1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  1. odd jim

    odd jim Flimsiest Lambresta

    Messages:
    9,050
    Name:
    Jim
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Would that work, as the flash is always ahead of the thunder by some seconds (the speed of light is much faster than the speed of sound!)?
     
    Last edited: Jul 16, 2017
    Phil V likes this.
  2. PPPPP

    PPPPP

    Messages:
    193
    Edit My Images:
    No
    They are doing it in the US because the photographer is in the UK and relatively in-affluent (meaning it is more difficult to obtain US legal advice), making it more likely that he would buckle and allow them to win, thereby giving them the PR coup that they are seeking (all at his expense).

    The monkey is in Indonesia, which last time I checked, is not the US.
     
  3. odd jim

    odd jim Flimsiest Lambresta

    Messages:
    9,050
    Name:
    Jim
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    It's a US case simply because it's PETA who is bringing the case and they are based and have their headquarters in the US (Virginia).

    Not that I'm defending them / the case, it's plain ridiculous.
     
  4. DemiLion

    DemiLion

    Messages:
    10,748
    Name:
    Mark
    Edit My Images:
    No

    Really? Is it on holiday in the USA from Indonesia?
     
  5. The Image Team

    The Image Team

    Messages:
    275
    Name:
    Nicholas
    Edit My Images:
    No
    I don't know. I've never done lightning photography but I read a guide on it a couple of years ago which said you needed a sound trigger. I thought the same as you, light travels much faster than sound, but apparently thats the way to do it.
     
  6. sk66

    sk66

    Messages:
    4,839
    Name:
    Steven
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    An optical trigger is used...
     
  7. sk66

    sk66

    Messages:
    4,839
    Name:
    Steven
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    PETA is using the fact that BLURB is US based in order to allow them to have the case heard in the US.
    But PETA has a UK office/presence, and BLURB has a UK presence... combine that with the fact that Slater is UK based, that the image was first released/published in the UK, and it makes about zero sense for this case to be heard in the US.

    Here's a good discussion of all of the considerations/facts.
     
  8. StewartR

    StewartR Efrem Zimbalist Jr Advertiser

    Messages:
    9,837
    Name:
    Stewart (duh)
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    No, no, no! You understand the science (light travels faster than sound), so you *know* that by the time you hear the sound it's too late.

    I can't believe that both you and that guide which you read are being serious. Perhaps it was like a "Top Tip" from Viz? "Photographers! Save money when photographing lightning flashes! A cheap sound trigger will do the job just as effectively as an expensive optical trigger!"
     
    Last edited: Jul 17, 2017
    Graham W likes this.
  9. PPPPP

    PPPPP

    Messages:
    193
    Edit My Images:
    No
    PETA is a UK charity. It has a US arm as well (presumably set up as a separate charity in that country), and indeed branches in other countries.

    http://www.peta.org.uk/about/

    Its UK charity registration number is: 1056453
    It is also a UK Ltd Company:03135903

    https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/03135903/filing-history

    If you are really interested, you can have a look at the group accounts on Companies House. Turned over £3.8million according to the last set of financial statements.


    The US branch will presumably have a separate registration in that country.
     
  10. odd jim

    odd jim Flimsiest Lambresta

    Messages:
    9,050
    Name:
    Jim
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    No, PETA is a US organisation and simply has a UK arm (as it does in most first world countries). It was set up and has its HQ in Virginia, USA. It's well known it's a US organisation.

    Anyone operating in the U.K. has to be registered for various reasons especially tax, as charities have certain tax exemptions which they need to claim given their sole purpose is to generate funds.
     
    Last edited: Jul 17, 2017
  11. odd jim

    odd jim Flimsiest Lambresta

    Messages:
    9,050
    Name:
    Jim
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Any large scale legal action on behalf of a corporation / company / charity will originate from its headquarters, which for PETA is in the US, regardless of the Blurb situation. The Blurb issue came about simply to bolster the US legal standing by the plaintiff (PETA), not as a reason in itself as to why the case is using the US legal system.

    Even more relevant is that they are using US case law (as illustrated in your link) to influence the ruling.
     
    Last edited: Jul 17, 2017
  12. Steve Smith

    Steve Smith Joe

    Messages:
    9,190
    Edit My Images:
    No
    As sound travels at about 1000 feet/330 metres per second, it would have to be very close to work. There is a delay of about five seconds between thunder and lightning if just one mile away.


    Steve.
     
  13. odd jim

    odd jim Flimsiest Lambresta

    Messages:
    9,050
    Name:
    Jim
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Exactly, I was being gentle to the poster, unless you're stood right under it there's no way it would work, and even then it wouldn't be fast enough.

    And you'd be fried...
     
  14. KitsuneAndy

    KitsuneAndy

    Messages:
    3,083
    Name:
    Andy
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
  15. boyfalldown

    boyfalldown

    Messages:
    15,071
    Name:
    Hugh
    Edit My Images:
    No
    While on the face of it they appear to be their usual nobbish selves, as at @DemiLion pointed out earlier that're using the case to establish (or attempt to) that animals are capable of owning property and therefore sentinent which has far bigger implications for their cause then one selfie they don't really give a flying monkey's about. Subtle really
     
  16. odd jim

    odd jim Flimsiest Lambresta

    Messages:
    9,050
    Name:
    Jim
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    It's never been about copyright, PETA don't care about that, they're all about animal rights so it was only ever about setting legal precedent on an animal rights issue. If they can legally define them as sentient beings it gives them far more protection and has huge ramifications.
     
    boyfalldown likes this.
  17. DemiLion

    DemiLion

    Messages:
    10,748
    Name:
    Mark
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Erm, I'm pretty certain that I said that four days ago!
     
