[Peter Zack]

That's why I thought this was so interesting M80. The 3D aspect of what the software could do. As you said taking hundreds or thousands of images from different angles of an object and combining them to create one 3D image. The stitching was really quite amazing. If you had a computer powerful enough then a virtual tour inside and out, of say the Louvre or anything, could be possible. I was also impressed with the computing speed of this (assuming we saw it in real time).

I agree with Mike and others that the copyright issues are large and they designed a nice software application that relies on basically stealing other peoples work (as the other Flickr thread discussed). If they decide to put up a web site that asked for submissions to the database from anyone that was willing to share images, then that would be fine. As Mike said, this way in it's current method or image acquisition, It's also a Thumbs down for me.

I'm certainly no techie (as you can tell from my inability to spell 'future' correctly in the title and no clue how to fix that) and wonder what the possibilities of true (aka Star Trek) virtual reality holographic imaging could be done with this down the road.

It is interesting that Microsoft (the parent company) has for years, complained about consumers stealing their software on file sharing sites and so on. And yet they have a casual attitude about doing the same thing themselves. Whether the person that posted the image on Flickr or elsewhere understands Copyright or took the proper steps to protect their images is somewhat irrelevant. Morally it's still someone else's work they are taking for free.


I started the thread with out too many personal comments because after the Virgin mobile thread I wanted to see what everyone's reaction might be.

Time to work on a watermark for future picture posts.

[PaulAndAPentax]

The technology is amazing I think. It is quite impressive. I tend to agree with some of the naysayers though regarding copyright issues and intellectual property. The ramifications of misuse are many.

I always read the flickr rules to read that, unless you specified otherwise under your options menu, all rights are reserved meaning no one may use your images with express consent!

[MRRiley]

Downside is everything MrRiley has to say about rights stands implicitly, though I guess in this world it needs to be stated explicitly, and more-so to keep the copyright. And the owner needs to exercise that right through action. That's the thing about copyright ... if you don't exercise and enforce your right, you lose it. ...

This is true to a certain extent, but, since "copyright" (in the US at least) is assumed and granted upon creation of the image, the people running the Photosynth application and services should assume that every image is copyrighted. A non-registered copyright is still a copyright. Formal registration primarily gets you additional evidence or claims for financial damage if you have to take an image thief to court. I should not have to take additional "action" beyond placing a copyright notice on my images and in the metadata (and even this is not required by current US copyright laws).

Frankly, the Photosynth application/service should have, as a prerequisite for inclusion in their 3D or composite world, a primary key condition looking for an explicit "public domain" tag. This way, it would take a positive, affirmative act by the photographer to allow their images to be used.

This would also protect the millions of images that are already on the internet who's owners had no idea that this type of capability would ever exist, or who wouldnt know metadata from oatmeal. I imagine Ansel Adams heirs would not appreciate "Moon over Half Dome" being incorporated in a 3D Photosynth tour of Yosemite...

[m8o]

I should not have to take additional "action" beyond placing a copyright notice on my images and in the metadata (and even this is not required by current US copyright laws).

I'll agree with everything said, and especially you "shouldn't have to". But I think the way the law is written, you do have to contest any un-authorized use, or you lose right to it after a period of time. I figure that folks @ photosynth know this and are taking advantage of it.

[jro]

Frankly, the Photosynth application/service should have, as a prerequisite for inclusion in their 3D or composite world, a primary key condition looking for an explicit "public domain" tag. This way, it would take a positive, affirmative act by the photographer to allow their images to be used.

I sympathize with your position but think you're overstating the case. Photosynth is really just a way of organizing photographs based on some of the data the image contains. This data is not copyrightable. (For example, while a picture of a sculpture you've taken is copyrightable, the location you've taken the picture from is not.) It's similar to an index, the end result of which is that you wind up looking at the original photograph. While the present version presents that original photo by itself, it would be trivial to, say, utilize a low-res, obscured version that links to the web page containing the original instead. Photosynth is thus just a very fancy version of Google Image Search. (For some reason, I suspect you don't much like that, either.)

This is very different from the "hole patching" technology you mentioned in the other thread. That use is more akin to "sampling" in music, for which explicit permission is (almost always) necessary.

Another point: allowing the usage of a photograph for such a project does not necessitate that the image be made public domain. Flickr is actually very good about making users aware of the copyright issues entailed by posting their photos online, and provides easy ways to "copyleft" your posts there to allow this sort of use while still retaining the copyright of the image.

[MRRiley]

I'll agree with everything said, and especially you "shouldn't have to". But I think the way the law is written, you do have to contest any un-authorized use, or you lose right to it after a period of time. I figure that folks @ photosynth know this and are taking advantage of it.

True. You have to contest un-authorized use, ONCE you discover it. The way they are doing it and in the bulk they are using images you are likely to never find out. This as you say, is what they are counting on... However, even if you find out 20 years later you still own the copyright and can contest their theft. Copyright in the US is for the life of the creator plus 50 years (for his/her heirs).

[MRRiley]

I sympathize with your position but think you're overstating the case. Photosynth is really just a way of organizing photographs based on some of the data the image contains.

It's much more than that...

This data is not copyrightable. (For example, while a picture of a sculpture you've taken is copyrightable, the location you've taken the picture from is not.)

