Around the Web on a Monday

Ice with a tail: Take a look at these three pictures of the Comet Pan-STARRS over the skies of Kansas, by razor2277 on Dpreview. (Thanks to Rick for the tip.) I'm going to make a WAG and say that this comet will be better documented than any in history so far...so improved, and so much more ubiquitous, are our methods of image capture nowadays. These were taken with a NEX-5. 

Dead not forgotten: Carps Carpenter found this lovely 1966 Grateful Dead concert on the Internet Archive, there for the streaming. Allegedly from Avalon Ballroom on 16 September of that long-ago year, although there is some dispute about that. A veritable time capsule. And I trust those of you who like licorice have perused this? (Explanation of that cryptic reference at the link.)

From a group of 78 carte-de-visite portraits of Chinese subjects by various photographers, 1860s–70s. Sold for $60,000 at the February 26th auction at Swann Galleries. 

Will No One Buy a Forlorn Weston? The indefatigible and elusive Richard B. Woodward writes, and, having writ, moves on. Funny where he turns up. Here he surfaces on Artinfo (from Art+Auction) writing about the photography art market in the light of the savior pre-Christmas Sotheby's show, in an article called "Zooming in on the Trends That are Reshaping the Market for Photography" (not a very Woodwardian title; I smell an editor). (Chambers sent this in. Thanks.)

Who Pays Photographers? (From John Hogg.)

Without too much talk surrounding: Quietly continuing an expansive career as one of the most interesting of American photographers, Nicholas Nixon has given a pellucid, pinpoint interview to Ahorn Magazine. One could wish the questions a little shorter and the answers a little longer perhaps. Ken Tanaka told me about this.

By the bye, I recommend Family Pictures in the "Photographers At Work" series as a good starting point if you're not familiar with Nick Nixon's work. Here's a man who is due for a retrospective book, edited by someone outside his circle. Are Keith F. Davis and Richard B. Woodward available, by any chance?

The best book possible: Speaking of Ahorn Magazine, that's where Eric Marth's comparison of the image quality in all the various editions of American Photographs was published. Many readers emailed to tell me about this! It was a TL;DR for me, but then, I have two editions of the book already and already-formed opinions on the matter. Eric's article is called "Printing American Photographs." The current iteration of the book is still available here. (And here's the U.K. link.)

Nikkor 28mm ƒ/1.8G verdict: This might be out of place in this post, but I should have added it to my recent post about this lens and it has to go somewhere. Full-frame 28mm's of this speed (I mean ~ƒ/2) have a long and storied history, with many stellar offerings providing a plethora of high points along the way. The one I coveted in the 1980s* cost no more in absolute dollars than Nikon's newest, which means, when you factor for inflation, that this one is a good value. It's an excellent lens with many fascinating foibles, none of them fatal. Keeps me interested. Historically I'd give it a solid B+, and, by today's risen standards, still a B–. (I'm a strict grader, so B is high for me.) Here's the link to the lens; "Instant Savings" of $100 are currently in effect.

Photo: Landingfield

Picture elements revealed: For those of you with a digi-phototechnical bent, here's a cool thing. Landingfield, an astrophotography site, looks deep into innerspace with a number of photomicrographs of a CMOS digital camera sensor. The article is called "Peeping into Pixel." This is the equivalent of understanding the chemical constituents of a plating-out developer—i.e., not pertinent to photographs. But strangely fascinating anyway! (This one came from Ken T. too.)

Hold that pose: This is a weird one—the photographer who took the famous (well, American sports-world famous) picture of Desmond Howard imitating the Heisman statue is suing Howard, among others, for using the picture without permission. Howard, understandably, is saying "Huh?!? It's a picture of me." Of course, as we all know, Desmond doesn't have, uh, a leg to stand on...legally. But this might be the most direct clash between intuitive ideas of fairness and copyright legality we've come across.

Desmond Howard. Photo by Brian Masck.

Ironically, we have the right to show the photo here. The lawsuit means it's news; thus we can publish it under Fair Use. But I don't have the right to show a picture of the Heisman Trophy that the post mimics, because, for any given picture, I'd simply be using the content of the picture as an illustration.

Thanks to Steve Rosenblum for this.

It's coming, and we're watching: Dewi Lewis, of Dewi Lewis Publishing, tells me they're still planning a reprint of Pentti Sammallahti's Here Far Away, our Photobook of the Year 2012, but that there's no ETA (estimated time of arrival) yet. I'm still on sentinel duty, hoping I won't miss it when it happens.

