.yahoo.com/M=226014.2032696.3508022.1829184/D=egroupweb/S=1705019182:HM/A=1000239/R=0/*http://ads.x10.com/?bHlhaG9vaG0xLmRhd=1020725408%3eM=226014.2032696.3508022.1829184/D=egroupweb/S=1705019182:HM/A=1000239/R=1> 
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls 
> and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to 
> keep them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the 
> various resources on the homepage.
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service 
> <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

rcoda wrote:

> I am sorry that I opened a can of worms.

Don't BE!!!

Actually, copyright law and its changes are of great import to any 
artist... I'm quite glad you broached the topic... It gives people the 
chance to air their viewpoints and dispel some myths.. With the reality 
oif the digital worlkd, these are issues we should be aware of and take 
into account..

Sometimes, disagreement and open discussion IS the best way to the truth 
of an issue..

Keith

Rich-

Thanks for not taking my sanctimonious ranting personally.  You make
wonderful images and I hope my reaction to what is really a very small thing
won't lead you to kill all the lawyers.  My wife is a lawyer.

Kevin Gulstene

On 5/6/02 4:24 PM, "rcoda" <rcoda@...> wrote:

> I am sorry that I opened a can of worms. Did not mean to. Started out
> as a discussion on what minimum dpi gives a decent print.
> 
> I will take down the small prints from the kitchen and tear them up
> if that will make everyone happy.
> 
> But would you put a real Weston in the kitchen? Where grease, smoke,
> water, heat, ... could easily destroy it? I know I wouldn't - and
> I "own" (that means bought) two Westons. And yes I did "buy" my EW
> monograph and would never cut it up.
> 
> "First thing we do, is kill all the lawyers."
> William Shakespeare, Henry VI
> 
> Rich
> 
> 
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other
> resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
> them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
> resources on the homepage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> 
> 
>

> 
> You do know there are collage artists who use nothing but other peoples
> photographs to make their "original" collages, don't you? How do they
> get away with it?

As a 'collage artist' of sorts, and a photo-illustrator by trade I will tell
you that I do no such thing.

I don't 'get away with anything'... when I am not using my own copywrited
photos, drawings, paintings, etc... or my clients copywrited photos I will
choose to use stock photos or artwork, paid for, up front, no theft... not
even a 'borrow'.

Collage Artists do not use "other peoples photographs" in the sense you've
suggested Jerry. 

> 
> I'd never worry about copying an old postcard for my own purposes. How
> would you ever track down a copyright?

Let your conscience be your guide.

> Suppose you had hundreds of them
> to do?  We used to do this at work all the time, and never had any
> trouble. They were used for educational purposes, not to sell for a
> profit, of course. Chances are the photographer's who shot those old
> postcards have long since assumed room temperature.

Educational purposes are a different ballgame. But there are strict
guidelines for that as well.

Carolyn

Keith wrote:

>I, as an example, know many artists that use bootleg software or music,
>just as many software ppl I know use bootleg music or imagery... It's
>one kind of hypocrisy that many engage in, I myself am guilty at times..
>BUT, to publicly say people have a RIGHT to do so, is something
>different.. Were I with the Weston Estate I would tell you and your wife
>to enjoy the images... I'm not though, but yet, I hope they brighten
your kitchen..

I recently was a witness to a discussion where a person who was being 
sermonized for playing pirated music. The person argued that the 
practise of copying music had now been legitimized by the fact that 
it was recorded on a disc on which a tax had been levied for that 
very purpose.

I was happy not to  be personally involved in the discussion, for I 
could not think of a good response to this line of thinking. On the 
other hand, I must admit that I felt some sympathy for the guy 
because of the fact that, while I have never copied music on a CD, I 
use at least half a dozen blank CDs every day to archive data, and I 
am stuck with paying the "music tax".

Jean-Michel Paris

Rich wrote:

>I don't believe it's illegal...

Jerry's right. Yours is a common misperception. Regardless of your
intentions, reproducing another's work without that person's permission can
get you into legal hot water. I suggest you take the time to investigate the
law and see for yourself. There are plenty of web sites which provide good
explanations of what is copyright infringement and what is not.

