Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Post Processing, Marketing & Presenting Photos The Business of Photography 
Thread started 23 Jun 2012 (Saturday) 07:59
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Disturbing trend in high schools

 
yogestee
"my posts can be a little colourful"
Avatar
13,845 posts
Gallery: 5 photos
Likes: 35
Joined Dec 2007
Location: Australia
     
Jun 30, 2012 23:53 |  #61

JeffreyG wrote in post #14643095 (external link)
So a socialized approach might be to pair the strongest of students up with the weaker students on projects in hopes that the weaker students would learn from their peers. The upside is that the weaker students might get a better education and the stonger students might as well (teaching is often the best tool for learning). The downside might be that the stronger students simply carry the weaker ones and do all the work.

As an ESL teacher, I use this approach regularly in the classroom with generally good results.


Jurgen
50D~700D~EOS M~G11~S95~GoPro Hero4 Silver
http://www.pbase.com/j​urgentreue (external link)
The Title Fairy,, off with her head!!

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Viva-photography
Goldmember
Avatar
1,442 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Feb 2010
Location: Arkansas
     
Jul 01, 2012 00:25 |  #62

The world is changing. The internet is built to SHARE.
The music industry has to adapt.
Radio had to adapt when TV was realeased.
And now music has to adapt with the internet.
As do we, photographers.

We can't scream out and sue every joe schmoe who "illegaly" downloads media. (honestly, anything you put online should just be acknowledged that it's going to be treated as fair game.)
We just need to adapt rather than getting hung on the stagnant way of things.


jaredholtphoto.com (external link)
Canon 5D Mark II// Canon 85mm f/1.8//Sigma 35mm f/1.4//Canon 70-200 f/4L

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
cdifoto
Don't get pissy with me
Avatar
34,090 posts
Likes: 39
Joined Dec 2005
     
Jul 01, 2012 01:47 |  #63

Viva-photography wrote in post #14655042 (external link)
The world is changing. The internet is built to SHARE.
The music industry has to adapt.
Radio had to adapt when TV was realeased.
And now music has to adapt with the internet.
As do we, photographers.

We can't scream out and sue every joe schmoe who "illegaly" downloads media. (honestly, anything you put online should just be acknowledged that it's going to be treated as fair game.)
We just need to adapt rather than getting hung on the stagnant way of things.

You see a television at the store and want to enjoy it at home...do you just steal it?

Same thing.


Did you lose Digital Photo Professional (DPP)? Get it here (external link). Cursing at your worse-than-a-map reflector? Check out this vid! (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Levina ­ de ­ Ruijter
I'm a bloody goody two-shoes!
Avatar
18,286 posts
Gallery: 305 photos
Best ofs: 10
Likes: 7095
Joined Sep 2008
Location: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, EU
     
Jul 01, 2012 02:11 |  #64

cdifoto wrote in post #14655232 (external link)
You see a television at the store and want to enjoy it at home...do you just steal it?

Same thing.

No, it isn't actually. This is used always as an argument against free downloading, but the analogy is faulty. When I steal that tv from the store, then that is an actual, real, physical loss in that there are a limited amount of tv's just like it. You steal one, then there is one less to sell and the money invested in making it is lost.

But when you download something, say Adobe CS5, then there is no real, physical loss as the amount of copies is infinite and it's not affected by those that free download it.

Now, you may still be against free downloading, but you're going to have to find better reasons than this one.

Personally I agree with Jared. The world has changed and those businesses that can't adapt, will perish. Is that fair? Probably not, but who said the world is fair? But it is the reality. If people can get something for free, they will not pay for it. Really quite understandable from an evolutionary point of view: the less survival in this modern world costs, the better our chances of making it.

But in any case there's no use hanging on to things past.


Levina
My flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
FlyingPhotog
Cream of the "Prop"
Avatar
57,560 posts
Likes: 142
Joined May 2007
Location: Probably Chasing Aircraft
     
Jul 01, 2012 02:16 |  #65

The number of TVs may be "finite" but the number of my photo that you say is fair game is...

ONE

It's mine, I created it and it's the only one like it anywhere. You better believe it has value but more importantly, it has worth. My sweat, my blood, my creativity and my expenses involved in getting out and getting the shot.

If all of tha above is of a significant enough value to me, you can be god damned sure I'll avail myself of the law and nail the asshat who thinks its clever to steal.

Y'all want to know what's killing photography? It's attitudes like Levina's.