True, the location the photo was taken from is not copyrightable, but as you admit, my image is. If they want a photo, let them take their own or, use someone's who has given away their copyright.

It's similar to an index, the end result of which is that you wind up looking at the original photograph. While the present version presents that original photo by itself, it would be trivial to, say, utilize a low-res, obscured version that links to the web page containing the original instead.

Yep, they present the original and probably do not attribute the owner... I actually would not object to a low rez version linking to my website, but this is not what they are after. Their application stitches multiple photographs as seamlessly as possible to in the inventors words, "make something that is greater than the sum of the parts".

Photosynth is thus just a very fancy version of Google Image Search. (For some reason, I suspect you don't much like that, either.)

I don't mind traditional image search tools since they link to my website.

This is very different from the "hole patching" technology you mentioned in the other thread. That use is more akin to "sampling" in music, for which explicit permission is (almost always) necessary.

Another point: allowing the usage of a photograph for such a project does not necessitate that the image be made public domain. Flickr is actually very good about making users aware of the copyright issues entailed by posting their photos online, and provides easy ways to "copyleft" your posts there to allow this sort of use while still retaining the copyright of the image.

The point is, the Photosynth people should either have explicit permission to use an image in their application/service (say by clicking "I give all rights to my image to Photosynth for use of this image or group of images" or only use images which the creators have placed into the public domain knowingly and voluntarily. Oh, and by the way... there is no such thing as "photoleft".

--------------------

Now, I don't use FLICKR and with all that is going on, I will never use FLICKR. My photos are on websites which clearly state that all photos are the property of the photographer and that any use must be approved in advance. Any of my photos end up in their virtual world and they'll be talking to my lawyers. Will I win against Microsoft? Possibly not, but just because Bill Gates could buy and sell me for the change in his pocket, that still does not make it right or ethical.

---

Last edited by MRRiley; 10-06-2007 at 03:25 PM. Reason: corrected quote from photosynth speaker

[m8o]

However, even if you find out 20 years later you still own the copyright and can contest their theft. Copyright in the US is for the life of the creator plus 50 years (for his/her heirs).

Ah, Thanx. I definitely needed to be corrected on that then.

[MRRiley]

Opps.... my bad.... Thanks to Sonny Bono and the Copyright Extension Act, US copyright is now in force for the life of the creator plus 70 years.

[stewart_photo]

Sure the panning and scrolling and ability to number crunch through such an apparently huge data spaces is amazing in it speed as a techie; that may get lost on non-techies. (snip)

Well, perhaps the technology is nice, but I'm still not overly impressed. Of course, I'm not really that impressed with virtual anything - virtual travel, virtual walkthoughs, virtual romance, or virtual whatever. To me, it looks like another excuse to sit in front of the computer (escaping reality) instead of getting out and seeing the real world with all it's good, bad, and ugly. Of course, others clearly have a different opinion and that's fine.

stewart

[m8o]

lol... All true. Consider if you will tho, the enriching of lives of people who never could make the trip for financial reasons, or because of physical disabilities. Anyways, that's what comes to mind when I see that sort of thing. Yes, double edges sword if the 'healthy' opt to experience more and more in a virtual medium instead of getting out there an living. But then again, if noone is physically going and snapping the shots of places, the virtual junkies won't have material to glom off the i'net.

[dragonfly]

I just checked out the photosynth website and it's pretty cool. Some of the contributions are lame, but there are others that are really amazing.

[Rupert]

Just now seeing this....very interesting indeed! Technology is moving ahead so rapidly it is mind boggling, isn't it!

I try to relate it to my needs in practical terms....I can envision a time, maybe very soon, where I won't have to spend a small fortune every month on Squirrel feed, but can just turn to this and view Squirrels worldwide in a never ending 3D form.....no more carrying 50# bags of feed and distributing it twice a day to hungry Squirrels......just to get a shot or two.
I am not sure the Squirrels are excited about this.....having to go back to foraging on their own could cause a revolt....and if you have ever seen Squirrel destruction, you know how bad it can be!
I love technological advances, but sure don't want to leave my Squirrels "out on a limb".

[JeffJS]

You better wrap all your wires in kevlar if you stop feeding these things Rupert.. They are, from all your descriptions, holding your electronic links to the outside world hostage..

[Rupert]

Yep, I know your Squirrel well Jeff.........He sits there night and day only to leave at the changing of the guard, when another Squirrel from Otis' Army takes his place. Just waiting for the order to destruct and destroy. All my neighbors have been devastated, some are without cable, some without phones, some have no electricity......all because they failed to feed the Squirrels like I do.
My nearest neighbor recently came back online after she finally purchased four "Squirrel Proof Feeders".....made my Squirrels so happy they agreed to remove the "Devil Squirrel" from her junction of wires on the pole. Squirrels love those Squirrel Proof feeders, in particular the ones that spin when a Squirrel gets on them! Just like the Circus! Of course, they only last a few days, and then she had to buy new ones......Squirrels can destroy a square foot block of high carbon steel if a single peanut is inside.......
Best Regards!

The Lookout Squirrel - "I'll tell you when it's safe to destruct her lines!"


Just wondering Jeff......Maybe Adam could change this Forum from General Photography to General Squirrels? Actually, it was Otis' idea.........