where there’s smoke there’s forum fire
anjz said:What I am questioning is whether you can copyright the "live play" of a sports game. It's not entirely like a theatrical play, the content of which is fixed in a written manuscript and then the manuscript is performed. Perhaps it can be argued that running plays out of a play-book is performing a copyrighted work? Wondering if anyone is aware of the answer to this?
Ask the NFL.
My best.
Mike
Mike Gunter said:
Ask the NFL.My best.
Mike
As an example, I'm just looking at the ticket from the last NHL hockey game I went to it says this.
"The Holder (of ticket) acknowledges and agrees that any commercial or other unauthorized use of any transmission , picture, film/tape, writing, drawing or other depiction or description of any NHL or Vancouver Canucks name, mark or logo is prohibited without prior specific written approval of the NHL or Vancouver Canucks."
This is saying, for all intensive purposes, that taking pictures in the stadium, or of players (they wear uniforms with said logos) and just about anything there is copyright protected.
" Ratio measurement means nothing on its own.
Did you compare the geometry of objects between the two photos (the ringed floor is an obvious place to start) to demonstrate there was not a geometric transform (ie aspect ratio change or intentional perspective distortion) before measuring ratios and assuming a common surface? "
You must have read my mind Drab ! that's exactly what I looked into ...
Sorry I can't manage to load the picture directly . Please feel free if you can.
Please do not make any wise comments if you will not bother opening the sketch . And I admit it needs basic math skills to interpret .
The measurements were taken direct from my PC screen - it will be different in yours . But the ratios won't change.
You will see different RATIOS between HORIZONTAL ( sorry I shouted ) and VERTICAL measurements . It can only mean the vertical angle is different .
The newspaper shot is taken by someone sitting a few rows above Abhinav .
I'll be glad to hear your comments..
Paperman said:
I'll be glad to hear your comments ??
As I previously said - such simplistic measurements are worthless until you establish there has been no aspect-ratio (or other transformational) change.
I'm not saying you're right or wrong, but that you've jumped to step two and ignored step one.
Hi,
Your basis is because the layout artist changed the photo somewhat?
Mike
Drab ,
I am a civil engineer of 24 years and believe me I know about measurements/aspects/ratios especially when it comes buildings/structures.
Do you have any explanation why the distance ( between the balloon top and fixed same point on roof ) is a lot larger than it should be ( that is - larger than the crop factor of 2 photos ) ?
I am stunned why people can't see this ...
I am still waiting for the first guy who sees what I see ...
PB PM said:
"The Holder (of ticket) acknowledges and agrees that any commercial or other unauthorized use of any transmission , picture, film/tape, writing, drawing or other depiction or description of any NHL or Vancouver Canucks name, mark or logo is prohibited without prior specific written approval of the NHL or Vancouver Canucks."
Well, perhaps "unauthorized use...of any NHL or Vancouver Canucks name or logo" may go to trademark infringement as opposed to copyright infringement (maybe, maybe not). And, you also have potential rights of publicity of persons in your photo to contend with. But as far as copyright protection for a game (as opposed to the video recording of that game)...not so sure.
This post just caught my eye, and I decided to see what I could do with the two images. I snipped the image from the pdf you link to, and superimposed it on your image from flickr. I ended up having to stretch their image vertically a bit to get it to fit, but doing so shows the two images fit very well. I did not take the time to get it more perfect.
Paperman said:
You must have read my mind Drab ! that's exactly what I looked into ...
No. No, you didn't.
You took a X-axis comparison and applied it to the Y-axis without verifying beforehand that the X to Y ratio was consistent between the photos. You failed to account for stretching or other geometric transformation of the photo.
Paperman said:
Drab ,I am a civil engineer of 24 years and believe me I know about measurements/aspects/ratios especially when it comes buildings/structures.
Before attempting an appeal-to-authority fallacy may I suggest you read what I said in my initial post, as
Do you have any explanation why the distance ( between the balloon top and fixed same point on roof ) is a lot larger than it should be ( that is - larger than the crop factor of 2 photos ) ?
was already addressed re: potential geometric transformation explaining what you measured.
Paperman said:
I am stunned why people can't see this ...
I am stunned you didn't read my reply which DID see that... Disagreement != ignoring what you wrote.
And as Hyphen has so clearly demonstrated there was a stretch applied which answers you clearly.
Two points to Hyphen for the definitive post!
Paperman said:
I posted my response also on the Flickr topic and Abhinav indicated that he took the newspaper shot with an angle and that's why the distances are different in each photo .One, the distance measured on a plane would not change even if he shot the newspaper photo with an angle
Two - even if it did - with the only possible angle , the distance would look GREATER on the newspaper shot . However , the distance ( from top of balloon to stadium top ) is actually SMALLER in the paper shot .
He would have had to lean over the newspaper and shoot backwards with a NEGATIVE angle to get the balloon-roof distance to look the way it looks ( smaller than original ) on his shot .
I say it is False Alarm ... But I will apologize if he can prove me wrong.