Jay
Crosswind Images (external link)
Facebook Fan Page (external link)

"If you aren't getting extraordinary images from today's dSLRs, regardless of brand, it's not the camera!" - Bill Fortney, Nikon Corp.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
cdifoto
Don't get pissy with me
Avatar
34,090 posts
Likes: 39
Joined Dec 2005
     
Jul 01, 2012 02:48 |  #66

Levina de Ruijter wrote in post #14655255 (external link)
But in any case there's no use hanging on to things past.

Tell that to the mom who ran into her burning house to get the family photos. Yes, some people actually do care about photographs. Every now and then they mean something.


Did you lose Digital Photo Professional (DPP)? Get it here (external link). Cursing at your worse-than-a-map reflector? Check out this vid! (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Levina ­ de ­ Ruijter
I'm a bloody goody two-shoes!
Avatar
18,286 posts
Gallery: 305 photos
Best ofs: 10
Likes: 7095
Joined Sep 2008
Location: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, EU
     
Jul 01, 2012 04:14 |  #67

FlyingPhotog wrote in post #14655259 (external link)
The number of TVs may be "finite" but the number of my photo that you say is fair game is...

ONE

It's mine, I created it and it's the only one like it anywhere. You better believe it has value but more importantly, it has worth. My sweat, my blood, my creativity and my expenses involved in getting out and getting the shot.

If all of tha above is of a significant enough value to me, you can be god damned sure I'll avail myself of the law and nail the asshat who thinks its clever to steal.

Y'all want to know what's killing photography? It's attitudes like Levina's.

It's not my attitude, Jay, it is the attitude of the internet-surfing populace. The internet has changed things and you can't put the genie back in the bottle.


Levina
My flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
FlyingPhotog
Cream of the "Prop"
Avatar
57,560 posts
Likes: 142
Joined May 2007
Location: Probably Chasing Aircraft
     
Jul 01, 2012 04:36 |  #68

Levina de Ruijter wrote in post #14655442 (external link)
It's not my attitude, Jay, it is the attitude of the internet-surfing populace. The internet has changed things and you can't put the genie back in the bottle.

If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.

If one person would bother to properly explain copyright to two people and then they explained it to two each and so on, a helluva lot of people would get a clue pretty quick.

Far too many people feel they don't owe anything to photography because they're only a hobbyist or they only do it for fun or they're not pros so why care? Yet those same people cry bloody murder if someone says, "Well, hobbyists and part-timers aren't really photographers."

Guess what? Even if you have 1,000 covers to your credit and have multiple Pulitzer Prizes, if you can't be bothered to help defend the rights of other photographers, you're not a photographer!


Jay
Crosswind Images (external link)
Facebook Fan Page (external link)

"If you aren't getting extraordinary images from today's dSLRs, regardless of brand, it's not the camera!" - Bill Fortney, Nikon Corp.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Levina ­ de ­ Ruijter
I'm a bloody goody two-shoes!
Avatar
18,286 posts
Gallery: 305 photos
Best ofs: 10
Likes: 7095
Joined Sep 2008
Location: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, EU
     
Jul 01, 2012 05:05 |  #69

FlyingPhotog wrote in post #14655473 (external link)
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.

If one person would bother to properly explain copyright to two people and then they explained it to two each and so on, a helluva lot of people would get a clue pretty quick.

Far too many people feel they don't owe anything to photography because they're only a hobbyist or they only do it for fun or they're not pros so why care? Yet those same people cry bloody murder if someone says, "Well, hobbyists and part-timers aren't really photographers."

Guess what? Even if you have 1,000 covers to your credit and have multiple Pulitzer Prizes, if you can't be bothered to help defend the rights of other photographers, you're not a photographer!

So you really assume that people who steal a photographer's images, don't know what copyright means? And that explaining it to them would make a difference? That is very naive. I bet you that they know but simply don't care.
You put your images on display here, or on a website? People will take them. Only way to make sure your images are not stolen is to not put them online.

To say that if I'm not part of the solution, I'm part of the problem is rather unfair and I don't think I quite deserve that. But you can call me a hobbyist any time, as that is exactly what I am.


Levina
My flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mtimber
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,011 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Mar 2010
Location: Cambs, UK
     
Jul 01, 2012 05:06 |  #70

Levina de Ruijter wrote in post #14655255 (external link)
Really quite understandable from an evolutionary point of view: the less survival in this modern world costs, the better our chances of making it.


Interesting moral position, theft is okay if you believe in evolution? :-)


You'll be late for everything because the light was right and the action was good (magoosmc)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Levina ­ de ­ Ruijter
I'm a bloody goody two-shoes!
Avatar
18,286 posts
Gallery: 305 photos
Best ofs: 10
Likes: 7095
Joined Sep 2008
Location: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, EU
     
Jul 01, 2012 06:06 |  #71

mtimber wrote in post #14655511 (external link)
Interesting moral position, theft is okay if you believe in evolution? :-)

No. And I never said or implied that. It is simply a possible *exlanation* for said behaviour.


