A 1969 test of four fast lenses, including Nikkor and Noctilux

I hate to appear picky, but does this appear with the permission of either Geoffrey or the BJP? Because the information is his copyright, and the layout is BJP copyright, and I don't see much in the way of 'By kind permission of...' It is highly likely both would grant permission, but equally, this cannot be taken for granted.

As I say, this may seem nit-picking, but if we want to maintain our own copyrights, we must respect the copyrights of others.

Cheers,

R.
 
Someone at ebay is converting such FL55.12 into M mount or LTM.
Thanks for the posting.

I understand Roger's concerns though.
 
Quoting from a published work does not infringe any copyright if the original writer is acknowleged. In this case PVN has not hidden the name of the original writer nor did he attempt to say that the work was his own. He is all right.

In academic works we quote or refer to published works of others all the time. The whole idea of publishing something is for it to be known to the whole world. So quoting it, even in its entirety, is to further that purpose. An acknowledgement would normally come in the form of a footnote or a separate list.
 
Windscale said:
Quoting from a published work does not infringe any copyright if the original writer is acknowleged. In this case PVN has not hidden the name of the original writer nor did he attempt to say that the work was his own. He is all right.

In academic works we quote or refer to published works of others all the time. The whole idea of publishing something is for it to be known to the whole world. So quoting it, even in its entirety, is to further that purpose. An acknowledgement would normally come in the form of a footnote or a separate list.
Click to expand...

No.

If that were so, publishing would be impossible. Anyone could steal anything, and publish it in its entirely, merely by acknowledging the author.

This is why copyright exists, to stop people stealing things, and to make sure that authors get paid for their work.

Cheers,

Roger
 
Nemo said:
After 40 years?
Click to expand...

Why not? If I wrote something 40 years ago, and it was stolen, I'd be well annoyed. This is why copyright is normally set at the life of the author plus (I think) 70 years, so that his family can benefit from it too. If someone re-issued my A History of the 35mm Still Camera (Focal Press, 1984) without permission and without paying me, I'd be very unhappy indeed.

A piece of work is as much a piece of property as, let us say, a piece of jewellery or a table. If someone felt they had the right to steal something of yours, merely because it was 40 years old, how happy would you be?

As I say, I think if you asked Geoffrey, he'd give permission, and I'm virtually certain that the BJP would. But the mere fact that people think that they can steal without permission -- an opinion that has in effect been expressed now by two people in this thread -- points up the importance of reminding people what copyright is, and why it matters.

Cheers,

Roger
 
Isn't this a moot argument?

You would have to talk to Ed Sawyer, the compiler of this .pdf document.
 
Hi Roger, I agree that copyright is an important concept (and I'd have thought most people here, being photographers, would be more aware of it). But I think you're mistaken on one point: a piece of work is not quite the same as a piece of jewelry in that copying the work does not directly deprive the original owner of his property.

Thomas Jefferson (a friend of France) said it best: "He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me."
 
Windscale said:
In academic works we quote or refer to published works of others all the time. The whole idea of publishing something is for it to be known to the whole world. So quoting it, even in its entirety, is to further that purpose. An acknowledgement would normally come in the form of a footnote or a separate list.
Click to expand...

In academic works we ONLY quote single sentences or parts of abstracts with naming of the author(s), title, journal, year, volume, and pages but NEVER the whole text except with written permission from the publisher of the quoted work.
 
shenkerian said:
Hi Roger, I agree that copyright is an important concept (and I'd have thought most people here, being photographers, would be more aware of it). But I think you're mistaken on one point: a piece of work is not quite the same as a piece of jewelry in that copying the work does not directly deprive the original owner of his property.

Thomas Jefferson (a friend of France) said it best: "He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me."
Click to expand...

You (and Jefferson) are of course absolutely right, but if someone's livelihood depends on his writing -- as Geoffrey's does, and as mine does -- then the indirect deprivation (in lost income) can be equally important.

I raised the original point somewhat diffidently, merely as a reminder that we should all be strongly aware of copyright -- and it seems that it was worth raising, as some of us are more aware than others.

Cheers,

Roger
 
I know that I may provide my students with links of internet material but that I should not bring into my university's electronic site someone else's work.
 
I strongly doubt that online linking to a 40 year old obscure scanned article is going to create any legal crisis.

If someone was charging to access it, that MIGHT create some legal complication, though it would be a fairly remote event.

There are tens of thousands of scanned instruction manuals, articles, books, etc online.

The original author is not being deprived of anything by linking to it on this thread. He's not "owed" anything, no profit is being made by displaying it.

The article is not being sold currently by any publication, the author not being deprived of any income.

There is legal theory and there is reality.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

N
NIKKOR Lenses; A New Book by Uli Koch
Replies
4
Views
574
nikon_uli
N
B
50mm f1.4 & f1.5 Max Aperture tests - Summarit, Summilux v2, Nikkor f1.4, Summilux ASPH
Replies
13
Views
1K
brusby
B
p.giannakis
Agrrr... AF Nikkor 50f/1.4 delamination
Replies
6
Views
622
Muggins
Muggins
Photar
EL lenses for macro purposes?
Replies
6
Views
412
Photar
Photar
A
Panasonic, Voigtlander, and the birth of the travel film
Replies
4
Views
710
Bolo Kukus
B
Back
Top Bottom