Old 05-16-2011, 07:20 PM   #26
troy12n
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 5,333
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by coborn35 View Post
Thats because it is a model...
The angle is different because they took a picture of their model then stretched the cars to match it...
Or someone else's photo that they ripped off and photo-morphed into this beast
troy12n is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2011, 07:25 PM   #27
coborn35
Senior Member
 
coborn35's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Duluth, MN
Posts: 1,398
Default

What? The engine is a model, that much is clear.
__________________
I personally have had a problem with those trying to tell us to turn railroad photography into an "art form." It's fine for them to do so, I welcome it in fact, but what I do have a problem with is that the practitioners of the more "arty" shots, I have found, tend to look down their nose's at others who are shooting more "mundane" shots.
Railroad photography is what you make of it, but one way is not "better" than another, IMHO. Unless you have a pole right thought the nose of the engine! -SG
coborn35 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2011, 08:03 PM   #28
troy12n
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 5,333
Default

I didnt catch that, well, at least maybe the short hood is
troy12n is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2011, 08:18 PM   #29
PLEzero
Senior Member
 
PLEzero's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pittsburgh,PA
Posts: 675
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by coborn35 View Post
Thats because it is a model...
The angle is different because they took a picture of their model then stretched the cars to match it...

I think that is the most obvious statement ever written on these forums yet some refuse to see or believe it.
__________________
Brad Morocco
Candyland, PA
My Flickr Photos
My RP.net Photos
PLEzero is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2011, 08:29 PM   #30
PLEzero
Senior Member
 
PLEzero's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pittsburgh,PA
Posts: 675
Default

Similar yes, and it could be a popular spot to take pictures from, so any yuk could grab a camera at twilight and get a shot of a coal drag from there. Not really, the picture in the DB gives the date and all you need to do is go to that part of track at about the same time of year, or adjust the time of day and re-shoot it.

You truly believe a company was so set on that image it used all the time and money required to find that location and duplicate it that accurately? C'mon now. I think you've been shooting too many action figures.

What about the wires in the add? Is that an add on too?

I actually now believe those are not wires but parts of the flare effect added to the image.


Is the number a reporting mark? If it is not, then how can you be so sure the same number is not on every one of those cars at the position? If the number is unique to that car, how can you be so sure someone else didn't go take another photo?

I know you've seen enough train cars to know that is a reporting mark and number. I will agree with your theory that it would be possible they photographed the same car in the same position.
__________________
Brad Morocco
Candyland, PA
My Flickr Photos
My RP.net Photos
PLEzero is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2011, 08:35 PM   #31
mwtstormchaser
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Northern Illinois
Posts: 14
Default

I think they are the same for a few reasons:
1. The reporting marks and number on the first car are identical
2. The breaks between the individual trees fall in the exact same places in the cars
3. The glint on the cars are the same, especially looking at each rivet line on the side of the car they match, the odds of duplicating that is next to impossible
4. The so-called power lines aren't power lines they are the result of the fake lens flare on the photo, its obvious from PLEzero PS job, straight lines radiate from where the source of the flare comes from in his PS job, one can be seen crossing the top of the car at a similar angle to that of the models PS job
mwtstormchaser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2011, 08:46 PM   #32
Holloran Grade
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: In the California Republic
Posts: 2,774
Lightbulb What?

Quote:
Originally Posted by mwtstormchaser View Post
....[omitted portion].. its obvious from PLEzero PS job, straight lines radiate from where the source of the flare comes from in his PS job, .....[omitted portion]..

And this image is where?

I am still waiting for PLEzero PS job.
Holloran Grade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2011, 08:58 PM   #33
JRMDC
Senior Member
 
JRMDC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 11,202
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Holloran Grade View Post
And this image is where?

I am still waiting for PLEzero PS job.
a) I don't follow you, aren't you looking for post #23, second image?

b) why are you so combative about this discussion?

Heck, after learning from Thias in this very thread about Distort, I was able to get the cars at the right angle in one minute. Sure, popping the engine on is a bit harder, but then I have no skills of that type, others do. But this stuff isn't rocket science.

What is it, Robert, about this topic that has you all fired up?
__________________
My RP pix are here.
My Flickr pix are here.

My commentaries on rail pictures are in my blog.

RP Photo Albums:
Cabooses
Engine Details
Farm and Train
Plumes!
Railroad Details
Signal Details
Switchstand Shots
JRMDC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2011, 09:19 PM   #34
Holloran Grade
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: In the California Republic
Posts: 2,774
Lightbulb I have had a change heart.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JRMDC View Post
What is it, Robert, about this topic that has you all fired up?
I just find it interesting that people jump to conclusions based on a real lack of dissecting the image in the ad and comparing it to the one in the DB.

