# What kind of light is in this pic?



## Nessy024 (Aug 18, 2011)

Hello


----------



## wlbphoto (Aug 18, 2011)

its against forum rules to post photo that are not yours. and thats just the light that was there, all they did was have a longer shutter speed.


----------



## joealcantar (Aug 18, 2011)

Looks like they put a flash behind the couple and dragged the shutter (slow shutter) the couple was more than likely asked to stand still. 
-
Read up on dragging the shutter. 
-
Shoot well, Joe


----------



## KmH (Aug 18, 2011)

Yep, a hot shoe flash zoomed to a wide angle with a radio trigger.

Visit www.strobist.com


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Aug 18, 2011)

Beautiful pic indeed.


----------



## Nessy024 (Aug 18, 2011)

You know thats what i thought at first, i tried with my flash trigger but i just was not bright enough


----------



## 480sparky (Aug 18, 2011)

It's too white to be a halgoen.  I'd say he just had a stronger strobe than you do.


----------



## analog.universe (Aug 18, 2011)

Since the shutter was open a while, it could also have just been fired a few times...  and if not, you could simulate more power from yours that way anyway.


----------



## KmH (Aug 19, 2011)

Nessy024 said:


> Hello


Why did you delete the link?


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Aug 19, 2011)

Perhaps he didn't want the cops knocking on the door, someone mentioned its "illegal"


----------



## 480sparky (Aug 19, 2011)

2WheelPhoto said:


> Perhaps he didn't want the cops knocking on the door, someone mentioned its "illegal"



Posting links to an image is just fine here.  Posting the image itself isn't.


----------



## Neiby (Aug 23, 2011)

480sparky said:


> 2WheelPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Perhaps he didn't want the cops knocking on the door, someone mentioned its "illegal"
> ...



I'm a noob here, so maybe I don't understand the distinction. Are you saying that just pasting in the link is okay, but using the "Image" linking feature that puts the photo inline is not allowed? If so, that just seems like we're splitting hairs. It's a link either way. The only difference is the type of link and how the forum software handles them. 

I'm curious because I just posted another online image in a different thread as an example of what I was trying to achieve and I want to make sure I don't violate the rules. It seems to me that if the image is already on the web, there shouldn't be a problem posting a link to it.


----------



## Bend The Light (Aug 23, 2011)

Neiby said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> > 2WheelPhoto said:
> ...



Not splitting hairs...

if you post the actual image (i.e. it is displayed here - however it is done) then it's akin to taking a print and putting it on your wall without permission.
If you post a link it is like telling someone to go to the gallery to look at a good picture. You are leaving the image in it's original place, not "taking it".


EDIT: I suppose you are also directing people to look at other work by the author when you post a link rather than the image itself. A little bit of pay-back for borrowing the image in the first place.


----------



## Neiby (Aug 23, 2011)

Bend The Light said:


> Neiby said:
> 
> 
> > 480sparky said:
> ...



I still don't see the technical distinction. Just because the forum software is displaying it inline, it's still a link to the original image. The forum software is displaying it from its original location. It is not being copied or moved in any way. As proof, right-click on any image and look at its properties. You will see the URL to the picture.

EDIT: Just for grins, I just read up on the copyright issues associated with various types of linking. Despite the fact that a link is a link, from a technical perspective, it does appear that the copyright issues are less clear in cases when images are displayed inline versus just posting the link itself. So, based on that, it makes sense not to post inline images to images we don't own.


----------



## Bend The Light (Aug 23, 2011)

Neiby said:


> Bend The Light said:
> 
> 
> > Neiby said:
> ...



Fair enough. Best not to break the rules, then. Just out of interest (or not) if you use Flickr for your own work (as I do) then when you insert one of your own images in a forum it must link back to the Flickr site. So, just using the


----------



## 480sparky (Aug 23, 2011)

Neiby said:


> I'm a noob here, so maybe I don't understand the distinction. ..........



Going to a museum or art gallery to _look_ at stuff is one thing.  Taking it and doing with it as you please is quite another.

The point is, the author of the image retains ALL RIGHTS to the usage of his/her work, and you are violating those rights by posting the image here.


----------



## Neiby (Aug 23, 2011)

480sparky said:


> Neiby said:
> 
> 
> > I'm a noob here, so maybe I don't understand the distinction. ..........
> ...