Famous last words: "My computer problems are solved." Knock on my wooden head, and hope I won't have to eat those words. But everything went well. AppleCare was stellar. My AppleCare contract lasts until next February 3rd, which means I will be getting a new computer on that date. AppleCare is a must-have accessory, if you ask me.

Thanks to everyone who ever sends in tips! I appreciate them all, even the duplicates and the ones I don't end up using. Thanks to one and all.

Mike

*By the way, I never once heard that lens called the "Hollywood 28" back in the day. And I would have. I think that's a recent Internet meme rather than legitimately an historical nickname.

Original contents copyright 2013 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Jamie Pillers: "Thanks for the link to the Nicholas Nixon interview. I love hearing what rumbles around inside the head of someone working passionately, like Nixon."

Tom Kwas: "...As a 'Zeiss-o-phile' and Contax user in the '80s and '90s, I never heard that lens called a 'Hollywood' either, by anyone, anytime, and I even met the reps and talked to them extensively about the system. I also never saw the thing, as the ƒ/2.8 was half the size and the difference in price was not worth the money...I also wasn't a 28mm 'guy,' and owned the very nice 25mm and ditto 35mm, both ƒ/2.8's, both wonderful...as for 'Hollywood,' that's some Internet smoke-blowin' there...."

hugh crawford: "The NYC area is pretty much all clouds or rain or snow for the next 10 days, pretty much the same as it was for Hale-Bopp in '97. The last time I put film in my Nikon F was for Hale-Bopp, when a friend and I got so frustrated that we drove for a few hours on the Interstate hoping for a break in the allegedly scattered clouds. The film is still in the camera. Maybe Pan-STARRS will still be happening when I'm in California on the 29th."

Armand: "I have the Nikkor 28mm ƒ/2.8 AIS and I love it. Great lens for pixel peeping I suppose. I am not sure how it compares to the Nikkor 28mm ƒ/1.8G."

Mike replies: That lens is one of the high points of Nikon lens design and manufacture. It is highly corrected with eight elements and a floating group. It was introduced at just the right time: in 1981, Nikon was indisputably the no. 1 cameramaker for pros, had some very talented lens designers, was optimizing its lenses for performance and robust build quality rather than price...and it was just before the "zoom era" really got going, and the slower 28mm was still a commercially very important lens specification. (In the '70s, the 28mm ƒ/2.8 prime was sort of the default wide angle for most SLR photographers. Lenses of that specification sold by the boatload and every cameramaker and independent lensmaker offered a version of it. By the time the AF lens came along, that ship had sailed, and the AF lens was actually based on the cheap "budget" E-Series lens.)

Your lens was a particularly successful design. It's small and light, handles well, and is particularly well balanced in performance, with all aberrations well controlled, very little distortion, good sharpness across the field, and balanced performance across the aperture range. And it's well coated. A premium camera lens in every respect, usability not least. The only possible cavil is that the out-of-focus rendition is not quite as good as that of the AI, but even that's not bad—and with a WA you seldom see much of it anyway. (And the AF-S ƒ/1.8G is not stellar in that respect either.) And a few samples could show decentering.

Not only can you still find the lens used fairly easily, it is also one of the few manual-focus AIS lenses you can still buy new from Nikon. The price is a bit higher now than it has been historically, but it's still a good bargain considering what you're getting. The lens works well on Nikon DSLRs in manual and aperture-preferred modes if your eye is up to focusing manually.

My advice: hang on to that.

Carl Blesch: "So if I gave you a link to a photo I shot of a Heisman trophy in a showcase at Ohio State's student union, you couldn't post it here because that violates copyright? Does that mean I'm violating copyright by posting my photo, taken in a public place of an openly displayed item, on my photo sharing web site? Is this like the story I once heard of the cypress tree at Big Sur being copyrighted, so no one is allowed to take pictures of it or show those pictures to anyone?"

The Heisman Trophy. Photo by Carl Blesch.

Mike replies: No, then I could probably post it—as I have done, above—because then I have a reasonable expectation that I have your permission to do so. (But see below.)

The point of copyright is that you own your photo. The people who own the Heisman trophy don't own your photo of it, just like Desmond Howard doesn't own Brian Masck's photo just because it's a photo of him. You can do what you want with your own photograph.

There are exceptions, however. "Fair Use" allows me to publish pictures owned by others without their permission, but only under certain conditions—if I'm commenting on or critiquing the picture or if it's news, mainly. It does not allow me to use pictures belonging to other people just because I want to. So I can't steal your picture and use it in my advertising, pass it off as my own, or use it to illustrate my article or as the cover of my magazine. To do those things, I have to get your permission—you have to grant me the right.

