Pixiq

Are you not concerned with the copyright of this picture? Not knowing the source of a photograph doesn’t, to my knowledge, void copyright and make it a a free for all to make posters or use in blogs?

I abide by the Fair Use doctrine that states that copyrighted material can be used without permission as long as it is used for news reporting, commentary, research, teaching or scholarship.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use

Great photo. I can’t wait till I take one like this.
Rob´s last blog ..Rain In San Diego

Copyright is an archaic idea whose originators and supporters fail to fully understand economics.

http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/againstfinal.htm

At least the soldier is using self control by keeping his finger off the trigger.

My guess is that this photo is a candid of the photographer shown staging a photograph. The photographer is slightly further into the background of the picture than the soldier/policeman. As a result, the gun is not actually pointing directly at him. I’d bet that he’s set this photo up with the soldier in order to achieve a dramatic shot (i.e. one nearly looking down the barrel). Some other photographer standing to the side saw this opportunity and snapped another dramatic-looking shot.

It’s a great photo, but I don’t think the pictured photographer was in any danger or being oppressed.

Bob, I’d rather take the picture than be in it.

While I would love to take a photo like this, I would also think a photo of an assault rifle pointed directly into your lens would be quite dramatic.

That is, if the photo is authentic, which some are doubting.

Carlos: i’ve seen that several places, and even if it’s staged, it’s still a good photo…

http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/viahaAkRxD9YZaXLhIVTGg?feat=directlink

Check this one out. if you did this in the united states you’d get beaten, arrested, and thrown in jail for assault with a deadly weapon (CAUSE IT CAUSES CANCER, SEE?)

I agree, the photographer is beyond, not in front of, the soldier/policeman. Telephoto compression at work.

looks like the photographer is not in front of the camera but just to the side of him. possibly this is being blown out of proportion?

i would say this image is far more powerful and dramatic

http://www.flickr.com/photos/dontom_zh/3491307939/in/pool-laprotest

If I had to guess this is from Thailand or Japan because both countries use the AR for their SWAT/Anti-Terror teams and because of the camera but what I first thought was a sidearm on his hip looks like a kukr so that might throw a wrench in that theory ( A Kukr is a type of fighting knife )

The Photog has a Canon Digital body. Looks like one of the newer d series ( a 40d or 50d) with a consumer 80-200 4.5-5.6 lens

The Police officer has a flat top AR which is used by a few countries with possibly a nice EOTECH and a decent rail system. The helmet looks like it is Carbon Fiber. I have never seen the body armor but its looks to be pretty standard light armor. Guy is well equipped so I am guessing it is from a well funded anti terror or Police SWAT unit

To me it seems like the soldier is just posing for the camera at the photographers request.

While it seems as if the point of aim may be mere inches from the photographer and that the rifle cannot be ascertained visually to be unloaded and safe, it is interesting to see what appears to be a small plastic tube or tape over the soldier’s trigger finger up past the first joint, thus making it nearly impossibe to break trigger finger discipline.
NoelArmourson´s last blog ..A Sunset Wave

While you have a point, at least in this case, it’s all rhetoric.

The officer is *posing* for the shot, not threatening or assaulting the photographer.

i would have to disagree that this is one of the most powerful images to be seen in a long time. the photographer and rifleman aren’t even actively engaging each other. for instance, the photograph is just to the top of the officer and the officer is not pointing his weapon at the photographer. seems like the internet masses have the blown this image far out of proportion. these

on the contrary, the following images are far more powerful than this one:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/dontom_zh/3491307939/in/set-72157617781026135/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/e2kmaster/3493827682/

This is one of the most powerful pictures I’ve ever seen. Carlos how can you get pics of all these unemployed people in America? That would be powerful too:

http://americaspeaksink.com/2010/02/unemployment-number-scam/

there is a police line in the background to keep people out. the photographer in the foreground is “embeded”.

This is an interesting argument I’d love to have, though this might not be the right venue.

The “motivational” poster does not comment on the photo, the events depicted in the photo, and the creator of the poster does not even know anything about the context of the original photo. As well, the entire work (?) is being reused. It’s hard to make an argument that the derived work is covered under “fair use”.

This site uses the (possibly illegally distributed copies of an) illegally derived work to make comments on events that a more critical interpretation would say are not even depicted in this photo. Effectively it is being used as “clip art” or a stock photo to illustrate a related but undepicted idea.

I don’t mean to bust your chops, I’m just prompting an argument (in the nicest sense of the word). Completely understand if you don’t want to go into it.

Well I always welcome a good argument, but as it is right now, we don’t even know who the copyright owner is, nor are we even sure it is not a staged photo.

One of the reasons I posted it here is to find out the story behind the photo.

As far as the whole “motivational” poster goes, unless the creator was trying to sell the photos, I really don’t see a problem.

Look up “derivative work” and then get back to us with your “argument.” It needs more work.

I really don’t see anything powerful about this image. It seems extremely obvious from the way the police officer(?) is posed that he is in fact posing for the photographer. Notice how the officer is posed perfectly for the position the photographer has taken. Also notice the people in dress slacks calmly standing around in the background.

This looks like some sort of police department PR shoot or something of that sort. Nothing tense or powerful about it.

Which, when you consider it, still illustrates that photography is not a crime, but not in the way Carlos inferred.

If one does not know the copyright status of a work, or who holds the copyright, the correct course of action is not to assume that it is not covered by copyright; that will expose you to legal risk. Whether or not it is staged is a strangely irrelevant thing to bring up.

As well, the law does not recognize financial compensation as the sole valid reason for reserving the rights of copyright. Perhaps the photo was a work for hire and is owned by the manufacturer of the rifle. They may have intended to use an excerpt, but now anti-weapon baggage is attached to the image.

Photographer’s rights extend much further than where we are allowed to stand and when we’re allowed to open the shutter. Copyright is perhaps our most important right.

The image doesn’t speak for itself. There is quite a bit of debate around the original story (some say it’s from Nepal). You can read some of the speculations from digg.com here:

http://digg.com/odd_stuff/Let_s_See_Who_Shoots_First

The image has circulated around the internet on multiple occasions over the past few years.

http://www.noupe.com/photography/35-powerful-photos-that-each-tells-a-st...

BEST