stbenge wrote:
> Tim Cook wrote:
>> stbenge wrote:
>>> I don't get it. To me the image is not exactly photo-realistic. Am I 
>>> missing something, or do people commonly refer to CG images as "photos?"
>>
>> Computer-generated images are classed under photography & photographs 
>> in the Dewey Decimal system, too.  Considering it falls under that 
>> best, vs. drawing, painting, or printmaking, it kinda makes sense.
> 
> Do parts of the 'net operate under the DDS? If not, why would my image 
> show up as a photograph? Alternately, if my image turned up in a 
> library, how did it get there? Hmmm...
> 
What you do if you need a picture of an aqueduct is that you google for 
an image with the search term 'aqueduct'. Yours is number ten on the 
hitlist and the first that is not one of the big outdoor constructions. 
Everything else on the first page is clearly a photograph or a drawing. 
So, what would a lazy researcher trigger to investigate the nature of 
the image?

Post a reply to this message

stbenge wrote:
> Do parts of the 'net operate under the DDS? If not, why would my image 
> show up as a photograph? Alternately, if my image turned up in a 
> library, how did it get there? Hmmm...

Well, there is http://www.anthus.com/CyberDewey/CyberDewey.html but a) 
it isn't updated to the current version of DDC, and b) I was talking 
more in general... (there's also a section in the generalities for 
computer graphics, 006.6, but that's more methodology than output)

-- 
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.digitalartsuk.com

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GFA dpu- s: a?-- C++(++++) U P? L E--- W++(+++)>$
N++ o? K- w(+) O? M-(--) V? PS+(+++) PE(--) Y(--)
PGP-(--) t* 5++>+++++ X+ R* tv+ b++(+++) DI
D++(---) G(++) e*>++ h+ !r--- !y--
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> To a person not expecting rendered images (e.g. a scientist that has 
> (literally) been living under a stone for the past 20 years) it might 
> not be so obvious.

I suppose this is possible for at least two reasons: 1) They don't know 
about CG art, as Gilles mentioned. 2) They forgot what reality looks 
like (I've had this happen to a small extent when staying indoors for 
too long).

> I think you should take it as a compliment that someone who has seen a 
> number of them in real live still think yours is a good example.

Yeah, I'll take it as a compliment :)

I wonder about this person's familiarity with actual aqueducts, though. 
My knowledge on that subject is near nil, and I used absolutely no 
references when making that image. It's a complete fabrication, and is 
not based on *any* real-world example. A person with knowledge of 
aqueducts, who has read that article, is probably scratching their head 
at my image wondering to themselves what actual waterway my image was 
based on (or wondering where it exists, if they think it's a photo).

>> Should I contact the author or just sit here smiling silently? 
> I think you should contact her. She might use the image in a context 
> where people do know it is not real and make a fool of herself (if she 
> didn't already). Tell her that she should not refer to it as a photo but 
> as an artist impression. Alternatively she might have some suggestions 
> to improve your image to even better match a certain period. If you have 
> time for it you might even suggest that you could make variants of it, 
> each representative of a certain period.

The article is already at most a year old, I wonder if she would still 
want to change it. I'll probably contact her, just for a heads-up.

>> ( BTW, the author never contacted me for permission to use the image, 
>> but I don't really care, I just find this funny)
> I think that you should always point this out. People tend to use google 
>  too easy. Simply give her permission retrospectively and mention that 
> not everybody might be so generous.

Good advice, thanks.

Sam

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> I think that you should always point this out. People tend to use 
>> google  too easy. Simply give her permission retrospectively and 
>> mention that not everybody might be so generous.
> 
> But there's also the "fair use" argument. I'm not sure if it applies to 
> this, but if they're arguing they are an educational organization, or 
> making educational products, they might know about the copyright but 
> think it's OK in this case.

I'm totally alright with them using my image for educational purposes. 
If they were using it for a poster at Zazzle or something, I would 
definitely get upset.

> Never hurts to mention it, tho.

Yeah, I probably will.

Sam

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> stbenge <stb### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>> Should I contact the author or just sit here smiling silently? (BTW, the 
>> author never contacted me for permission to use the image, but I don't 
>> really care, I just find this funny)
> 
>   If you haven't published that image under a liberal license, that's a
> glaring copyright violation. At least you could give him a scare. ;)

I'm starting to feel like it's my responsibility to notify them of 
copyright infringement. They might end up with a lawsuit from somebody 
else eventually. A warning from me might keep this from happening.

Sam

Post a reply to this message