Besides, Matt called me a twit.

However, now that I have taken a few minutes to duplicate the twisting of the perspective and after counting the rivets on the cars and the way the light falls on them and their placement with respect to the trees and bushes....

I have had a change heart.

Name:  NS Image 3.jpg
Views: 245
Size:  307.6 KB

The image in the DB was what the person who made the ad started with.

I still wonder about the flare - like why is it there?
Holloran Grade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2011, 09:20 PM   #35
John Ryan
Senior Member
 
John Ryan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Ann Arbor, Michigan
Posts: 497
Send a message via AIM to John Ryan
Default

Is Holloran Grade a paid shill or apologist for the model manufacturer?
John Ryan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2011, 09:39 PM   #36
Holloran Grade
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: In the California Republic
Posts: 2,774
Exclamation

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Ryan View Post
Is Holloran Grade a paid shill or apologist for the model manufacturer?
"That's never crossed my mind....good idea!

Thread closed, I have nothing more to say, everyone's free to let this die, or just..whatever.

Also, FOR ONCE, I agree with CXXXXx" -Opps, should have deleted this part.
Holloran Grade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2011, 09:48 PM   #37
John Ryan
Senior Member
 
John Ryan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Ann Arbor, Michigan
Posts: 497
Send a message via AIM to John Ryan
Default

Why should the topic die? This is a relevant issue. Not because one poster refused to believe that a model manufacturer stole an image off railpictures, but because a model manufacturer stole an image off railpictures. I'm very interested to see where this goes. Burghman, have you contacted the manufacturer yet?
John Ryan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2011, 09:49 PM   #38
BurghMan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 130
Default

I appreciate everyone's comments. To follow up, I sent an e-mail this morning to the manufacturer. I was very polite but pointed out that they voilated copyright laws. I received a quick reply appologizing and offering to remove the photo from their website.

Shortly after I received that e-mail, someone pointed out that they used the same photo for advertising in a national magazine.

So I sent them a reply stating that my intention is not to disrupt their advertising but to merely come to a muturally beneficial agreement.

For those who are interested, I'll let everyone know the reply.

Thanks again for the comments and opinions. And thanks to Brad for pointing out that my mind wasn't playing tricks on me!
BurghMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2011, 09:50 PM   #39
JRMDC
Senior Member
 
JRMDC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 11,202
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Ryan View Post
Why should the topic die?
Robert/Holloran was making a joke about another thread...
__________________
My RP pix are here.
My Flickr pix are here.

My commentaries on rail pictures are in my blog.

RP Photo Albums:
Cabooses
Engine Details
Farm and Train
Plumes!
Railroad Details
Signal Details
Switchstand Shots
JRMDC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2011, 09:53 PM   #40
troy12n
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 5,333
Default

Does anyone know how that dude who had his photo stolen by CN worked out?
troy12n is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2011, 09:57 PM   #41
Heymon
Senior Member
 
Heymon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 125
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mSummers View Post
I don't think the lens flare is an "out". If you look closely at the upper headlights, you can see that they added lens flare centered on the headlights. The blue portion on the right side of the image appears to be in line with the flares at the headlight so they can't use the flare as a way to deny the use of the photograph.


You can also see the distortion applied to the original photo in the track. If you look at the merged shot where the locomotive meets the first car,the track appears to crest at that point. In the original photo, the grade is smooth.
Note that they only used half of the stolen photo (the cars) and not the locomotive. Since the front of the locomotive is theirs (their model) they added lens flare there by the headlights to make the model more realistic. My thought was that they put the egregious lens flare on the right side of the image as a way to "prove" they took the photo and not someone else, because the original (burghman's) has no lens flare. I suppose it is possible that they think all the lens flare makes the entire image look more "realistic", but that seems to be a stretch (no pun intended).

Either way, the image in question was not theirs to use without permission, so their artistic taste notwithstanding, I would guess a copyright violation has occurred and some sort of compensation is in the offing. I'd like to hear what the compensation is when it comes along...
Heymon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2011, 10:12 PM   #42
John Ryan
Senior Member
 
John Ryan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Ann Arbor, Michigan
Posts: 497
Send a message via AIM to John Ryan
Default

I think "reasonable compensation" could be derived through the value of their print advertising. If they feel the cost of their print advertising is worth the revenue from the sales it will generate, the same amount should appropriately be due the photographer, if not a multiple of that amount. Some of those Model Railroader ads are in the thousands of dollars. The manufacturer doesn't have a leg to stand on, and "want a free SD40-2" shouldn't cut it.
John Ryan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2011, 11:23 PM   #43
BurghMan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 130
Default

Since this issue of illegal photo use has come up in the forums several times this year, I did a little research with the US Copyright Office. The following passage comes from the FAQ area titled "Is it legal to download works from computer networks and if not, what is the penalty."

