 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
stbenge wrote:
> http://hof.povray.org/indoor_aqueduct.html
>
> 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?"
At a quick glance, it's not obvious. The first giveaway was some
visible aliasing.
> 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)
Threaten them with a lawsuit for copyright violation unless they stop
referring to it as a photo. Make up a story about how your career in CGI
has been compromised because people think you're cheating by just taking
photos.<G>
--
Did you know that Sweepea, the name of Popeye's adopted baby is actually
"Sweet P", short for "Sweet Potato"?
Yep, when the child grew up, he was often heard to say the following, "I
yam what I yam... I'm a yam."
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawaz org<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
>> I don't get it. To me the image is not exactly photo-realistic.
> 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.
Or, there's some "official" document in the environment where the author
worked that says something along the lines of "if you use someone else's
picture, you must credit it your use with the phrase 'photo by <blah>'."
> didn't already). Tell her that she should not refer to it as a photo but
> as an artist impression.
"Illustration" is how I'd phrase it.
> 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.
Never hurts to mention it, tho.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
"That's pretty. Where's that?"
"It's the Age of Channelwood."
"We should go there on vacation some time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> stbenge wrote:
>> http://hof.povray.org/indoor_aqueduct.html
>>
>> 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?"
>
> At a quick glance, it's not obvious. The first giveaway was some
> visible aliasing.
The original image was large, so any aliasing could have been avoided
when scaling it.
>> 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)
>
> Threaten them with a lawsuit for copyright violation unless they
> stop referring to it as a photo. Make up a story about how your career
> in CGI has been compromised because people think you're cheating by just
> taking photos.<G>
Lol, funny :)
Sam
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gilles Tran wrote:
> 48378332@news.povray.org...
>
>> 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?"
>
> This sounds strange since 3D CG are everywhere these days, but many people
> really don't know at all about rendered computer graphics, even among
> professional designers: anything vaguely realistic is a photograph or a
> photographic collage made with Photoshop. Either they never heard of CG
> technology, or if they did they just assumed that it was some kind of
> digital photography, but the concept of 3D modelling and rendering is
> completely foreign to them.
I don't see how this is possible, considering Pixar has released so many
CG films in the last... decade or so.
> In any case I'm glad that picture got noticed (even if they should
> definitely have asked for permission). I was in charge of selecting the pics
> for the new HOF in 2004 and I went through the p.b.i archives to find your
> work.
>
> G.
Well, I suppose I should voice my gratitude. Thanks :)
Sam
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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...
Sam
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