In many cases, this "permission" or transfer of rights becomes a commercial arrangement: if I want to use your picture on the cover of my magazine, you might agree to give me the right to do so if I were to pay you a certain amount of money, for instance. That's the basis for professional editorial photography.

By posting your picture above, I'm acting in good faith by presuming that, because you're a TOP reader and you left a link to it as a comment on my blog, you won't object to me posting it. But I still only have the right to do so because you've (implicity) granted it to me. I post a lot of pictures on TOP because I assume, according to my best judgement and "best guess," that the rights owner won't mind. But that's often just a guess. If you now send me an email saying, "Hey! I never explicitly gave you permission to post my photo. Remove it from your website right now," I would do so.

Clear?

In my years of writing TOP, I've only received requests to remove pictures twice. In both cases I complied.

Where people go astray in copyright is usually because a) they think the photographer's or rights holder's rights are unlimited, or b) they think the photographer doesn't have (or shouldn't have(!)) rights he or she does legally have.

An example of the first: let's say I find a picture by a stranger on Flickr. It's labeled, clearly, "Copyright 2103 by Joseph Blow, all rights reserved." I then copy that photograph, post it on TOP, and write a three-paragraph critique of it. The photographer finds out, is furious, and contacts me stating in strong terms that I've used his photograph without permission, that it's copyrighted, and that I must take it down immediately.

Guess what? Legally, he does not have the right to force me to take it down. Fair Use allows me to reproduce or publish other peoples' work for the purpose of commentary or criticism. I have the legal right to post his picture on my blog if I'm writing about it and discussing it directly. (As a practical matter, if someone is angry and threatening legal action, I'd probably take the picture down, but that would just be to avoid legal entangement, not because I don't have the right to do what I did.)

In this case, the photographer has assumed his rights are unlimited, and trump every other legal consideration.

In another case, say I took a portrait of a kid down the street for pay. Her parents paid me for the portrait shoot and bought two prints. A year later, I become aware that the parents have let their best friend use the portrait for a cover of a brochure advertising his business. When I request payment for this additional use of the picture, they become outraged and claim I am extorting their friend. In their view, they paid for the portrait, they paid for the print, it's of their daughter, and they assume they own it, lock, stock and barrel.

As you probably know, they are wrong—the photographer still owns the rights to the picture, even when it was taken on commission and even if the parents bought prints. In this case, they have assumed the photographer does not have rights he in fact has.

The cypress tree thing is a different issue altogether—trademark, not copyright.

Disclaimer: I am not a copyright lawyer or an expert in copyright law.

Comments

[Dennis]

Amazing how ragged the Dead were in the early days, and the vocals... I guess they have a certain charm which they never lost, lol.

[John Willard]

My favorite comet picture so far.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=76282.0

[James Hengst]

For those into video (and YouTube)
http://xkcd.com/1187/

[Rob L]

You comments had me concerned that I had possibly spent a wee too much on the Sigma 35 1.4, instead of the Nikkor 28 - but after looking over the last week of shooting, I have to say I'm still really, really happy. The 28 is a great lens, but for those not wanting quite so wide the Sigma is great, albeit pricier, option.(And if you ever so desire to test one, hit me up. I'm sufficiently blown away at the performance of a Sigma lens that I'd be happy to part with it for a week to share the amazement:)

And thank you for the link to Nixon - how did I not know about this guy???(The bane of the self-educated:)

[hlinton]

@Tom Kwas: Actually, if you do a search on Hollywood Distagon you'll find plenty of info regarding these lenses.

[Howard, the point here is that the search hits you'll get are all recent. I think what has happened is that one RECENT reviewer claimed that the lens was called the "Hollywood 28" back when it was new and current, and a bunch of other Internet writers have picked up that ball and run with it. But what I'm saying, and what Tom is seconding, is that we never heard anyone actually use that nickname back then. It certainly wasn't common.

If you find a vintage reference to Dr. Glatzel's Distagon being called the "Hollywood 28" or the "Hollywood Distagon," let me know. --Mike]

[Marc Rochkind]

Can't find anything on the Hollywood 28 either. Did find a long lens, the Indianapolis 500, and a super wide angle, the Chicago 7.