Tom Keesling
Intelligent Design, Inc.

Just a thought or two.

The music copy comparision is for backup purposes.  Not intended to 
extend to Cd being copied to tape so you can listen in your car.  
Same with software - disaster backup.

I find ebay to be an interesting place and recently went through 
their links about what's allowed...under which there is a least a 
clue as to where impropriety starts...Even though it pertains to 
selling it gives clues to where copyright starts.

This is the music, movies and photos, which has more info links at 
bottom...
http://pages.ebay.com/help/community/png-music.html

and the more general page...
http://pages.ebay.com/help/community/png-copyrighteditems.html

By the way, I used "copy" and "paste" functions to get those links in 
here ;-)

Sincerely,
Cleavis

----- Original Message ----- 

  From: Truman Prevatt 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Monday, May 06, 2002 7:02 PM
  Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Image theft


  As an interesting note the estate of Gershwin has been lobbying to get 
  the 75 year limit extended since Gershwin died in 1937 which means his 
  estate will not be able to collect royalties past 2012 on all his songs. 
  I had an interesting issue arise. I participate in the sport of  long 
  distance horse races ( 50 to 100 miles). At many rides there is a 
  photographer who takes pictures of the riders as they go past a point 
  and then sells the prints.

  I've bought these prints from time to time and one was particularly 
  good. I wanted to use it in a calendar being produced to raise money for 
  a non profit (501-C3) corporation. I asked the photographer and she 
  informed me she had a copywrite on said picture and she had to be paid 
  or each copy of the calendar and she would sue if it were used and she 
  wasn't paid.

  I asked a lawyer friend about it and he asked me if she got a signed 
  agreement from me that she could take my picture and use it in marketing 
  for her business.  I knew she was using - and could prove -  it as an 
  example of her work. The answer was of course no. She was just on the 
  trail. Then he said to tell her that I won't sue her for using my 
  picture to advertise her work if she doesn't sue for inclusion in the 
  calendar. I his opinion this photo was not valid copywrite material - 
  since she was not a journalist, this was not a news worthy event and she 
  didn't have my permission to use the photo.  

  Truman

  Michael J. Kravit wrote:

  > Truman,
  >
  > What we are doing here is adding to the urban myth. I remind everyone
  > that they would be wise to read the law if in doubt. I recently won a
  > copyright suit on one of my projects. And BTW, the statute of limitation
  > on one of my works is 75 years after my death. So beware, do not copy
  > one of my buildings. ;-)
  >
  > Mike
  >
  >
  > On Monday, May 6, 2002, at 03:13 PM, Truman Prevatt wrote:
  >
  > > Copywrite laws are complex at best, some say convoluted.  While it is
  > > technically illegal to even copy a page out of a book, it is recognized
  > > that it is not in violation of copywriter laws if this is done for
  > > personal use, say a student doing a paper, a graduate student
  > > researching his thesis, etc.
  > >
  > > There is also the issue of age of the item being protected. Copywriter
  > > protection does not last forever. At some points an item - be it a song,
  > > a play, etc., enters "public domain" where it belongs to the public. I
  > > believe 50 to 75  years is the limit to copywrites (depending on what
  > > the item is). There was a push last year to overhaul the copyright laws,
  > > but I am not sure what happened to that.
  > >
  > > So depending on a lot of particulars, there may or may not be an issue
  > > of using these images for personal reasons based on copywrite laws. I am
  > > not saying it's the "proper" thing to do, but it is not necessarily in
  > > violation of copywrite since they may have expired.
  > >
  > > Truman
  > >
  > > Kevin Gulstene wrote:
  > >
  > >> I can't believe you really believe this.
  > >>
  > >>> Hi Todd:
  > >>>
  > >>> I don't believe it's illegal unless I try to sell them or even give
  > >>> them away.
  > >> This is wrong. It is illegal to use a copyright image for _any_ purpose
  > >> without the copyright owner's permission.  The only possible way this
  > >> could
  > >> be legal is if you used the small image as part of a larger 'original
  > >> work'
  > >> where the small image did not form a material or recognizable part.
  > >>
  > >>> I'm just putting them up in my kitchen. It's no different
  > >>> than if I took my Edward Weston: 50 Years signed, slipcased
  > >>> monograph, and cut out those pictures to frame them.
  > >>
  > >> The only way this is the same is if you stole the material you then
  > >> cut up.
  > >>
  > >>> I've seen people do it with Ansel Adams calendars.
  > >>> As long as it's for yourpersonal enjoyment and you are not depriving
  > >>> anyone of any income, it's not illegal.
  > >>
  > >> You are depriving people of income by using their images without
  > >> paying for
  > >> them. If you really believe this then I assume I am free to plaster my
  > >> home
  > >> with the best quality reproductions I can achieve from the images you
  > >> post
  > >> on your web site.
  > >>
  > >>> I was just trying to make a point that even with low quality scans
  > >>> you can achieve a decent print (if you know what you're doing, of
  > >>> course).
  > >> I understand.
  > >>>
  > >>> Rich
  > >>>
  > >>> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Todd Flashner <tflash@e...>
  > >>> wrote:
  > >>>> Rich
  > >>>>
  > >>>> That's some pretty illegal stuff you're up to there. I wouldn't
  > >>> advertise it
  > >>>> so much if I were you.
  > >>>>
  > >>>> Todd Flashner

