The folks over at ZOOZOOM have a great interactive map of the shows and presentations with the confirmed times and venues. Just click on the image below.
Be sure to check it out. It’s a lot of fun! Oh yeah, and informative too.
Editorial: ‘Hearts a Flutter’
Model: Jaqueline (Ford)
Photographer: Rachel Waniewski
Here are a few extra images from Rachel Waniewski for your viewing pleasure!
The new campaign for Wrangler, populated with half-naked models trapped in a creepy wildlife documentary, is getting mixed reviews. Shot by Ryan McGinley and Tim Barber in New Jersey, the campaign has a sexy and out-of-sync look we’re not prepared to see in a Wrangler ad. Personally, I dig it. It looks really fresh to my eyes, and it’s nice to see that an ad can use McGinley’s style without garbling it somehow.
Wrangler seems to be counting on cool photography to elevate its terminally square brand. It just might work. Think about the successful re-positioning of Pabst Blue Ribbon as a hipster beer.
The Wrangler ads are by FFL Paris and they’re for Europe, which means you’ll only see it in the U.S. on blogs like this one… and whatever contests this campaign inevitably wins.
Companion TV spot here.
More ads and credits at AdsoftheWorld.com.
(PDNPulse’s original article.)
Photographers often allow others to use their photos without charge. They usually require a photo credit for marketing purposes or other restrictions. But if the user doesn’t abide by those requirements, is it copyright infringement?
Such was the issue in the recent case of Jacobsen v. Katzer. There, Jacobsen had developed copyrighted software code for model trains but permitted others to use the software. Jacobsen’s “open source” code included an “Artistic License” that required users of the software to include items such as the authors’ names and Jacobsen’s copyright notices. Katzer admitted that it had not followed these terms when incorporating Jacobsen’s code into its own.
Jacobsen claimed that Katzer’s use of the software without abiding by the terms of the License constituted copyright infringement. Katzer asserted that because it had not paid for the License and only breached “covenants” of the License, it could be liable only for breach of contract, not copyright infringement, likely resulting in fewer damages.
The 9th Circuit sided with Katzer. On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit disagreed. The appellate court held that the terms of the Artistic License were conditions; without following them, Katzer had no right to use the software code. The Court explained:
The Artistic License states on its face that the document creates conditions: “The intent of this document is to state the conditions under which a Package may be copied.” (Emphasis added.) The Artistic License also uses the traditional language of conditions by noting that the rights to copy, modify, and distribute are granted “provided that” the conditions are met. Under California contract law, “provided that” typically denotes a condition.
Copyright holders who engage in open source licensing have the right to control the modification and distribution of copyrighted material. . . . Copyright licenses are designed to support the right to exclude; money damages alone do not support or enforce that right. The choice to exact consideration in the form of compliance with the open source requirements of disclosure and explanation of changes rather than as a dollar-denominated fee, is entitled to no less legal recognition.
Of note, the Creative Commons Corp. filed an amicus brief to support Jacobsen’s position because a negative ruling would directly affect CC licensing.
What can we learn from this? Always make the use of your photos conditioned on following your terms. Further, it’s always best to put your license in writing, even if it’s only an email, so a court will know exactly what were the terms and conditions of your license. Check with your attorney to make sure it’s all done right.
HT to Likelihood of Confusion.
TPL took a small vacation but I’m back now!
Let’s get to it!
Ready for this? Olympus and Panasonic just announced a new mirrorless format and lens mount based on the venerable Four Thirds standard. Dubbed Micro Four Thirds System, the enhanced standard uses the same 18 x 13.5-mm sensor but promises 50% slimmer cameras due to the removal of the mirror box. We’re also looking at smaller lenses (while remaining compatible with existing Four Third lenses with an adapter) thanks in part to a new reduced lens mount which is now 6-mm smaller. With the mirror box gone, Micro Four Third cameras will lose the optical viewfinder so you’ll have to frame up your subjects using a Live View LCD or an external viewfinder.
How big of a development is this? Huge. As Phil Askey, editor over at dpreview puts it, “This is without doubt the most exciting digital photography announcement this year. It’s fair to say that this “extension / addition” to the Four Thirds standard is finally able to deliver on the original promise of that format; considerably smaller and lighter lenses and bodies.”
Unfortunately, no products were announced so you’ve got plenty of time to debate the spec and pour over the illustrations we’ve dropped in after the break.
[Via 1001 Noisy Cameras]