From the perspective of the web, though, a link is a link. We're just talking about HTML tags that determine whether the image is displayed inline or not. In either case, it's still just a link. Do you see what I mean? It's not stealing. The original content is exactly where it was posted by the originator.


----------



## Bend The Light (Aug 23, 2011)

Neiby said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> > Neiby said:
> ...



So if you copy and save an image on your computer, or display the copy in a website or forum, then that is ok? After all, the original is still there...


----------



## Neiby (Aug 23, 2011)

Bend The Light said:


> Neiby said:
> 
> 
> > 480sparky said:
> ...



If you link to it, it's not a copy. You're displaying the original. It has not been copied to another location. If you copy and save it to your computer, a copy has been made. If you then upload that to a site then you have made a copy. 

I see no practical difference between providing a link and displaying the image inline, because from a technical standpoint what happens under the hood is the same: a link is followed that retrieves a file from a web server. The exact same thing happens either way, but in one case the image is shown to the user without making them click the link. Displaying it inline does nothing but save the user a step. Displaying it inline is, in effect, clicking the link for the user. There is no difference between the two from the perspective of the hosting server.


----------



## KmH (Aug 23, 2011)

Visit www.copyright.gov and study copyright law. It all becomes clear.

TPF has some amount of legal exposure to being sued for copyright infringement, though they have some protection under the OCILLA statues.

Just like any other kind of property, you cannot take it without the permission of the property owner.


----------



## 480sparky (Aug 23, 2011)

Neiby said:


> ........ because from a technical standpoint what happens under the hood is the same: ..........



Far from it.

Let's say you do photography for a living....... you take AND SELL photos to feed your kids and pay your bills.  Now, in order to promote your work, you have a website.  Obviously, you post some of your images on your website.  

Now, along comes someone who uses your work without either permission or paying you.  Remember, this is work you did with the intention of selling, providing an income for yourself.  Are you willing to just sit back and now say, "Well, gee, my original image is still on my web site..... no harm, no foul I guess".  Or are you going to tell the person who is using your work without paying you to knock it off?

BTW, pirating music & videos is the same thing.  Making copies is still illegal, as is using someone else's work without permission...... despite the fact the original is still in place and intact.  This apparently is a concept many cannot comprehend.


----------



## Neiby (Aug 23, 2011)

KmH said:


> Visit www.copyright.gov and study copyright law. It all becomes clear.
> 
> TPF has some amount of legal exposure to being sued for copyright infringement, though they have some protection under the OCILLA statues.
> 
> Just like any other kind of property, you cannot take it without the permission of the property owner.



How is linking to something publicly viewable on the web considered taking? I'm speaking practically, not in terms of copyright. I realize the copyright situation is muddled. From a technical perspective, there is no difference between displaying the link inline or providing a link that requires the user to click on it. It is exactly the same thing. The content is never copied. In both cases, the user's own browser follows the link and displays the image in their browser. 

Based on the crazy copyright environment, I totally understand TPF's policy against displaying other people's images inline. I have no quarrel with that at all. I'm just making the point that from a technical standpoint, there is no difference and I don't know why people care. If done in the manner that we're discussing, the image is not copied. It always stays on the server and remains under the control of the owner. It is not the same as downloading it and re-uploading it.

I want to be clear that I'm not arguing TPF's policy. I'm in 100% agreement with it.


----------



## Neiby (Aug 23, 2011)

480sparky said:


> Neiby said:
> 
> 
> > ........ because from a technical standpoint what happens under the hood is the same: ..........
> ...



Can you clarify what you mean when you talk about someone else using my work? What context are you talking about? I could not possibly care less if someone links to my images in a forum post, but I think you're talking about a different context.


----------



## 480sparky (Aug 23, 2011)

Neiby said:


> Can you clarify what you mean when you talk about someone else using my work? What context are you talking about? I could not possibly care less if someone links to my images in a forum post, but I think you're talking about a different context.



When you post someone else's work here, without their permission, _you are using their work without compensating (paying) them for it_. It doesn't matter whether you're profiting from it or just asking a question on a forum.  You are violating their legal rights by doing so.

