http://innovation.uk.msn.com/persona...thetic-diamond
Never mind the text, there's a couple of photos there that I quite like... Now, if I can sort out the attribution too?!
Printable View
http://innovation.uk.msn.com/persona...thetic-diamond
Never mind the text, there's a couple of photos there that I quite like... Now, if I can sort out the attribution too?!
I take it you're busy negotiating a royalty payment (and damages) from them that will preclude the need for you to work ever again?
Hah! Chance would be a fine thing. No, I just want attribution done correctly - the photos were done specifically for printed publicity materials and use on the DD website, if they're getting used in more mainstream media then I'd like the notoriety. Or maybe not given I can see more & more flaws...
Interesting article.
I've seen a few recently suggesting the supply of mined diamonds is diminishing. I wonder if we'll see the same pattern as with rare earth metals - as the price rose, previously uneconomical mines became economical, coupled with improvements in mining tech, which kept the prices under control.
I suppose it depends on the arrangement you had with DD. It might be that MSN just lifted the pics from the DD site without permission and figured crediting them in the article was 'good enough'.Quote:
Originally Posted by ps_bond
Sounds that way from discussion. It's a minefield at the best of times.
I'm no fan of copyright watermarks as part of a photo, they're easy to remove and invariably detract from the image. Encrypted watermarks are more tricky, but I remain unconvinced by the cost/benefit ratio.
hmmm having read the article it does seem like DD were involved in it as they gave an interview, so maybe DD just assumed that because they commissioned the pics they owned the copyright. We need Wendy here.
Simpler than that - MSN said "can we use the photos on your website", copyright wasn't discussed. Chalk up as minor cock-up rather than duplicity in duplication.