Framing work

[Rusty]

and the sand.


The deal with the video tapes, isnt about selling or for profit

It is to keep people from getting together and renting or buying one tape rather than 4 or 10 or what ever. They say If you want to watch a movie in the privacy of your home you shouldnt invite people over,if you want to watch movies with other people go to the theatre.In other words dont try to cheat them out of the $2.00 rental fee.

You are not supossed to have freinds over to watch videos.

I have even seen this stated on rented videos.

According to the BMI site my dog classes and dog show are not exempt.

Which really irks me because the dog shows and classes are not what most people would consider a business.

Most dog shows are held by hobby clubs and non profit organaztions.

And we typicaly lose $2000.00 at every show hence the reason for me doing the obedience classes.

And this means that we cant even listen to music at our monthly club mettings,because we are tending to business matters.

Which by the way are held in a medical facility(nurseing home that donates a meeting room to us once a month),whose patience are not allowed listen to music either, due to it being a business.


Geez,

I just spent the past 2 hrs reading the info on the BMI site and the US copyright site, and I aint to sure my puny little brain is capable of knowing when I can and When I cant listen to music.

If what I have read is right My cleints cant play music in their own home while I photograph them?

I cant play music at the park?

[Ben Ellison]

Gary..... (long post)

Please do not misunderstand, I do respect your ability as a creative photographer and as a leader in the field of digital imaging.


I have given facts, and yet you are hell bent on tossing out such inane remarks.

And, that is no excuse for you to continue to not accept what is fact, and US law. With all the respect that I can muster, at this point, I can only say that you seem to show little regard for the copyright laws, unless it benefits you. As I have repeated over and over, I may not agree with this law, but I will, as an honest person, and as a professional photographer, abide by, and accept it.


You are completely missing the point of all this. I asume from your post that regardless of what facts are presented you still contend that we should overlook the established law. How unfortunate. You are one of the very high profile people that I had hoped would understand, but I can only assume you have decided you will make the rules ot fit your particular situation.


You have not understood TITLE 17 > CHAPTER 1 > Sec. 106. , at all.


I am sure my feeble attempt will also not be understandable, but I will try.


The motion picture industry, the music industry, (only naming two), have been covered by these laws. And yes, artist are covered, however, there is a diference. Artists and photographers are not covered by laws to prevent the viewing of our original works. Whereas the other industries are covered, because their situation is very different than ours. They create for the masses, whe we create for an individual, in most cases.. such as a portrait.


Now then, if you wish to have a law passed that any time one of your portraits is viewed that you will receive a fee, then by all means go for it. However, please do not confuse the issues.


These laws are real, and nothing we can do can change it. None of our comparisons will serve to excuse our "ignorance" of these particular laws.


I know you are a successful photographer, and obviously have a good amount of intelligence. For this reason, I am utterly confused by your inability to separate facts from opinions, and a law from a scenario.


..........

Note:


As far as I know, photographers MAY be covered by these Right of Display copyright laws. As a matter of fact, (I am switching back and forth from this page to the copyright law page).... I will now agree that you are correct on that point.


Once again quoting from the law:::


General Scope of Copyright. The five fundamental rights that the bill gives to copyright owners - the exclusive rights of reproduction, adaptation, publication, performance, and display - are stated generally in section 106.


The law reads in part:


Right of Public Display. - Clause (5) of section 106 represents the first explicit statutory recognition in American copyright law of an exclusive right to show a copyrighted work, or an image of it, to the public. The existence or extent of this right under the present statute is uncertain and subject to challenge. The bill would give the owners of copyright in ''literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works'', including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, the exclusive right ''to display the copyrighted work publicly.''


Definitions.

Under the definitions of ''perform,'' ''display,'' ''publicly,'' and ''transmit'' in section 101, the concepts of public performance and public display cover not only the initial rendition or showing, but also any further act by which that rendition or showing is transmitted or communicated to the public.


........


And, since we do have that right, I am sure that you will exercise that right, by telling your customers that they have to pay a fee each time the print is viewed.