Uploading or downloading works protected by copyright without the authority of the copyright owner is an infringement of the copyright owner's exclusive rights of reproduction and/or distribution. Anyone found to have infringed a copyrighted work may be liable for statutory damages up to $30,000 for each work infringed and, if willful infringement is proven by the copyright owner, that amount may be increased up to $150,000 for each work infringed. In addition, an infringer of a work may also be liable for the attorney's fees incurred by the copyright owner to enforce his or her rights.

Regarding my own situation, I'm very willing to work with the manufacture if they agree to a modest premium over what I normally charge for photo use. But if they fail to see the error of their ways....

I still wish the manufacturer would have asked for permission first. Nobody benefits from this situation. I am a railfan, a model railroader and a railroad employee. If the issue is not resolved on good terms, it only creates bad will which is not what I want. On many occasions I have provided photo samples to model manufactures free of charge for the purpose of research. Some times they have been kind enough to provide me with a free sample. Some times they haven't. But I agreed to provide the photos for the good of the hobby. But in my opinion, using a photo for advertising purposes without permission is a very serious offense.
BurghMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2011, 11:43 PM   #44
Greg P
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Baltimore MD
Posts: 1,003
Send a message via AIM to Greg P
Default

What do these people think? That they'll never get caught?

It's bad when the train companies do it, to me, it's worse when a model train company uses it in a catalog that will be sent to train fans.
Greg P is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2011, 12:07 AM   #45
Soo 6060
EMD > GE
 
Soo 6060's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 285
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Holloran Grade View Post
"That's never crossed my mind....good idea!

Thread closed, I have nothing more to say, everyone's free to let this die, or just..whatever.

Also, FOR ONCE, I agree with CXXXXx" -Opps, should have deleted this part.
Um? Lol....
Soo 6060 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2011, 12:52 AM   #46
Joe the Photog
Senior Member
 
Joe the Photog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Columbia, SC
Posts: 7,899
Default

This doesn't make it better by any stretch or even excuse what the company did, but my guess is that the picture was stolen by someone who did not know better and did not realize how serious the violation was. I'm guessing once he or she cleared out their desk, they got the message. (Or at least got a good butt chewing from the boss.)
__________________
Joe the Photog Dot Com
Joe the Photog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2011, 01:32 AM   #47
sd9
Senior Member
 
sd9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 799
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by troy12n View Post
Does anyone know how that dude who had his photo stolen by CN worked out?
I answered in the thread (post#85)

Dude=Bill
sd9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2011, 04:26 AM   #48
JimThias
Senior Member
 
JimThias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 9,800
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Holloran Grade View Post
I just find it interesting that people jump to conclusions based on a real lack of dissecting the image in the ad and comparing it to the one in the DB.
No one jumped to any conclusions. The FACT that it was the same shot was obvious by simple observation. No dissecting was necessary.

I'm going to rephrase something I said earlier in this thread. Anyone who can't tell that this is Burghman's photo is BLIND.

There, I said it. I wanted to say it earlier, but I censored myself.
__________________
.
Rhymes with slice, rice and mice, and probably should be spelled like "Tice."

This pretty much sums it up: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Thias
JimThias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2011, 06:11 AM   #49
trainboysd40
Senior Member
 
trainboysd40's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Calgary, Alberta on the CP Laggan Subdivision
Posts: 2,048
Send a message via MSN to trainboysd40
Default

Heh, thanks for that, Jim...does that save me the trouble of taking 15 minutes away from my already busy week to prove him wrong?

I'm going to go bugger off and be a twit elsewhere for a few hours now.
__________________
got a D5 IIi and now he doesnt afread fo 12800 iSO
Youtube (Model Railway, Vlogs, Tutorials, and prototype)
My Website
Obligatory link to shots on RP, HERE
trainboysd40 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2011, 02:46 PM   #50
travsirocz
Senior Member
 
travsirocz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Eau Claire, WI
Posts: 2,459
Send a message via AIM to travsirocz
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by coborn35 View Post
Thats because it is a model...
The angle is different because they took a picture of their model then stretched the cars to match it...
About time someone says it. They weren't trying to make a real life photo. They wanted to blend one of their models in a real life photo. They added glint to the model to blend it into the real photo but still wanted to show the model in it's true colors. It is an ad, it doesn't have to look real.
travsirocz is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:29 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.