  Guess that just goes to show, Lawyers tend to specialize as well ... your friend obviously isn't a copyright attorney.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Not originals, but they take them from magazines. 

I have seen many a painting in art galleries and museums that have
copyrighted images as their subject. I've seen a huge painting of Donald
Duck (about 8x12 feet) in psychedelic colors that went for about $5000.
I'm fairly certain the painter did not get copyright permission from
Disney. And I've seen many other samples like this. Andy Warhol comes to mind...

Jerry

> Collage Artists do not use "other peoples photographs" in the sense you've
> suggested Jerry.

Jerry Olson wrote:

> Not originals, but they take them from magazines.
>
> I have seen many a painting in art galleries and museums that have
> copyrighted images as their subject. I've seen a huge painting of Donald
> Duck (about 8x12 feet) in psychedelic colors that went for about $5000.
> I'm fairly certain the painter did not get copyright permission from
> Disney. And I've seen many other samples like this. Andy Warhol comes 
> to mind...
>
These uses generally fall under the protected category of fair use in 
one of two  ways:

1)    Fair editorial comment which voids attacks based upon:

a) copyright

b) appropriation of image or likeness -- Like using Marilyn Monroe's 
image in a Warhol

2)    As a derivative work in which the included work is a small part of 
the overall new work (the early music sampling defenses by MC-style 
rappers used this argument)

That said, ART is not considered Commercial speech.  Were it considered 
commercial instead of editorial, for example, were one to make Marilyn 
Monroe keychains instead, expect lawsuits - as those who made Elvis 
memorabilia found out... The line between art and commerce may be 
blurry, but in clear cases of obvious violation, expect to get bitten..

Keith

on 5/6/02 7:24 PM, rcoda wrote:

> I am sorry that I opened a can of worms. Did not mean to. Started out
> as a discussion on what minimum dpi gives a decent print.
> 
> I will take down the small prints from the kitchen and tear them up
> if that will make everyone happy.

Ahh, don't feel too bad. Truth be told, I even steal bathrobes from fancy
hotels (but just for my own personal use).

I just don't talk about it on the hotel housekeeping lists.

Todd

In a message dated 5/6/02 12:06:48 PM, rmorrison@... writes:

> I
>was just speaking with someone this weekend that has been using the new
>printers for a month.  He also uses quad ink sets on similar class
>(7000/9000) machines.  He suggested that the new epson printers do a better
>job than the old ones making BW images with color inks...but that the quad
>prints were still far superior for critical BW work.

Yes, given craftsmanship, knowledge, and a certain amount of messing about, 
it is possible to beat the results of the new machines in some areas. My 
point was that the B&W market was small to begin with, and offered minimal 
profit incentive for development. Now there will be an even smaller market 
and less likelihood of third party development because "anybody" can print 
pretty good black and white straight from the box. 