YOU may not care about what someone does with _your_ work, but other people are trying to feed their kids, pay their bills, make the mortgage payments, etc. with their images.  They have FULL and COMPLETE legal rights to their images...... how they are used, where they are used, when they are used, why they are used, and most importantly: who uses them........ and you have used them without either permission or compensation.

Now, if you had contacted the artist and asked permission to post them here, and you were given that permission (preferably in writing), all is fine.


----------



## Tomasko (Aug 23, 2011)

Neiby said:


> KmH said:
> 
> 
> > Visit www.copyright.gov and study copyright law. It all becomes clear.
> ...


If you really want to have a technical dispute about this issue, fine. Anything you put on a webpage is considered to be a part of the content (from viewers point of view and as well from the point of view of a web search (google etc)). If you put a code on your page that displays an image, you're showing it to your viewers, you're presenting it to some audience. Doesn't matter if you have it saved on your hosting, if you're referring to some other server. You have put in on your page, it became part of your website. Got it? It violates copyright rights and rules of this forum.
If you put just a link, you're telling people to go there and look for themselves. It's a completely different thing to put a link and to show an actual image.

Maybe a different example would help...
Image you took a photo. Would it be the same for you, if somebody displays your photo on his website or only provide a link to your gallery?


----------



## Neiby (Aug 23, 2011)

480sparky said:


> Neiby said:
> 
> 
> > Can you clarify what you mean when you talk about someone else using my work? What context are you talking about? I could not possibly care less if someone links to my images in a forum post, but I think you're talking about a different context.
> ...



I understand that. I'm not trying to be argumentative. I'm honestly trying to understand your viewpoint. I also don't think I'm being very clear about what I'm trying to say, either. Based on your replies, I'm not doing a good enough job of explaining myself.


----------



## Neiby (Aug 23, 2011)

Tomasko said:


> Neiby said:
> 
> 
> > KmH said:
> ...



I think we're coming at this from entirely different perspectives and just aren't going to agree. Best to leave it for now, I think. I wasn't intending to start any arguments. I'm new to photography, but I'm not new to web technology. I was really only commenting on the difficulty in differentiating between two actions that are fundamentally equivalent technologically and saying that one is okay and one is not, when under the hood they are identical. 

I'm not arguing the rightness of either action. I would be quite irritated if someone were to use my images in their website, for example. But if they just link to my images, I'm still in control and can change them at any time. If someone is going to be a bad netizen and use imagery like that then they deserve what happens to them when I replace that image with something a little less appealing to them.


----------



## 480sparky (Aug 23, 2011)

Neiby said:


> I understand that. I'm not trying to be argumentative. I'm honestly trying to understand your viewpoint. I also don't think I'm being very clear about what I'm trying to say, either. Based on your replies, I'm not doing a good enough job of explaining myself.



OK, what part of this don't you understand?


Here's a photo I took:








It is mine.  I took it, and I can do with it as I please.  I have all the legal rights to it as provided by US copyright laws.

Now, this image was provided to another web site, along with permission to post it, and it appears here.  They can legally post it because they have my permission to.  But they cannot give anyone else permission to post / print / copy / reproduce it.  They only have permission to post it on their site.

Now, if you were to post that image online somewhere, you do not have permission to unless I, the creator of that image, specifically tell you it's OK.

The reason I took that image is that I hope to be able to sell it sometime.... either in print form or digital rights.  So, legally, for you to do anything with that image (post it here, make a print, copy it to your Photobucket account, etc.) would be violating my rights as the owner of this, which is known as _intellectual property_.

If you were to ask me permission to post this image on an internet forum, I am well within my rights to do any of the following:

1. Refuse your request.
2. Say it's hunky-dorey, go for it... I don't care.
3. Demand money in return for certain rights.


Should I choose #3, I would then enter into a written agreement allowing you to do one thing and one thing only with the image.... post it on an internet forum.  You do not have any other rights to the image.  You cannot print it, you cannot sell it, you cannot email it to all your friends..... You only have the right to post it on TPF.  Should I find you did more than that, I have grounds for an infringement suit.


----------



## Tomasko (Aug 23, 2011)

Neiby said:


> Tomasko said:
> 
> 
> > Neiby said:
> ...


