But I wonder how those personal websites and blogs of "camera-porn" have affected the sales of the traditional camera product magazines. Also about the copyright and the use of trademark issues, how are they worked out?
The obvious question is, can anyone just come up with a blog reviewing a new product, showing the trademark of the product and/or the company, and saying whatever he or she wants to say about it in writing?
The obvious question is, can anyone just come up with a blog reviewing a new product, showing the trademark of the product and/or the company, and saying whatever he or she wants to say about it in writing?
First, thanks to Curt and Lee for the information. Remaindering (the sale of runs of new books) is a bizarre business. I think MLF (Medium and Large Format) is out of print but Darkroom Basics was still in print last I heard. Sometimes books are remaindered when they change distributors. I gave up trying to understand it years ago.
Now, Firecracker, yes, anyone can indeed review any new product on a blog, and there are unlikely to be any issues with trademarks unless they are 'passing off' or otherwise trying to get some sort of financial advantage from the use of the trademark, as distinct from the review itself. And they can say whatever they like as long as it is not libellous.
The thing is, how much are most of these reviews worth? Often, they'll have spent their own money to buy the kit in question (and therefore need to persuade themselves of the value of their purchase) and they will have very little knowledge of the competition.
This is where a 'hard copy' reputation comes in handy. First, you can borrow stuff from the manufacturers, interview people there, and so forth (hence my three upcoming factory visits this month, Leica, Zeiss and Manfrotto/Gitzo). Second, you get to handle a lot of kit, allowing a basis for comparison. Third, your readers have some idea of what to expect: they learn your biases, your style, your strengths and weaknesses.
The reason I've put so much work into www.rogerandfrances.com (including reviews -- I'm working on the Leica M8 at the moment, which I've had 6 months) is that I'm much more interested in (a) how to take pictures and (b) silver halide than in the latest digi SLR and software, and this is not the direction that book or magazine publishers are taking. In fact, a week or two ago I put up a huge new wodge of free modules called 'Basics', largely in response to something I read here on APUG about the dearth of well-informed but really basic information about 'real' cameras.
Incidentally the M8 is gorgeous, the first digicam under $20,000 I've really wanted as a general-application camera, not just for the convenience of product shots and special applications such as soft focus (Lensbabies and Dreamagons are wonderful on the Nikon D70). But I think the next review/report will be the Alpa.
Returning to your question, what has hurt magazines most is not 'camera porn' but e-bay and manufacturers'/dealers' web sites. Look at the classifieds and other ads in a Shutterbug from 10-20 years ago and you'll see what I mean. Ads are what pay for most magazines: cover prices would be several times higher without them. Increasingly, the main reason to advertise in magazines is to show your commitment to the medium -- which is also why people sponsor this site!
Cheers,
R.
Last edited by Roger Hicks; 05-05-2007 at 03:23 AM.
Now, Firecracker, yes, anyone can indeed review any new product on a blog, and there are unlikely to be any issues with trademarks unless they are 'passing off' or otherwise trying to get some sort of financial advantage from the use of the trademark, as distinct from the review itself. And they can say whatever they like as long as it is not libellous.
The thing is, how much are most of these reviews worth? Often, they'll have spent their own money to buy the kit in question (and therefore need to persuade themselves of the value of their purchase) and they will have very little knowledge of the competition.
This is where a 'hard copy' reputation comes in handy. First, you can borrow stuff from the manufacturers, interview people there, and so forth (hence my three upcoming factory visits this month, Leica, Zeiss and Manfrotto/Gitzo). Second, you get to handle a lot of kit, allowing a basis for comparison. Third, your readers have some idea of what to expect: they learn your biases, your style, your strengths and weaknesses.
The reason I've put so much work into www.rogerandfrances.com (including reviews -- I'm working on the Leica M8 at the moment, which I've had 6 months) is that I'm much more interested in (a) how to take pictures and (b) silver halide than in the latest digi SLR and software, and this is not the direction that book or magazine publishers are taking. In fact, a week or two ago I put up a huge new wodge of free modules called 'Basics', largely in response to something I read here on APUG about the dearth of well-informed but really basic information about 'real' cameras.
Incidentally the M8 is gorgeous, the first digicam under $20,000 I've really wanted as a general-application camera, not just for the convenience of product shots and special applications such as soft focus (Lensbabies and Dreamagons are wonderful on the Nikon D70). But I think the next review/report will be the Alpa.
