• Starbuck commented on the blog post Saturday History: “Remember the Sabbath…”

    2014-12-20 16:43:08View | Delete

    It’s interesting, people making up their own commandments. Didn’t god know enough? Here god, let me help you out. Oh darn!! Got one more, god!

  • Starbuck commented on the blog post Saturday Art: Kinetic Sculpture by Alice Aycock

    2014-12-20 08:13:40View | Delete

    BTW, what completely destroys the Chanukah piece for me is the presentation in the form of a “breadboard” with the little coiled up and taped cable, terminating in what appears to be a switch or maybe a power connector.

    The term “breadboard” comes from electronics and refers to a flat piece of material on which the first assembly of circuitry is assembled, many times so random the term for the presentation technique is called a “rat’s nest”. Her’s isn’t a rat’s nest, fortunately, but still…..

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Breadboard_complex.jpg

  • Starbuck commented on the blog post Saturday Art: Kinetic Sculpture by Alice Aycock

    2014-12-20 08:04:24View | Delete

    ki·net·ic
    kəˈnedik/
    adjective
    adjective: kinetic

    of, relating to, or resulting from motion.
    (of a work of art) depending on movement for its effect.

    Depending on movement for it’s effect.

    Do these pieces move? Does “Maelstrom” vibrate or shift around in the wind?

    If not, why the word kinetic?

    I see motion pictures belonging to this definition. Or in a similar vein, the occasional freight train with it’s string of cars covered with Graffiti moving through the landscape, which I vastly prefer to these pieces.

    But then graffiti isn’t Formal art.

    I do appreciate the photos of these pieces, but frankly, I would not enjoy walking by or under the same pieces in place, day after day.

    I have my own Maelstrom in my life, coming and going,sometimes putting my Pants in a Twist!

  • Starbuck commented on the blog post Over Easy: The Monkey Selfie Is Back!

    2014-12-19 09:49:36View | Delete

    I’m getting ahead of myself…..

  • Starbuck commented on the blog post Over Easy: The Monkey Selfie Is Back!

    2014-12-19 09:40:56View | Delete

    I’m one of the bazzillions worked this idea earlier. Like 20, 30 years ago. Not the copyright, just the concept. It is a term we used to get across concepts of photographing at the edges of the medium. I would propose the concept in my Basic Photography Class. Finding a coal bin and getting permission to do the photo, adding the black cat which is likely to bolt, which, of course, you will not see (it’s midnight!)…….

    More of a thought experiment.

    Actually titling a black image thusly, well, I imagine it’s been done, but maybe not.

    (If I can just add some uniqueness to that black….)

  • Starbuck commented on the blog post Over Easy: The Monkey Selfie Is Back!

    2014-12-19 09:24:29View | Delete

    There’s where good unions come into play.

  • Starbuck commented on the blog post Over Easy: The Monkey Selfie Is Back!

    2014-12-19 09:21:45View | Delete

    I would imagine the unpublished work covered by copyright idea would extend to writing, as writing is visual and possibly unique. Especially handwriting.Some states, for instance, accepts hand written wills without the need for notarization or witnesses. They are called holographic wills.

    Notice the term graphic. Photographic translates into the graphics of light.

    Wow! We can copyright light drawings!

    (I have been wondering what my next Camera Work post should be)

  • Starbuck commented on the blog post Over Easy: The Monkey Selfie Is Back!

    2014-12-19 09:05:19View | Delete

    The copyright law, as I understand it, with respect to photography, says that even undeveloped exposed film is automatically copyrighted. To solidify the ownership first, obviously, the copyright notice needs to be attached to publications.

    Followup filing with the copyright office of the image and pertinent information is advisable. Why? Because, in any litigation, if you do not file with the Copyright Office first, you are limited to damages in the amount of actual loss, say the normal expected income. If you do file, then the damages can go up to (at the last time I read it) triple damages. Perhaps more.

    I don’t know where it stands today.

  • Starbuck commented on the blog post Over Easy: The Monkey Selfie Is Back!

    2014-12-19 08:54:08View | Delete

    I have not heard of this problem before now.

    By “My DVD’s are you saying the commercial DVD’s you own, like “Gone with the Wind” or a DVD you made from your own camera? I assume it’s the commercial ones, but I’m just trying to make sure I understand what you are saying.

  • Starbuck commented on the blog post Over Easy: The Monkey Selfie Is Back!

    2014-12-19 08:43:57View | Delete

    Is that what it’s come to?

    Sigh!

  • Starbuck commented on the blog post Over Easy: The Monkey Selfie Is Back!

    2014-12-19 08:42:58View | Delete

    Over my dead body I’ll get it!

  • Starbuck commented on the blog post Over Easy: The Monkey Selfie Is Back!

    2014-12-19 08:33:11View | Delete

    BT’s comment about adding a line of text gets more interesting the longer I think of it. Going back to the question of copyrighting a black image, what if I title it “Black Cat In A Coal Bin at Midnight”?

  • Starbuck commented on the blog post Over Easy: The Monkey Selfie Is Back!

    2014-12-19 08:25:48View | Delete

    A print of absolute value, whether it is black, red or ??? is valid, albeit nothing exceptional.

    Copyright ownership is an interesting question, once one gets into the nitty-gritty.

  • Starbuck commented on the blog post Over Easy: The Monkey Selfie Is Back!

    2014-12-19 07:56:54View | Delete

    Opens a can of worms, doesn’t it!

  • Starbuck commented on the blog post Over Easy: The Monkey Selfie Is Back!

    2014-12-19 07:55:15View | Delete

    “A copyright could exist, but it could never be enforced”

    Which is my point.

    A line of text like: ©2014XXXXXX, where the x is the name of the photographer.

  • Starbuck commented on the blog post Over Easy: The Monkey Selfie Is Back!

    2014-12-19 07:49:05View | Delete

    Which then one can ask: Does Edgerton own the copyright to the first photo taken of a bullet in flight he captured with the gear he invented? How long after opening the shutter can one claim copyright to an event which happens later? Can I copyright an an image of total blackness captured by the camera after snapping the shutter in total blackness?

  • Starbuck commented on the blog post Over Easy: The Monkey Selfie Is Back!

    2014-12-19 07:28:59View | Delete

    If the image is identical, (and it would, assuming a perfect machine generated it and both scopes were identical) then I could take either one and make a t-Shirt. Which photographer has the right to sue in that case? If they are not perfectly identical, than who created the unique event?

    That is also a trick question!

  • Starbuck commented on the blog post Over Easy: The Monkey Selfie Is Back!

    2014-12-19 07:22:10View | Delete

    Still can’t find it at the site the link points to.

    Oh, well, sometimes I’m dense!

  • Starbuck commented on the blog post Over Easy: The Monkey Selfie Is Back!

    2014-12-19 07:16:48View | Delete

    We are not copyrighting the screen but the picture of the event. A machine produced the event.

  • Starbuck commented on the blog post Over Easy: The Monkey Selfie Is Back!

    2014-12-19 07:12:26View | Delete

    Godel showed mathematically that math is undecidable.

  • Load More