Levina
My flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
cameraperson
Senior Member
Avatar
811 posts
Joined May 2010
Location: Atlanta, GA.
     
Jul 01, 2012 08:57 |  #72

Levina de Ruijter wrote in post #14655255 (external link)
No, it isn't actually. This is used always as an argument against free downloading, but the analogy is faulty. When I steal that tv from the store, then that is an actual, real, physical loss in that there are a limited amount of tv's just like it. You steal one, then there is one less to sell and the money invested in making it is lost.

But when you download something, say Adobe CS5, then there is no real, physical loss as the amount of copies is infinite and it's not affected by those that free download it.

Now, you may still be against free downloading, but you're going to have to find better reasons than this one.

Personally I agree with Jared. The world has changed and those businesses that can't adapt, will perish. Is that fair? Probably not, but who said the world is fair? But it is the reality. If people can get something for free, they will not pay for it. Really quite understandable from an evolutionary point of view: the less survival in this modern world costs, the better our chances of making it.

But in any case there's no use hanging on to things past.

What about the physical loss of those who created the product? They make less profit. They cannot buy goods and services. That is real physical loss.

edit: Whatever happened to things just being wrong? evil?


Xsi, 18-55

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
airfrogusmc
I'm a chimper. There I said it...
36,223 posts
Gallery: 147 photos
Best ofs: 6
Likes: 5458
Joined May 2007
Location: Oak Park, Illinois
     
Jul 01, 2012 09:09 |  #73

If you take anything thats not yours its stealing. That means using a photograph that you do not have permission to use is stealing. Its that simple.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
JDPhotoGuy
Senior Member
Avatar
294 posts
Joined Apr 2012
     
Jul 01, 2012 10:06 |  #74

Levina de Ruijter wrote in post #14655583 (external link)
No. And I never said or implied that. It is simply a possible *exlanation* for said behaviour.

Don't take it personally Levina, it seems to be the retort of choice by folks unable to come up with a better argument.

People will never understand that they're jumping up and down about people stealing their images when by all accounts anyone with a browser has hundreds of stolen images in their cache. If ANYONE puts an image online they're saying "I agree and understand that by uploading this image I am turning over possession of this digital copy of this image I took to a hosting company to store on the hard drives of their servers. I further acknowledge that by doing so that company is going to distribute said digital copy to every personal computer that knowingly or unknowingly finds it on the internet."

Yes, the image is yours. Yes, if anyone uses it to profit off of it's wrong and should be punished seeing as there was resulting money made directly from your work. If you put a low res image online and someone hacks into your computer to steal the RAW file, that's theft.

Short of that, you just can't have it both ways and quite frankly I'm tired of the crying. Why does it go online to begin with? Because it builds reputations, showcases work, and ultimately generates revenue. Uploading a digital image is the same damn thing as standing outside a Walmart 7 days a week 24/7 and handing a 5x7 print to everyone who walks out. The only difference is that putting it on the net costs you nothing and only takes a few seconds to solicit your images around the clock so as a photographer, you do it.

Does it make sense to hand out prints? Of course not. So don't do it digitally and then complain when someone uses it in a personal manner. It's ignorant and shows you don't really understand what you're doing when you upload it in the first place. I can find every picture I've seen on this website in my cache... already there.. I didn't steal it. I didn't right click it. I didn't screen cap.

And everyone complains about right clicking and saving... Plain ignorance.

.mp3s? Yeah, they're there too. Now think about that. I can go to a legal site like Rhapsody, listen to a song, it'll be SENT to and stored on my hard drive and that's fine. But I'm infringing if I double click and execute that file that was written to my computer legally.


Yes, I have severe Equipment Deficiency. No, the pills don't fix it.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
airfrogusmc
I'm a chimper. There I said it...
36,223 posts
Gallery: 147 photos
Best ofs: 6
Likes: 5458
Joined May 2007
Location: Oak Park, Illinois
     
Jul 01, 2012 10:22 |  #75

If you leave your wallet on a table and someone picks it up and takes it for themselves its stealing. You can call it what you want, its stealing. If you leave your car unlocked with the keys in it if someone takes it its stealing. If you take an image without my permission its stealing. You can twist it, clean it up, do what ever you want with the words, if you take something thats not yours, its stealing.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

53,808 views & 0 likes for this thread
Disturbing trend in high schools
FORUMS Post Processing, Marketing & Presenting Photos The Business of Photography 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is Wahama90
917 guests, 260 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.