  18. odd jim

    odd jim Flimsiest Lambresta

    Messages:
    9,050
    Name:
    Jim
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    I was replying to Boyfalldown, reiterating it's not and never had been a copyright issue...
     
    Last edited: Jul 17, 2017
  19. boyfalldown

    boyfalldown

    Messages:
    15,071
    Name:
    Hugh
    Edit My Images:
    No
    and TBF I did acknowledge it was you who first raised it in my post
     
  20. DemiLion

    DemiLion

    Messages:
    10,748
    Name:
    Mark
    Edit My Images:
    No

    I know
     
  21. Retune

    Retune

    Messages:
    150
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Images (c) Thor Odinson for Asgard Photos 2017
     
  22. The Image Team

    The Image Team

    Messages:
    275
    Name:
    Nicholas
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Im fairly certain it was Wex actually but equally wrong. My point stands though, no matter how the trigger triggers, it ain't done by the tog, so does the lightning own copyright as it triggered the photo of itself?
     
  23. sk66

    sk66

    Messages:
    4,839
    Name:
    Steven
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Triggering the shutter is not the only consideration in "authorship"... it's not even the most significant consideration. It's only meets the requirement of "creation" (which is a basic requirement). There is no evidence of creative/artistic intent/effort/originality on the part of the lightning so it can't possibly be the author with copyrights.

    A more realistic scenario to raise such questions would be if you handed your camera to a stranger for them to take your picture... If you did everything (i.e. composed the shot on a tripod, set the focus and exposure, etc) and the stranger *only* pushed the shutter button; then you could reasonably claim authorship. But the more control over the outcome the stranger has, the more likely it is that they can claim authorship/joint authorship.
     
    Phil V likes this.
  24. odd jim

    odd jim Flimsiest Lambresta

    Messages:
    9,050
    Name:
    Jim
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    You've set it up, you've set the trigger to go at a certain point, you've set the other parameters, you're still 'authoring' the final result, that's the key phrase with copyright.

    Having a monkey get hold of a camera and pressing the shutter at his / her own desire and at the point they themselves choose is different.
     
  25. Phil V

    Phil V

    Messages:
    18,672
    Name:
    Phil
    Edit My Images:
    No
    And as has been discussed previously in discussions of this case:

    If photographer A has a vision, and organises a team to create and light a set, it's likely to be any member of the team who actually presses the shutter button, but the author is (obviously) photographer A.

    Only a pedant would try to argue the point, and it's this that PETA are pursuing. Id like to think that only the US legal system would let them burn through money in this way, but the recent D of E case against the parent who took his kid out of school suggests we could be just as barmy.
     
    jakeblu likes this.
  26. jakeblu

    jakeblu

    Messages:
    7,116
    Name:
    Steve
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    A bit like Damien Hirst who has assistants to produce some of his work. No matter what you think of Hirst and his art, its still his vision and therefore his ownership.
     
    Phil V likes this.
  27. simon ess

    simon ess

    Messages:
    6,328
    Edit My Images:
    No
    FWIW, I think the primate owns the copyright.
     
  28. Ed Sutton

    Ed Sutton

    Messages:
    3,480
    Name:
    Dave
    Edit My Images:
    No
    FFS don't bring religion into this!
     
    desf and simon ess like this.
  29. sk66

    sk66

    Messages:
    4,839
    Name:
    Steven
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    I think it's silly to suggest the monkey could be the author... Did it know that pushing a button would cause an image to be taken? Did it even know it was pushing a button? Does it have a concept of what a picture is? Did it have a conception for what the image outcome would be? I think all of that is highly unlikely. I think at best it saw it's reflection in the lens and was making faces. Where's the intent and creativity?

    TBH, I kind of think the whole thing was a lucky accident and not really intentional by Slater either... would you let a monkey grab your gear hoping they might accidentally take a selfie??? If I were going to do something like that the gear would be in a protective housing and I would be triggering it wirelessly. As long as he doesn't admit it was an accident then I think he should be given authorship/copyright (but I think he did...).
     
  30. Nod

    Nod Ethel Prescott

    Messages:
    27,983
    Name:
    Nod (NOT Ethel!!!)
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Which primate? The human or the monkey?
     
  31. odd jim

    odd jim Flimsiest Lambresta

    Messages:
    9,050
    Name:
    Jim
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    I only use the word 'author' as this is the term used in copyright law.
     
  32. odd jim

    odd jim Flimsiest Lambresta

    Messages:
    9,050
    Name:
    Jim
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
  33. cambsno

    cambsno

    Messages:
    12,543
    Name:
    Simon
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Depends if the monkey was shooting manual or auto!
     
  34. Keith W

    Keith W Rudolph

    Messages:
    8,051
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    First thing that caught my eye about that article Jim linked to was...

     
  35. Dave1

    Dave1

    Messages:
    6,581
    Name:
    Dave
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Second was the thought that perhaps the monkey is a mod here :p

    :exit:
     

Share This Page