[MarkJerling]

Took a drive out on the Watershed rd way way behind Wanganui today.
Where the interesting people live.
On the roadside fence.
We figured it was a no parking zone

Interesting sign. Did you park on top of it?

[MarkJerling]

This was my best (poor) effort. In a hurry and too slow a shutter speed.

[seventhdr]

Lovely lens Pete, one of the classics

You have me wondering how it would go on the LX

They go mighty well on an LX.

Chris

[NZ_Ross]

They go mighty well on an LX.

Chris

Thanks Chris

[Transit]

I imagine the LX viewfinder and the 1.2 very useful
Sad how the digital had reppriortise the focusing screens
I played around with split disc focusing screens on earlier crop bodies mainly for this lens

---------- Post added 22nd Nov 2021 at 05:22 PM ----------

Lovely lens Pete, one of the classics

You have me wondering how it would go on the LX

Sure is Ross, time some of these classics got more use

---------- Post added 22nd Nov 2021 at 05:23 PM ----------

Good luck Pete. You have presented it well.

Thanks Mate
The Q7 stepped up for the lens shots :-

[Arpe]

I just had a copyright win, not for money, but for the principle.

Corelogic, a big multi-national firm I believe, run a website called propertyvalue.co.nz, similar to homes.co.nz, giving computer generated house values. I saw my house on there, complete with the photos I took inside and out when we rented it out. These had obviously been taken from trademe as it was the only public place they had been put.

So I emailed Corelogic and told them to remove them: “you have ten photos that are, of course, subject to copyright. I took those photos, I own the copyright. It's funny how you have a big "Disclaimers" webpage on which the very first paragraph is titled "Copyright notice", and yet you are happy to steal others' photos from others' websites and use them on your site.

Please remove all of my photos from your site. I would suggest that you may have lots of other photos that you do not have the right to show on there as well.”

They replied: “We understand for privacy reasons you are requesting that images of property …. be removed from CoreLogic platforms.” And carried on for ages on a totally unrelated note.

I replied: “Dear CoreLogic,

Ironic name for your company as obviously logic is not your strong point or anywhere near your core.” Then I went on about how it wasn’t about privacy, it was about copyright, and referred them to a couple of websites (Copyright protection in New Zealand | Ministry of Business, Innovation & Employment and https://www.clendons.co.nz/resources/background-papers/photography-law-new-z...g-photography/) they could look at.

They replied: “It may be helpful for me to explain that CoreLogic is primarily a real estate data company that maintains a property history database, as such our products display information from our historical database which is used to so how properties have changed over time. Our images reflect an approximate capture date on each particular image.

CoreLogic has agreements with various listing portals and agencies to receive property information, such as images (to which we now hold an intellectual property license).
As an example when you or a real estate agent uploads photographs to listing portals such as Trade Me, you or the real estate agent grants to the listing portal a licence to the photographs that are uploaded and become public information.
That licence permits the listing portal to transfer the licence and to use or distribute those photographs and data to third parties, including CoreLogic.
For example, please refer to clause 3.4 of Trade Me’s Terms and Conditions placed at https://help.trademe.co.nz/hc/en-us/articles/360007001532.

Our Actions

For the reasons provided above your request to remove the images for the property has not been carried out.

We trust this resolves your query.”

So I emailed Trademe and they confirmed they have no agreement with Corelogic for them to use photos from their site.

So I emailed Corelogic back, saying: “Once again, you are wrong. I have contacted Trade Me and they have no agreement with you to allow you to take photos from their site. Just because a photo is uploaded to their site, or to any other website, does not make it "public information", and certainly does not make it legal for your company to steal the photos and reproduce them on your site. The copyright on those photos belongs to me, you really need to review the Copyright Act 1994.

Thanks for pointing out clause 3.4 of Trade Me's terms, it says "You retain ownership of your content and nothing in these Terms is intended to claim ownership of your content or to restrict your ability to use your own content." You'll note they say that I retain ownership. Even at the bottom of that clause it states, "Our licence doesn’t affect your own rights to your content." It can't be clearer than that.

I would strongly suggest that you contact your lawyers and check on this.

Again I insist that you remove the photos that belong to me from your website.”

20 days later I just got this: “A request for our Data Team on the 23/11/21 to suppress all images of the property.

Once processed, this change will reflect within 48 hours.

Please note, should the property be listed on a platform that CoreLogic have the necessary licensing requirements, we will once again capture the images that form a part of the listing.

We trust this resolves your request and we will now be closing it off.”

Ha! They still have thousands of other people’s images on their site though.

The real bugger was that I have a lawyer nephew who knows about copyright. I suggested he write a letter for me, but he said their firm is retained by Corelogic so he couldn't!

[MarkJerling]

Oh, that's a good win. Shows you how they get their information.