Thats a good thing, in terms of empowering the end user and lowering the bar, 
but a bad thing in terms of nurturing a B &W art market, and holding the 
quality standard. Its also how progress typically works, and theres not much 
anyone can do about it. If it proves an area of value, the next generation of 
Epsons may improve further still, and continue edging in on the custom B&W 
print market.

What I haven't quite doped out yet is the relationship between gray balancing 
and custom ICC profiles with the new machines. With the total Under Color 
Removal, for truely neutral images the profile should not any effect, other 
than controlling the gray ramp... though it would still be great for color 
controlling tints.

C. David Tobie
Design Cooperative
CDTobie@...

Oh yes they do, Carolyn. When i was taking Art courses at our
University, there was even a course in collage making, and many a
student made their own "Original" collages out of magazine photographs.
It's done all the time, even today. Some artists do only that. Some use
their own photos, of course.

Jerry

Carolyn Frayn wrote:

> 
> >
> > You do know there are collage artists who use nothing but other peoples
> > photographs to make their "original" collages, don't you? How do they
> > get away with it?
> 
> As a 'collage artist' of sorts, and a photo-illustrator by trade I will tell
> you that I do no such thing.
> 
> I don't 'get away with anything'... when I am not using my own copywrited
> photos, drawings, paintings, etc... or my clients copywrited photos I will
> choose to use stock photos or artwork, paid for, up front, no theft... not
> even a 'borrow'.
> 
> Collage Artists do not use "other peoples photographs" in the sense you've
> suggested Jerry.
> 
> >
> > I'd never worry about copying an old postcard for my own purposes. How
> > would you ever track down a copyright?
> 
> Let your conscience be your guide.
> 
> > Suppose you had hundreds of them
> > to do?  We used to do this at work all the time, and never had any
> > trouble. They were used for educational purposes, not to sell for a
> > profit, of course. Chances are the photographer's who shot those old
> > postcards have long since assumed room temperature.
> 
> Educational purposes are a different ballgame. But there are strict
> guidelines for that as well.
> 
> Carolyn
> 
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various resources on the homepage.
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Including the mighty Andy Wahol

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jerry Olson" <jerryolson@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2002 4:04 PM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Image theft


> Oh yes they do, Carolyn. When i was taking Art courses at our
> University, there was even a course in collage making, and many a
> student made their own "Original" collages out of magazine photographs.
> It's done all the time, even today. Some artists do only that. Some use
> their own photos, of course.
>
> Jerry
>
> Carolyn Frayn wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > You do know there are collage artists who use nothing but other
peoples
> > > photographs to make their "original" collages, don't you? How do they
> > > get away with it?
> >
> > As a 'collage artist' of sorts, and a photo-illustrator by trade I will
tell
> > you that I do no such thing.
> >
> > I don't 'get away with anything'... when I am not using my own
copywrited
> > photos, drawings, paintings, etc... or my clients copywrited photos I
will
> > choose to use stock photos or artwork, paid for, up front, no theft...
not
> > even a 'borrow'.
> >
> > Collage Artists do not use "other peoples photographs" in the sense
you've
> > suggested Jerry.
> >
> > >
> > > I'd never worry about copying an old postcard for my own purposes. How
> > > would you ever track down a copyright?
> >
> > Let your conscience be your guide.
> >
> > > Suppose you had hundreds of them
> > > to do?  We used to do this at work all the time, and never had any
> > > trouble. They were used for educational purposes, not to sell for a
> > > profit, of course. Chances are the photographer's who shot those old
> > > postcards have long since assumed room temperature.
> >
> > Educational purposes are a different ballgame. But there are strict
> > guidelines for that as well.
> >
> > Carolyn
> >
> >
> > Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
> >
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> >
> > Please follow these basic guidelines:
> > - Include your full name with your message.
> > - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> > - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to
keep them short.
> > - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject
header.
> > - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
"flames."
> > - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> > - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage.
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage.