[Neely Fallon]

Perhaps the 28mm Hollywood meme resides with Ming Thein.

http://blog.mingthein.com/2012/07/19/zf28distagon/

http://blog.mingthein.com/2012/07/04/nikon2818g/

"In fact, the earlier Contax/ Yashica mount version of the [Zeiss] lens is known as the ‘Hollywood Distagon’ for its huge popularity amongst filmmakers for use in indoor scenes..."

I subscribe to his iPad app and he seems like a very factual kind of guy.

[Kevin Purcell]

It's interesting that the phrase "Hollywood 28" (with the leading uppercase) does appear in Google Book if you look at the Ngrams search starting in 1943 and petering out in the mid-1970s or so.

http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Hollywood+28&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=0&share=

But it's not evidence for the lens.

"Hollywood 28" was the postal code in mailing addresses ("313 Taft Bldg., Hollywood at Vine, Hollywood 28, Calif"). The ZIP today is 90028. The USPS introduced postal codes in 1943.

Someone didn't misunderstand "Hollywood 28" in a printed document at some point and thought it refered to a lens?

[DavidB]

"...I'm going to make a WAG and say that this comet will be better documented than any in history so far..."

Completely agree! The days of comet photographs being the realm of the few are over.

I've been shooting photos of Comet PanSTARRS using the same lens I used for Comet Hale-Bopp in 1997 -- an old manual focus Nikon 80-200mm/f4.

Comet images here: http://www.dblanchard.net/blog/

David

[Mark Alan Miller]

Hmm, can't legally use a picture of the "Heismann Trophy" . Maybe you can find one of the Heisman Trophy to use instead. Were you a fan of Joe Theismann, perhaps?

[J. Salisbury]

If you're into the GD on archive.org do a search for Charlie Miller- he's taken the Eaton tapes and cleaned them up- there are some real gems over the years.

[Dillan]

Thanks for the Grateful Dead link. I am, and forever will be, a Deadhead who was born too late.

[Sam]

I think you would be fine if you showed a creative commons or public domain picture of the Heisman Trophy.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/0c/Matt_Leinart%27s_Heisman_Trophy.jpg

[Ed]

Your computer problems are solved? So, do you have a (for you) bulletproof backup system in place? Have you tested it?

[Yes--now doubled from what it was--and we sure did test it! We tested it by using it--erasing my hard drive and restoring my data from the backup drive. It worked a charm. I do admit to some anxiety in the process, though. --Mike]

[Bernard]

Haha. Not more than a week ago I've posted very similar thing as Landingfield, although not the very best quality.

http://pyzz.wordpress.com/2013/03/16/matryca-z-bliska/

I didn't have any idea of his blog. :)

However my blog is in polish, so probably not many of you will be able to read it. ;)

[Tom Kwas]

BTW, the sharpest Nikon 28mm I ever owned, was the 3.5! Yes, there I've said it, the 3.5! I had a copy in the 70's that was razor sharp and had an amazing amount of image "pop", before multi-coating...like I said before, not much for a 28mm guy, but used this extensively on construction site photos for slide shows!

[Patrick Perez]

Further regarding the tree at Big Sur (on 17 Mile Drive). It is trademarked as Mike points out. And you may take pictures of it for your own purpose, but you are prevented from using it commercially without licensing the use of it (the tree) in your own photo.

Curiously, many buildings are trademarked as well and may not legally be used without the building owner's permission, though I've never heard of this claim being used in a civil suit.

Patrick

[Patrick Perez]

Well heck, this fellow is a lawyer, and discusses the tree specifically here:

http://kwartlerlaw.com/Commentaries/LoneCypressgate.html

Patrick

[Rob Reiter]

Saw my first GD concert at the Family Dog circa 1969, "under the influence." Changed my life forever. Thanks for the link, Mike.

[ctein]

Dear Patrick and others,

Trademarks are not like patents or copyrights. For one thing, they do not have to involve any creativity whatsoever. For another, they are highly specific and limited in their scope: they're intended to protect your representation of your business and to keep others from unjustly enriching themselves from that reputation, but they don't extend beyond that.

Buildings do indeed get trademarked. A photograph of that building you make, even used for commercial purposes, does not per se infringe on that trademark:

"Pictures of buildings do not violate trademark - Rock & Roll Hall of Fame & Museum v. Gentile Prods., 134 F.3d 749 (6th Cir. Ohio 1998)"

http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/ip/trademark/rock_and_roll.htm

Similarly, my photograph of this building:

http://ctein.com/transam.htm

does not infringe on any of Transamerica's trademarks.