I recall an image of the Antarctic which was lauded in a national publication and then someone sent in an indistinguishable image of the same thing. It turned out they had been on the same ship and were standing within three of four feet of each other.
Hyphen said:
This post just caught my eye, and I decided to see what I could do with the two images. I snipped the image from the pdf you link to, and superimposed it on your image from flickr. I ended up having to stretch their image vertically a bit to get it to fit, but doing so shows the two images fit very well. I did not take the time to get it more perfect.
Exactly ....
The photo has to be streeeeetched ( 15% or so ) vertically with everything getting longer so that it can fit over each other .
Hard to believe an the advertising agency serving Commonwealth Olympic Games - probably being paid Megabucks :
- dived into flickr , stole a photo as if there were not hundreds of other photos available ( cost 25 cents in Shutterstock )
- stretched vertically to avoid identification
- And then they were so BRAVE , they went ahead and placed a half page advertisement in a large Indian newspaper ....
- Let's not forget they used a 800 pixel image for a half page newspaper ad
The above is possible but simply someone else sitting 5 rows above and taking the same shot is not . What can I say ????
And why would they worry about stretching for copyright reasons as the olympic commitee would have all the copyrights for the opening event anyway .
And I am still banned from commenting on his flickr photo - somehow doesn't want me to follow the matter there among his mates .
Thanks Ronin - some common sense at last
- stretched vertically to avoid identification
Drab said:
Wild-assed assumption.
"... I ended up having to stretch their image vertically ...." said Hyphen himself so it is not my " wild assed " assumption .
"Paperman said:
And I am still banned from commenting on his flickr photo
I wonder why? ;) "
'Cos I'm the only one who has noticed that the photos are not the same .
"
Paperman said:
- stretched vertically to avoid identification
Wild-assed assumption.
There - does the bolding make it any clearer?
Paperman said:
'Cos I'm the only one who has noticed that the photos are not the same .
This has been demonstrated to be unlikely, if not flat-out wrong. I rather suspect you were banned because you shoot your mouth off prematurely w/o considering all the evidence, much less the wishes of the owner of the photo.
Feel free to believe what you want .
None of us are aware what is going on the OC Advertising Agent's side . You are basing your opinion solely on what Abhidav is claiming . Wouldn't it be more convincing if we had more proof of the agency's response ?
I honestly think he thought it was 100% his photo when he started the topic - he wouldn't have otherwise .
When I suggested the other possibility , I'm positive he realized he might be wrong but decided he would defend his position . It's a pity he chose to do so because he has such nice photos .
And I wasn't banned after a lenghty discussion but right after my second post where I suggested the vertical angle was different .
If I were in his position , I simply would do all calculations/measurements myself and open discussions to clear myself . I wouldn't run away or ERASE opposing views as he did .
Abhinav - first off all gratz, as Your picture is really nice and You got into big paper. As hor hijackin the shot I guess You can't do too much right now, try to get some rupie out of it but don't expect too much - try at least to get a letter of recognition from them and a digital copy of this ad (for Your portfolio).
As for the whole conversation, guys please remember that it's not USA, and low doesn't work the same way over there as it works in Your garden. I've lived and worked in India for some time and the law is.... well depends on the amount of bakshish. As for both of this pictures they look the same for me, and certainly I don't buy Your explanation paperman, how can you compare ratio between modified and unmodified picture, trust me ain't a problem to move the baloon couple pixels down or up, much harder is to get the same timing and overall perspective, which looks identicall to me.
Anyway gratz once again abhinav as IMHO You should be very proud that it was Your photo that was selected.
Really, it is way too suspicious that they would crop the picture in the ad right above where the copyright is.
To me it is the same picture.
Congrats on getting in a paper, super congrats if you get a nice payoff.
krevlingoodspeed said:
Really, it is way too suspicious that they would crop the picture in the ad right above where the copyright is.
It is not cropped above the left copyright signature , mind you .
Of course people who can tweak/stretch a photo vertically will have no problem removing the signature as well .
I am looking forward to hear about the response from the Olympic Committee Ad Agency ; the story seems to somewhat have died in the flickr post.
There is also no more mention of the fact that the agency has contacted him for compensation.
Yo abhi, sucks man...but that's india bro, at least you got props...
What I would do?
Let the media know and get" known" as the guy who took the shot...the games are getting such crappy press, being the dude that captured a nice shot WILL give you notoriety and clients....
What's worth more? Clients....indian consumers are suckers for what's hot....(westernization!)
Paperman said: ; the story seems to somewhat have died in the flickr post.
There is also no more mention of the fact that the agency has contacted him for compensation.
It's been the middle of the frickin night over there. You said this before 7am!
The thread's been quiet BECAUSE PEOPLE IN INDIA WENT TO SLEEP.
How do you know I'm not in India :-))
And they sure sleep long in India - Abhidav has been asleep for 19 hours ...
and why are you shouting ??
This topic has been closed to new replies.