Returning to your question, what has hurt magazines most is not 'camera porn' but e-bay and manufacturers'/dealers' web sites. Look at the classifieds and other ads in a Shutterbug from 10-20 years ago and you'll see what I mean. Ads are what pay for most magazines: cover prices would be several times higher without them. Increasingly, the main reason to advertise in magazines is to show your commitment to the medium -- which is also why people sponsor this site!
But I wonder how those personal websites and blogs of "camera-porn" have affected the sales of the traditional camera product magazines. Also about the copyright and the use of trademark issues, how are they worked out?
The obvious question is, can anyone just come up with a blog reviewing a new product, showing the trademark of the product and/or the company, and saying whatever he or she wants to say about it in writing?
Why should you or I have fewer rights to do this than say, Popular Photography?
__________________ Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. In velit arcu, consequat at, interdum sit amet, consequat in, quam.
Why should you or I have fewer rights to do this than say, Popular Photography?
No, not that. I meant (and thought) perhaps web-publishing or (publishing in general) would involve some (extra) precedures like having to pay fees (perhaps commission fees?) to whoever own the rights to their products...
Because what bothers me is the logos of the products, that in a way, if I were to web-publish something about the cameras I own with the photos I provide myself, I would end up not only showing, promoting, and advertising them to the public. (By the way I have no intention of doing it but curious about how it would turn out if someone like me did.)
That is a commercial business whether it is to generate profits or not from them, as most of us are not the reps of certain companies of camera products.
No, not that. I meant (and thought) perhaps web-publishing or (publishing in general) would involve some (extra) precedures like having to pay fees (perhaps commission fees?) to whoever own the rights to their products...
Because what bothers me is the logos of the products, that in a way, if I were to web-publish something about the cameras I own with the photos I provide myself, I would end up not only showing, promoting, and advertising them to the public. (By the way I have no intention of doing it but curious about how it would turn out if someone like me did.)
That is a commercial business whether it is to generate profits or not from them, as most of us are not the reps of certain companies of camera products.
I'm not following you. Do you think magazines that review products pay the manufacturers for the privilege of displaying images of them? They don't. Manufacturers do everything short of paying the magazines to review their products and sometimes they cross that line.
__________________ Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. In velit arcu, consequat at, interdum sit amet, consequat in, quam.
Manufacturers do everything short of paying the magazines to review their products and sometimes they cross that line.
When the line between the manufacturers/dealers/sellers and the consumers seems blurry, I just wonder. Or what do you exactly mean "they cross the line"?
In the case of Japan, it seems (IT ONLY SEEMS) that sometimes used camera shops and some "promiment" classic camera reviewers(professional critics) team up and write articles about certain products, mostly "classic" products on a well-known publication (such as Amsahi Camera, equivalent of Popular Photography) to create a trend, and this is sort of beyond the mere reviews but more of the pushing and selling of particualr goods, then the next thing we know is the prices of these products are going up, unreasonably. The real irony is that on Asahi Camera, the same topics appear at least once a year, so it's a tiring process for the readers to follow(and I don't subscribe it any more because of it).
However, Asahi Camera does put their independent reviews on the new products, and they are pretty keen on them by examining every techinical aspect of them with data, and that's pretty good. But for the "classic" stuff, they seem to have a different agenda to sell or not sell certain products...
I'm not following you. Do you think magazines that review products pay the manufacturers for the privilege of displaying images of them? They don't.
For obtaining the use of their (manufacturers') properties, I thought the magazines and/or any professional (meaning commercial-business) reviewers out there had to... I got confused (and pretty much still am) because I thought I heard, in some "copyright" issue, photographers have a risk of being sued violating the right when they sell their photo images, even street snaps taken in 100 percent pubic, that show some companies' logos, names of businesses. Or at least the photographers may be asked to stop or remove the logos and names, etc. And that logic seems to apply for almost any photographying and publishing without obtaining permission, consensus, or agreement, etc.
What I mean is that occasionally manufacturors do directly or indirectly bribe reviewers and or publishers for coverage, with either favors, cash, or advertising buys.
As for the the question of images, logos, copyright...
Perhaps it's very different in Japan but here, there is something called "fair use," an exception to copyright expressly for use in reviews, criticism and commentary. And the only time you see a logo obscured is because the publisher isn't being paid to display it, not because the publisher hasn't paid to.
__________________ Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. In velit arcu, consequat at, interdum sit amet, consequat in, quam.
Linear Mode
