The Nikon D800 was to promote a large-scale campaign, they used pictures taken by a N

use google translate

http://www.dagbladet.n​o …kon/canon/tabbe​/20515443/

It was not just that Nikon was not allowed to use the clips to the Norwegian nature photographer Terje Sørgjerd, he is also a sworn Canon supporter.

In the worldwide campaign for Nikon D800 went thus completely off the rails for the Japanese camera manufacturer.

- This is of course highly regrettable, says Bjorn Mangset, Nikon's top manager in Norway, Dagbladet.

newporthomie wrote in post #14025316
use google translate

http://www.dagbladet.n​o …kon/canon/tabbe​/20515443/

It was not just that Nikon was not allowed to use the clips to the Norwegian nature photographer Terje Sørgjerd, he is also a sworn Canon supporter.

In the worldwide campaign for Nikon D800 went thus completely off the rails for the Japanese camera manufacturer.

- This is of course highly regrettable, says Bjorn Mangset, Nikon's top manager in Norway, Dagbladet.

Marketing, in any company, are idiots.

You got to admit... that's quite an oversight and rather embarrassing, IMO. You're marketing a camera, showing all these wonderful clips... (Oh oops, BTW, some if not most of the footage were not captured by the camera we're trying to sell you.)

That's like going to your dentist and seeing all these posters of people with beautiful teeth and or a booklet of before/after cosmetic work done by somebody else. Sure... in theory, *your* dentist should be able to provide the same or even higher level of work. But how would you know? He/she is not showing their work and instead showing some other talented dentists' work.

jwcdds wrote in post #14025753
You got to admit... that's quite an oversight and rather embarrassing, IMO. You're marketing a camera, showing all these wonderful clips... (Oh oops, BTW, some if not most of the footage were not captured by the camera we're trying to sell you.)

That's like going to your dentist and seeing all these posters of people with beautiful teeth and or a booklet of before/after cosmetic work done by somebody else. Sure... in theory, *your* dentist should be able to provide the same or even higher level of work. But how would you know? He/she is not showing their work and instead showing some other talented dentists' work.

There's nothing wrong with that.

If I were taking studio shots of a Rebel for advertising, I'd shoot them with a Hasselblad.

If I were making a video advertisement for a camcorder - even a high-end one - I'd shoot it with a proper studio video camera.
.
If I were processing photos for making a print ad for an iPhone, I'd do it in Photoshop. Even though Apple hates Adobe.

Check out his fb page, it's all in there!

https://www.facebook.c​om/TSOPhotography?sk=w​all

Yes...advertising doesn't have any legal obligation of the results. A cosmetic company doesn't guarantees you to have the exact same results as what Julia Roberts are showcased in the poster. They are merely a graphical representation. If the companies want people to know that these are taken with their products, they will usually state it explicitly.

Malsam wrote in post #14025910
Yes...advertising doesn't have any legal obligation of the results. A cosmetic company doesn't guarantees you to have the exact same results as what Julia Roberts are showcased in the poster. They are merely a graphical representation. If the companies want people to know that these are taken with their products, they will usually state it explicitly.

But you can be damn sure they'll have a release from Julia Roberts and that's the point here...

Not only did Nikon not use a Nikon for much of the media in their own campaign, much of it was "lifted' without permission.

If I were an IP Attorney, I'd be drooling right now.

Shadowblade wrote in post #14025807
There's nothing wrong with that.

If I were taking studio shots of a Rebel for advertising, I'd shoot them with a Hasselblad.

If I were making a video advertisement for a camcorder - even a high-end one - I'd shoot it with a proper studio video camera.
.
If I were processing photos for making a print ad for an iPhone, I'd do it in Photoshop. Even though Apple hates Adobe.

All your examples were of a specific product: Rebel, camcorder, and an iPhone. None of what you suggested you would do would imply that the product itself has produced anything that is being depicted.

A photo of a Rebel camera is just a photo of a camera. Doesn't need to be taken with a Rebel.

A video advertisement where you're shooting just the physical product, doesn't imply that very clip was taken with said product. However, if I were to see a series of video clips, it is then "implied" that those clips were shot by said camcorder.

A photo of the iPhone is, again, just a product photo. If you're saying taking iPhone photos and then post-process them..., well, everyone post-process their photos one way or another, whether it's with iPhoto or w/ Photoshop, it doesn't really matter.

Whereas the D800 promotional clip included some (perhaps manh?) clips shot with other cameras/devices. If any of the footage were actually shot with the D800, they should have at least indicated which ones were, as they mix them together in the video collage. But they didn't.

To me, that is just embarrassing. It is more of an ethical issue, but we know marketing department violates that everyday of the week and twice on Sunday. Is it legally wrong? In this situation, having learned that they didn't get permission... they could have just shot themselves in the foot. In any case, embarrassing.

the idea is that the results you seen from the advertisement need not be from the same product it is advertised for. eg. using brand x cosmetic on Julia Robert doesn't make you look exactly like her. She maybe using brand Y to get the results instead. For advertising this is completely allowed. Same like Nikon catalogue can be shoot from a Canon camera or a Canon film shoot by Sony.

Taking a generic clip of some footage cannot be claimed as IP unless you can prove that you are the only 1 that knows how to shoot it in this way or the way it is filmed is setup by you or whatever. Not to mention if these places are in the public, there isn't any IP involved at all. Don't get carried away by the corporate IP game. I think Nikon is not a kid and even if they are, they will have money to play such games.

Nevertheless I do agree that Nikon is silly enough to use something from its competitor and yet so easily identified. I would have forgive them if they just take my 5D2 and shoot the film completely new and claimed it is shot by D800!

Peeped your blog post. That was a great diastema closure you did!

drecomfr wrote in post #14026956
Peeped your blog post. That was a great diastema closure you did!

Hehe. Thank you. According to some of the folks here... I should have just taken images off the web and pawned it off as my own because it's perfectly acceptable advertising.

It is different if you are using equipment A to shoot a equipment B. But it is fraud when you use equipment A to do a scene and depict it as being shot by equipment B.
Now compound that by not even telling the original producer of the film... now that is stealing.

Yeah right no big deal. Only a Nikon fanboy would dismiss the audacity.

jwcdds wrote in post #14027303
Hehe. Thank you. According to some of the folks here... I should have just taken images off the web and pawned it off as my own because it's perfectly acceptable advertising.

Was that done using resins and various tints? I had a case the other day (heavy smoker with broken centrals) that I had a lot of fun restoring. In the end the shock on his face was priceless -- it was as if his accident never happened!

Yeah, I just closed it with composite resin. A light layer of enamel shade for the lingual and mesial contours combined with a 1mm thick layer of dentin shade. Then the rest followed up with composite of various enamel shades to try and get a more natural gradient look. The trick is always at the gingiva/gum line, making sure the transition is nice and smooth and that the contours will gently pinch that interdental papilla so that I don't end up with a triangular gap at the gum line.

I spend most of the time on that first tooth, making sure I have the correct width (and length if/when applicable). Once the proper dimensions are achieved, the 2nd one just pretty much fall into place.