[NZ_Ross]

The real bugger was that I have a lawyer nephew who knows about copyright. I suggested he write a letter for me, but he said their firm is retained by Corelogic so he couldn't!

That is the funniest part of this story

[Kiwizinho]

Cheeky bunch... I wonder if since they seem to believe 'you can copy it if you found it on the internet', they'd appreciate if someone grabbed the content and logic behind their services? Some will be server based, but it's amazing how much Google Chrome will tell you about a website with F12.

I had a case a few years back where a community newspaper copied one of my images off my own website. Big mistake. They couldn't retract it because thousands of copies had gone out in print, so they ended up paying up.

My attitude is 'ask and you shall receive', and if I support the use, I won't charge, 'don't ask, and I catch you, (which is actually not that hard), and you'll get a bill'.

I've often thought about Creative Commons, but there are two issues I have. QAnon is non-commercial, and also there are 'not for profits' that pay 6 figure salaries to their CEOs. If it's good enough to reward a CEO for their skills, then why not creators of content?

Retaining full control over my images means that I can license them how I like, and deserving causes can still get them for free, but anyone I think is gaming the system either doesn't get them or pays up.

[Arpe]

That is the funniest part of this story

I agree, he was all keen to help me, then asked who it was!

Cheeky bunch...

I concur. Yeah if it's something I support I have given pics free, but I do look at who is getting paid before deciding.

Oh, that's a good win. Shows you how they get their information.

Yeah, without asking or caring.

[NZ_Ross]

I agree, he was all keen to help me, then asked who it was!

My son is a lawyer in Wellington, and we have the same sort of conversations on occasion - hence my enjoyment of your description

[NZ_Ross]

An interesting observation of my happiness about the capability and image quality of the K-3 III. I started this year thinking I would probably purchase both the K-3 III and a K-1 (or K-1 II).

Having used the K-3 III for a while now, I am so pleased with the K-3 III results that I have decided it is more than I need, and have decided I won't be purchasing a K-1.

Which is a bit of a change in thinking

[Kiwizinho]

An interesting observation of my happiness about the capability and image quality of the K-3 III. I started this year thinking I would probably purchase both the K-3 III and a K-1 (or K-1 II).

Having used the K-3 III for a while now, I am so pleased with the K-3 III results that I have decided it is more than I need, and have decided I won't be purchasing a K-1.

Which is a bit of a change in thinking

I'm sure that both are great cameras, but unless you need the extra resolution for large prints, or possibly better high ISO performance (although by all accounts the K-3 III is pretty good in this respect anyway), a K-1 probably isn't necessary.

What you save from not getting a K-1, you can put towards an DA*11-18, which will be stunning on the K-3 III if you get used to an ultra-wide.
Or there's the new 16-50 PLM if you're after something with a more common focal range.
You've got some nice landscapes within easy reach of Timaru that would be fun to explore with a wide to ultra wide lens.

I've decided that the photography gear I most need to invest in now is not actually photography gear, but stuff that can take me to places where I can find amazing images.

I'm not the sort to disappear off into the wilderness for a week at a time, but a couple of days are certainly well within my capability, and there are so many amazing places that simply don't figure in stereotypical social media and pictorial calendar images.

There are a handful of people in my camera club who share my view that most trampers aren't really photographers, and don't stop to bring back decent images, and most camera club members aren't up for a decent tramp, but a few of us who want to go out, enjoy the wilderness, and take time to make our best effort to bring back images that can do at least a little bit of justice to the places we've had the privilege to enjoy.

In that way of thinking, the camera and lenses are only part of a much bigger system.

[NZ_Ross]

I'm sure that both are great cameras, but unless you need the extra resolution for large prints, or possibly better high ISO performance (although by all accounts the K-3 III is pretty good in this respect anyway), a K-1 probably isn't necessary.

The K-3 III high ISO performance is very good. If I ever get an itch to use my various old manual focus lens on 35mm FF, then I have decided I can use the LX and film for that

You've got some nice landscapes within easy reach of Timaru that would be fun to explore with a wide to ultra wide lens.

That is true regarding the landscapes around here. I have the DA 15mm Ltd for ultra-wide. I have looked at reviews of the DA*11-18, it seems a very nice lens, but I am not sure I would use it enough to justify the investment. Time will tell whether I purchase it. Not this year .

I've decided that the photography gear I most need to invest in now is not actually photography gear, but stuff that can take me to places where I can find amazing images.

I have brought some on-line photography courses to have a look at over the summer when I am chilling. Investing in the unit behind the viewfinder, as it were.

[GUB]

I think that was a good price Pete - congratulations.
Meanwhile here is that forest shot from today - 6 image stitch. The Revuenon 55mm stopped down a little (f2.8?).