>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

Jerry... your original words led me to believe you were referring to
photographs, not magazine pages. The magazines have paid a usage fee to the
image creators/photographers or artists whose stuff grace their pages. Then
in turn the magazines themselves carry copyright protection from what I
understand. So I have no idea how that is all worked out... I don't do it.

Back to my perception of your original post,  there is no way that they
could legally use a photograph, or a scanned file of a photograph without
some sort of infringement on another's rights of ownership. I wasn't
referring to magazine pages when I responded... that's not what you said.

going back to work now...

Carolyn

> 
> Oh yes they do, Carolyn. When i was taking Art courses at our
> University, there was even a course in collage making, and many a
> student made their own "Original" collages out of magazine photographs.
> It's done all the time, even today. Some artists do only that. Some use
> their own photos, of course.
> 
> Jerry
> 

original words...

> >
> > You do know there are collage artists who use nothing but other peoples
> > photographs to make their "original" collages, don't you? How do they
> > get away with it?

Rich wrote:

"First thing we do, is kill all the lawyers."
William Shakespeare, Henry VI


As much as I enjoy bashing the excesses of the lawyers, I also recognize
that they created the copyright laws that protect MY works of art. And it's
lawyers I'll turn to whenever I pursue any infringement of my copyrighted
works.

Tom Keesling
Intelligent Design, Inc.

[Keith] wrote in response to rcoda:

>That's not the point.. Please, enjoy the prints!  What we are saying, I 
>hope, is that what happens in practice, and what the law actually 
>legally allows, and what we as artists should endorse is often at odds.

Well said, Keith.

Tom Keesling
Intelligent Design, Inc.

Old time photographs are usually thought of as those taken about a
generation ago, or earlier. Until fairly recently, a copyright only
lasted 28 years.  Our legal person at the university tried long and hard
to get an exact definition of what was and wasn't legal, and could never
get anyone anywhere to commit to an exact answer. Sort of like the tax
code. The congress writes it but hasn't a clue as to what's in it. Not
even a tax lawyer knows everything in there! The best answer he could
come up with is, you can shoot pictures out of books, both old and new,
and old photographs or paintings for educational use and slide shows in
lectures, etc. You cannot shoot photographs of all the pictures in the
book. But he couldn't say how many pictures you could shoot. You also
cannot sell any of these pictures, of course.

Jerry



Thomas Keesling wrote:

> 
> Jerry wrote:
> 
> >I'd never worry about copying an old postcard for my own purposes. How
> >would you ever track down a copyright?
> 
> Jerry, et al
> 
> The legal experts will always tell you to assume a work is copyrighted
> unless you know for sure that it isn't. And, legally, you should at least
> make an effort to track down the owner whenever you believe a work you are
> interested in using might be copyrighted. There are Web-based tools
> available for doing this, I believe.
> 
> Your comment raises the published vs. unpublished aspect of copyright, in
> addition to the copyright term itself. I would strongly urge you and
> everyone involved in or even considering using someone else's work to review
> and understand the information summarized at
> http://cidc.library.cornell.edu/copyright/. This table is by far the best
> summary of the ever-changing and convoluted U.S. copyright laws that I've
> been able to find on the Web. It's one major shortcoming is that it doesn't
> adequately explain what "publication" means. And, this, like most aspects of
> the Copyright Act, is subject to debate. However, I've found a few sites on
> the Web that offer some valuable insight.
> 
> For a discussion of the term "publication" as it relates to copyright law,
> take a look at http://www.legallanguage.com/lawarticles/Clarida010.html. And
> http://www.artistresource.org/copyrite.htm. And last, but not least,
> http://www.photosecrets.com/p14.html.
> 
> All of us who are considering using others' works in any manner should be
> aware that a significant event occurs on January 1, 2003. This is the
> transfer into the public domain of many unpublished works from what was
> known as "common law" copyright status.
> 
> Basically, as I understand the term, "common law" copyright was the domain
> of the states and covered all works that were not registered with the
> Copyright Office in Washington during the period prior to the enactment of
> the 1978 Copyright Act. Basically, "common law" copyright was perpetual, and
> this state of affairs was ultimately determined to be inconsistent with the
> U.S. Constitution. So, the 1978 Act essentially set a timetable for the
> elimination of "common law" copyright.
> 
> I know...more than you ever wanted to know about copyright law, but it's
> obvious that a couple of individuals involved in these discussions aren't as
> knowledgeable as they should be when it comes to copyright law basics. The
> information is out there. For those who haven't already done so, I urge you
> to take some time to at learn the basics. It may be important to you some
> day.
> 
> I'm not an attorney, but I do have considerable experience interpreting
> Federal and state laws, and that makes it easier for me to dive into these
> sorts of issues and do some research on line and at the local law library. I
> hope this is helpful.
> 
> Tom Keesling
> Intelligent Design, Inc.
> 
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various resources on the homepage.
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