How can you say it's identical, when one situation leads to RENDER the actual image and other just provides a link to a gallery? I do have a business in IT, specifically I create websites for various clients, and it certainly isn't the same. It isn't the same for search engines, nor for web visitors.. No one cares where is the file hosted, but where and how you present it.


----------



## Neiby (Aug 23, 2011)

KmH said:


> Visit www.copyright.gov and study copyright law. It all becomes clear.
> 
> TPF has some amount of legal exposure to being sued for copyright infringement, though they have some protection under the OCILLA statues.
> 
> Just like any other kind of property, you cannot take it without the permission of the property owner.



I'm somewhat familiar with copyright law. The type of usage I was specifically referring to--using links as a reference in a forum discussion--would probably be considered fair use under copyright law. Regardless, since that isn't settled law, I fully support TPF's stance. I posted an inline image earlier in another thread and immediately changed it to a regular link to avoid any problems.


----------



## Neiby (Aug 23, 2011)

Tomasko said:


> Neiby said:
> 
> 
> > Tomasko said:
> ...



You're assuming that the link would link to a gallery. I'm talking about a direct link to the image. In a case like that, there is virtually no difference. In one case, the image is displayed inline and in the other case it opens as a standalone image in a new blank window.

Like I said, I'm not arguing the rightness or wrongness of it. I'm saying that technically they are virtually the same. For some reason, some people here seem to think I'm okay with using other people's content, when I've never said such a thing.


----------



## Neiby (Aug 23, 2011)

480sparky said:


> Neiby said:
> 
> 
> > I understand that. I'm not trying to be argumentative. I'm honestly trying to understand your viewpoint. I also don't think I'm being very clear about what I'm trying to say, either. Based on your replies, I'm not doing a good enough job of explaining myself.
> ...



From a legal perspective, if someone linked to your image in a forum post for the purposes of commentary or review, wouldn't that fall under fair use? My reading of the Fair Use clause seems to make exceptions for that type of use. It's entirely likely that I'm misunderstanding how Fair Use applies to these sorts of situations.


----------



## 480sparky (Aug 23, 2011)

Neiby said:


> From a legal perspective, if someone linked to your image in a forum post for the purposes of commentary or review, wouldn't that fall under fair use? My reading of the Fair Use clause seems to make exceptions for that type of use. It's entirely likely that I'm misunderstanding how Fair Use applies to these sorts of situations.



If someone *linked* to the image, I would say that's fair use.  But if you *posted* the image somewhere else, that is not.

From a legal perspective, it doesn't matter *what reason* you had to use the image.  The fact is, you used it without permission or compensation.


----------



## Neiby (Aug 23, 2011)

I understand what you're saying, and I *completely* understand why people would want to protect their work! I'm a total beginner and I'm blown away at how difficult photography actually is. Well, good photography is difficult.    I'm proving that bad photography is actually pretty easy! I really was commenting on the technical aspect of it with regard to the underlying web technology. Here is a link I just found that discusses inline linking and copyright. 

Inline linking - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In the case referred to in the article, the US Court of Appeals ruled that inline linking of images does not violate copyright for the exact reasons I mentioned earlier. But even though something might technically be legal doesn't mean we should do it, especially if the use of those images harms the originator in any way. I think references in discussion forums would fall under the Fair Use clause anyway, but I am not a lawyer. I certainly wouldn't be harmed if someone referred to an image in a forum with a link to my site. If anything, it would help me. 

However, if someone used that same link to use as a background on a commercial website, for example, that no longer falls under Fair Use. And if someone tried to take my work and pretend it was their own, well, that's pretty clear cut. No grey area there!


----------



## 480sparky (Aug 23, 2011)

Oh, and BTW, I didn't consider your posts as argumentative.


----------



## Neiby (Aug 23, 2011)

480sparky said:


> Oh, and BTW, I didn't consider your posts as argumentative.



Awesome! I was really hoping that was the case, but I was worried. Sometimes our tone doesn't come across in text very well. I definitely don't want to be seen as a troublemaker.   And that's especially true around here. I've learned an absurd amount from here in just the past month. This forum and the people in it are an amazing resource.


----------



## 480sparky (Aug 23, 2011)

Neiby said:


> ........, but I was worried. Sometimes our tone doesn't come across in text very well. I definitely don't want to be seen as a troublemaker...........



No need to worry..... we're cool!


----------

