 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hello,
Sometimes Google can produce some interesting results, even when
searching one's own name. Case in point:
http://www.spanda.org/SpandaNews_I,2.pdf
Within that document lies an image produced by me. Underneath it reads,
"Indor Aqueduct. Photo by Samuel Benge." (the word "indor" is obviously
a misspelling of "indoor") It's the same image appearing in povray.org's
Hall of Fame:
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?"
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)
Sam
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
stbenge <stb### [at] hotmail com> 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. ;)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
stbenge wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Sometimes Google can produce some interesting results, even when
> searching one's own name. Case in point:
>
> http://www.spanda.org/SpandaNews_I,2.pdf
>
> Within that document lies an image produced by me. Underneath it reads,
> "Indor Aqueduct. Photo by Samuel Benge." (the word "indor" is obviously
> a misspelling of "indoor") It's the same image appearing in povray.org's
> Hall of Fame:
>
> http://hof.povray.org/indoor_aqueduct.html
>
> 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.
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.
> Am I
> missing something, or do people commonly refer to CG images as "photos?"
I don't think so.
>
> 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.
> ( 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.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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.
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.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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] nawazorg<<<<<<
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