The issue is whether you're operating in their realm of business or duplicating a specific representation that they're using as a trademark. Apple has trademarks on the word “Apple” and various logos of apples with bites taken out of them. But Apple music has a trademark of their own. Both of them have had to engage in extensive legal work over the years to define the venues in which each is allowed to operate with their respective trademarks. Those scopes are limited. I could start a restaurant called “Eve's Garden” with a picture of an apple with a bite taken out of it on the sign, and there would be no trademark infringement. There's no possibility of confusion with Apple's business, and there's no unjust enrichment. I better not, though, try that logo with a software or musc company!

A home windows company can safely call itself AAA Windows. But, they're likely to hear from attorneys if they're making computer products… or replacing automobile windows.

The way you can run afoul of trademark is if your photograph very closely matches one that they are using as a trademark to represent their business. That rarely happens but it's possible. As the R&R ruling points out, the trademark holder has to be using a specific representation as a trademark. In other words, it's not really different from a logo, it just happens to be a photograph.

That's not to say there may not be other rights and restrictions. People have property rights associated with private buildings. Just because you don't violate a trademark doesn't mean you can use your photograph of that building any way you want, for example in certain kinds of advertising situations. It's just not a trademark issue. By the same token, as was pointed out in the article you linked to, if you're photographing the Lone Cypress from the owner's private property, they can contractually limit what you may do with photographs you make on their property. But if you photograph it from a publicly accessible vantage point, they can't restrict your usage… so long as it doesn't directly infringe upon their business.

pax \ Ctein
[ Please excuse any word-salad. MacSpeech in training! ]
======================================
-- Ctein's Online Gallery http://ctein.com 
-- Digital Restorations http://photo-repair.com 
======================================

[Stephen Scharf]

Certainly around the Web allows for a broad range of interesting topics upon which to comment.

Regarding sharp prime lenses before the "proliferation of zoom", probably the sharpest lens I've ever used was not a small, wide prime, but the incomparable Canon 200mm/1.8L. Unbelievable bokeh, too.

Regarding copyright, your post is very informative and helpful; would that others would read it. I and a number of my pro motorsports shooting friends have had numerous issues when an advertiser/sponsor snags an "editorial photo" from a racing web site that displays their logo on a racing vehicle, and then uses it in their own advertising. Only to act very indignantly, and often, belligerently, when contacted by the photographer seeking to collect a commercial use licensing fee for their using his photograph to market their product.

[Ed Kirkpatrick]

"It was a TL;DR for me"

Mike, what does this mean? Just curious...
Oh, and thanks for Peter Turley's link. great stuff.

["too long; didn't read." (Google's your friend for such things.) --Mike]

[Carl Blesch]

Mike,
Yes, very clear, and thank you for the elaboration. Just another example of why I find TOP useful, helpful, and interesting.

[DavidB]

"...That lens [Nikkor 28mm ƒ/2.8 AIS] is one of the high points of Nikon lens design and manufacture...]

I own both the current 28mm f/2.8 AF and the old 28mm f/2.8 AIS mentioned above. I've compared them using the lens wide open for astro-photography and the older lens is definitely better (i.e., much less coma in the corners) Plus, it's easy to get focus at infinity since it has a hard stop. Love that lens!

DavidB

[James W.]

I sold my 28/2.8 AIS Nikkor (at a profit) to help pay for my X100. I don't have much use for a lens of that spec on APS-C, but it's one of the few I occasionally miss. It helps that mine was in great condition. Does anyone still construct lenses as nicely? If I ever went Nikon FX I'd consider getting another.

[ault]

In the YMMV dept: If you photograph a Le Corbusier chair you may not have the right to use that image commercially (in France). I haven't heard how the appeal went / is going, but the here's last year's news: http://www.bjp-online.com/british-journal-of-photography/news/2140613/getty-images-fights-copyright-infringement-ruling-french-court

[ctein]

Dear Ault,

Never hurts to remind people that, unless the author here explicitly says otherwise, any statements about the law or acceptable practice apply ONLY in the USA. The law and custom in other countries may not conform.

pax / Ctein

[JPH]

Here's a strange one on copyright (don't ever think about possibly doing a review of GoPro's cameras!) - http://bit.ly/ZwZeti

[hugh crawford]

The Lone Cypress Tree isn't at Big Sur, it's at Pebble Beach, a VERY different sort of place

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/17-Mile_Drive#Lone_Cypress_Tree

and the tree is trademarked presumably to prevent this sort of thing

which looks darn similar to the Pebble Beach logo

which would incur the wrath of Clint Eastwood and Condoleezza Rice.