CDTobie@... wrote:

>
> What I haven't quite doped out yet is the relationship between gray 
> balancing
> and custom ICC profiles with the new machines. With the total Under Color
> Removal, for truely neutral images the profile should not any effect, 
> other
> than controlling the gray ramp... though it would still be great for 
> color
> controlling tints.
>
>

The question is, with Under Color Removal, has the driver applied an 
internal ICC file first, or does it assume a specific profile has 
already been applied..?  In either event, is that the same profile as 
used for Full Color prints given the same paper settings...?

Here's why it matters...

If the driver is simply desaturating and then printing to a specific 
profile, altering/controlling where hues map along the grey ramp will 
only be possible if one converts to greyscale first.. However, if the 
profile the driver uses is actually mapping to the greyspace, then, one 
could conceivably use different profiles to simulate converting to 
greyscale from different channels...

Hope this digression doesn't make anyone too crazy..





[Keith]
 
 

****************************************************************
CONFIDENTIALITY & COPYRIGHT NOTICE:
This e-mail message, including attachments and contents, is © Copyright, 
Keith Krebs, 2001-2002, All Rights Reserved. It is expressly for the 
sole use of the intended recipient and may contain confidential and 
privileged information. Absent the express written authorization of the 
author, any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, transfer, or 
distribution is explicitly prohibited and taken at your own risk. If you 
are not, or are unsure whether you are, the intended recipient, please 
contact the sender immediately and destroy all copies of the original 
message. Violations will be prosecuted to the FULL extent allowed under 
applicable civil and criminal law. Imagery published or distributed in 
violation of these conditions shall be subject to a $1500/image 
liquidated damages charge, in addition to any applicable Copyright 
violation penalties.

[POV IMage Service Banner]
****************************************************************
{ The P.O.V. Image Service Website is still at http://www.p-o-v-image.com/ }




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Back when I was a lowly grad student at Hopkins in the early 70's the 
grad students and faculty would simply send order (with a charge number) 
over an order to the library to copy pages x to y in journal or book z. 
The library had a facility to copy and the copies showed up in the 
department mail boxes the next day.

In about '72 that all changed. The lawyers thought the school might be 
in violation of copyright laws because of this practice so if a person 
wanted something copied they had to go do it themselves. The lawyers 
stated that the school had no control over what was copied if someone 
put a nickel in the copy machine. The faculty did at least get copy 
machines that took plug in counters that could be used for charging put 
in the library.

The conundrum was most faculty and graduate students were on grants or 
contracts from various US Government agencies (NSF, Army, Air Force, 
Navy, NASA, etc.). In these grants and contracts it stipulated that 
funds could be used for the purpose of copying material to support the 
research. These clauses didn't seem to phase the legal beagles who 
argued that just because the US Government says you can do something 
doesn't mean that they really mean it. Sounds like asking the IRS a tax 
question - just because we tell you a deduction is legal doesn't mean it 
is.

More recently I've been in the middle of a case where a aerospace 
company filed a patent for a signal processing system and filed for 
copyright for the software implementing the algorithms. Trouble is the 
system was developed totally under US Government contract based on 
algorithms I developed ( and supplied to the contractor for 
implementation) - again under Government contract so all rights belong 
to the US Government by law. According to the Justice department lawyer 
handling the case ( for whom I have also been consulting for the past 
two year on the particulars of the system and algorithms ) is the 
copyright laws and patent law as they now read are so confusing as to be 
virtually useless. Ninety years ago a physicist would have been laughed 
out of town if he tried to patent the electron - but today patents are 
issues for DNA sequences. That I think is being revisited, but the very 
fact that there is justification for issuing a patent on something that 
exist in nature shows the sad state of affairs in the patent/copyright 
laws as they read today.

