Re: [Leica] Re: Lens Designs and history- the only take

[Coresect <coresect@tin.it>]

> >So by extension of this analogy - if I were to take a copy of
> >"" it, say in Photoshop,
> >and then sell it - is this a lesser offence?
>
> Copyright and patent law differ on this point.  If I take a patented item
> and improve upon it, then, yes, I can patent the new item as it is "an
> improvement in the art".  An entirely different standard applies to
> copyright.  I can redo your picture myself -- same scene, same light
> conditions, and so forth, and it then becomes "my" picture. But I cannot take
> a recognizable image belonging to someone else, massage it in a computer, and
> claim it for my own.

But I could see a "scene", a landscape for example, take a photo, which would
be a copy of what I'm seeing (maybe I'd even improve on it). Am I stealing it?
Am I offering a sub-standard copy, an alternative or a point of view? Some
cultures see taking a photograph of someone as a way of stealing that person's
soul. This argument reminds me of the old discussion on whether photography is
an art, or merely a form of reproduction?
Just a thought, I reckon it depends on the photo (how much black tape was
used).
BTW, my Summar 5cm (number 1011xx) won't collapse... Is it a jammed model, or
could it be a rigid one (I've heard they're rare). It doesn't look much like
the various pictures of collapsable ones I've seen on the net but I can't find
an image of a rigid one for comparison.
Paul