Ahh, but you are saying that even if we have the right, we have not been taking advantage of it, so we can disregard the rights of musicians.


....


Once again, I believe the law states we have (quoting):

The exclusive rights accorded to a copyright owner under section 106 are ''to do and to authorize'' any of the activities specified in the five numbered clauses.


But since we have not specifically demanded these rights (from our customers), you will no doubt, still claim that you can, by virtue of photographers not exercising those rights, disregard the rights of those who are demanding them.


You see, the musicians and film makers are on record as demanding to exercise their rights, and we are not.


That is what it comes to.. we will NOT honor others copyrights, because we have not asked for those same rights.. that we MAY be entitled to.


(Please pardon the redundant comments. I am sure my point will not be made even with the triple redundantcy

[Ben Ellison]

What???? LOL.....

Rusty, you said......You are not supossed to have freinds over to watch videos.

I have even seen this stated on rented videos.


Really? Go look again!


Perhaps it says don't charge admission.

[Paul Ferrara]

Re: Contax N Digital almost here?

I was just curious as to whether you found the 760 to be unacceptably soft for whatever type of work you do.


But you also mentioned size/weight, and wouldn't it be even more of a problem with a Phase One on a MF camera?


Paul

[Ken Knight]

Re: Contax N Digital almost here?

After using the Fuji S1, I found the 760 just to be too bulky for my preference when holding it. I haven't actually used the 760 in my studio, but I shot it at the SPI convention a couple of weeks ago in Orlando and at a state convention last September. Go to the home page of www.lonestardigital.com for their photo of the camera and see how large it looks.


A friend of mine in New Orleans has two or three of them for his studios and likes them for his senior work, which looks fine. He shoots them with the IR filter.


I would like to be able to make at least a 24x30 and possibly 30x40 to match my Hasselblad film quality. That's why I think I would need a digital back for my medium format cameras. Kodak only suggests the 760 up to a 16x20, even though I know larger prints are being made with it everyday. But you're right...the medium back and computer combination for the Phase One is an ackward combination for outside use.

[Brian Crussel]

Re: The ULTIMATE Wedding to get seniors in your st

Kirk-

That is strange. When she called me I told her $10,000 plus travel expenses and she said I was too low. Obviously, if I was any good I would charge much more. Wierd!

[Bob MacDonald]

Framing work

Does anyone know if (or how) "Glazing Points" can be inserted without the purchase of (yet another) special tool? I'm trying the tack hammer method without success!


Bob

[Gary Affleck]

Re: Framing work

Glazing points as the same kind you push into window sills to hold glass into the frames? They have two little tabs that stick up? If that's them you can put lay them on the back of the mount board, with the point toward the frame, then use a screwdriver to push the point in.

[Bob MacDonald]

Re: Framing work

That's the "critter" Gary, I'll try the screwdrive method!


Bob

[Bob MacDonald]

Re: Framing work

Eureka!!!! It works! Thanks, Gary...couldn't have done it without you.


Bob

[Kirk Voclain]

Re: Framing work

JUST BUY IT!! The tool is well worth the money!!


Kirk

[Bob MacDonald]

Re: Framing work

Just send me the money!

[Kirk Voclain]

Re: Framing work

Here's the way I FIGURE IT..........


I can put a frame together in 10 seconds FLAT!!! But doing the screw driver trick, well that now becomes a 10 minute problem. NOT to mention the danger of scratching a frame or a photo.


TIME SAVED is money earned.


WHAT do I know though???


Kirk

[Sheila Pauley]

Re: Framing work

Do you use Albums Inc.???


They do make an inexpensive special tool for $10.34 and is product number FPM-515. It acts like a screwdriver but doesn't slip.


That what we use. It's on page 41 of the Procraft photographic supplies section in the new catalog top left corner. For future reference.


Sheila Pauley

[Bob MacDonald]

Re: Framing work

I found it...Thank you,very much for your help!


Bob