This has little to do with the issues associated with the appropriate 
use and/or misuse of images except that the same confusion still exist. 
Why is it perfectly "legal" to use someone's image in collage but not 
"legal" to download a low res version off the internet, print it and 
hang it in their kitchen? I don't think anyone has any interest in 
impacting someone's ability making money from selling their images and 
have that protected under copyright laws, but the current laws don't 
seem to serve anyone be it the public or the individual.

Hopefully congress will relook at both the patent and copyright laws and 
clarify them, but in the mean time as long as this particular aerospace 
company insists that the patent and copyrights they have from stealing 
work paid for by the American tax payer are legitimate, then I guess I 
will have a good source of income from consulting to Justice.

Truman

Jerry Olson wrote:

> Old time photographs are usually thought of as those taken about a
> generation ago, or earlier. Until fairly recently, a copyright only
> lasted 28 years.  Our legal person at the university tried long and hard
> to get an exact definition of what was and wasn't legal, and could never
> get anyone anywhere to commit to an exact answer. Sort of like the tax
> code. The congress writes it but hasn't a clue as to what's in it. Not
> even a tax lawyer knows everything in there! The best answer he could
> come up with is, you can shoot pictures out of books, both old and new,
> and old photographs or paintings for educational use and slide shows in
> lectures, etc. You cannot shoot photographs of all the pictures in the
> book. But he couldn't say how many pictures you could shoot. You also
> cannot sell any of these pictures, of course.
>
> Jerry
>
>

> do you actually know of anyone who has NOT made a tape from their CD's?
>  I don't.
>
> Jerry


Jerry:

I've never made a tape from any of my CDs - but I've only got about 15 of
them!


joel
jdkurtz@...

Do you really mean UCR or should it not rather be GCR i.e. Grey component
replacement

----- Original Message -----
From: "Editor P.O.V. Image Service" <editor@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2002 10:51 PM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Piezo v. Epson resolution -- was (unknown)


CDTobie@... wrote:

>
> What I haven't quite doped out yet is the relationship between gray
> balancing
> and custom ICC profiles with the new machines. With the total Under Color
> Removal, for truely neutral images the profile should not any effect,
> other
> than controlling the gray ramp... though it would still be great for
> color
> controlling tints.
>
>

The question is, with Under Color Removal, has the driver applied an
internal ICC file first, or does it assume a specific profile has
already been applied..?  In either event, is that the same profile as
used for Full Color prints given the same paper settings...?

Here's why it matters...

If the driver is simply desaturating and then printing to a specific
profile, altering/controlling where hues map along the grey ramp will
only be possible if one converts to greyscale first.. However, if the
profile the driver uses is actually mapping to the greyspace, then, one
could conceivably use different profiles to simulate converting to
greyscale from different channels...

Hope this digression doesn't make anyone too crazy..





[Keith]



****************************************************************
CONFIDENTIALITY & COPYRIGHT NOTICE:
This e-mail message, including attachments and contents, is \ufffd Copyright,
Keith Krebs, 2001-2002, All Rights Reserved. It is expressly for the
sole use of the intended recipient and may contain confidential and
privileged information. Absent the express written authorization of the
author, any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, transfer, or
distribution is explicitly prohibited and taken at your own risk. If you
are not, or are unsure whether you are, the intended recipient, please
contact the sender immediately and destroy all copies of the original
message. Violations will be prosecuted to the FULL extent allowed under
applicable civil and criminal law. Imagery published or distributed in
violation of these conditions shall be subject to a $1500/image
liquidated damages charge, in addition to any applicable Copyright
violation penalties.

[POV IMage Service Banner]
****************************************************************
{ The P.O.V. Image Service Website is still at http://www.p-o-v-image.com/ }




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- Include your full name with your message.
- Include the address of your website, if you have one.
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
- As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
- Complete your Yahoo profile.
- Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage.




Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

In a message dated 5/8/02 3:07:01 AM, Dickbo@... writes:

>Do you really mean UCR or should it not rather be GCR i.e. Grey component
>
>replacement
>
>
Yes, removing the neutral component from a mixed value should be referred to 
as gray component replacement... no matter how I was taught...

C. David Tobie
Design Cooperative
CDTobie@...

----- Original Message -----

From: <CDTobie@...>
To: <dickbo@...>; <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2002 2:07 PM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Piezo v. Epson resolution -- was (unknown)

> Yes, removing the neutral component from a mixed value should be referred
to
> as gray component replacement... no matter how I was taught...

Smartly put if I might say so because, as I am sure you will already know,
it is all but impossible to define where a neutral leaves off and something
else begins - that being the assumption behind the old gravure technique
known to one and all as Under Colour Removal.

GCR on the other hand - as I am quite sure you will know - merely requires
the programmer to identify the least colour component in any given three
colour area and exchange it for black- and that is perfectly possible to do,
is done and works admirably by saving ink, making press colour register more
straight forward and indeed it is claimed makes the resultant image look
sharper because of better colour to colour register.

But I am sure you already know all of that very old information so I must
apologise for burdening you with a history lesson.

(:-)

By the way, how does the old epson six colour handle such matters forsooth?

In a message dated 5/8/02 3:30:52 PM, dickbo@... writes:

>> Yes, removing the neutral component from a mixed value should be referred
>
>to
>
>> as gray component replacement... no matter how I was taught...
>
>
>
>Smartly put if I might say so because, as I am sure you will already know,
>
>it is all but impossible to define where a neutral leaves off and something
>
>else begins - that being the assumption behind the old gravure technique
>
>known to one and all as Under Colour Removal.

Yes, and when one writes the software, then the names mean what one wants 
them to mean... I've had an ongoing discussion with programmers for various 
RIPs and color software over what to call proprietary processes in this area.
>
>
>
>GCR on the other hand - as I am quite sure you will know - merely requires
>
>the programmer to identify the least colour component in any given three
>
>colour area and exchange it for black- and that is perfectly possible to
>do,
>
>is done and works admirably by saving ink, making press colour register
>more
>
>straight forward and indeed it is claimed makes the resultant image look
>
>sharper because of better colour to colour register.

Assuming that gray is actually represented by C=M=Y, life can be this simple. 
Unfortunately, if gray for a given printer, settings, inkset and paper is 
represented by C128, M 144, Y 166, then removing only 128 from each of the 
three, and replacing it with K will get you something you may not be 
expecting!

>
>But I am sure you already know all of that very old information so I must
>
>apologise for burdening you with a history lesson.
>
>By the way, how does the old epson six colour handle such matters forsooth?

That depends on the Epson... but before the encapsulated inks reared their 
metameric heads, the fixed black generation used mostly CMY until *very* 
close to black, then made a very sharp transition to 100%K for black. This 
trend is very much reversed with the newer pigment drivers, where as much CMY 
as possible is removed, right into the highlights, and replaced with K. This 
is fine for the 5500, with its invisibly fine black dots, but for other 
piment printers the result is varying degrees of black graininess in the 
lighter tones. The newest Epsons will fix this with light K (gray) ink for 
use in the lighter areas. 

C. David Tobie
Design Cooperative
CDTobie@...

----- Original Message -----

From: <CDTobie@...>
To: <dickbo@...>; <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2002 3:58 PM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Piezo v. Epson resolution -- was (unknown)


> lighter tones. The newest Epsons will fix this with light K (gray) ink for
> use in the lighter areas.

..so then that's whay they are doing it, which suggests that subjectivity is
replacing science at the manufacturing end.

In a message dated 5/9/02 11:20:48 AM, dickbo@... writes:

>..so then that's whay they are doing it, which suggests that subjectivity
>is
>
>replacing science at the manufacturing end.

Is there something unscientific about minimizing metamerism and graininess in 
prints?

C. David Tobie
Design Cooperative
CDTobie@...