Re: palladium drydown and developer (albumen & collodion)

Loris,

I don't see a great problem in talking about the results of the process
and the ease or difficulty of the process and comparing it with other
methods without the revealing of precise details. I've often had to
write about subjects that are in part covered by an non-disclosure
agreement, and it has never been a great problem. I wouldn't actually
think it was a matter of copyright, but more one of ethics.

I don't think plagiarism is likely to be a problem either. As you are
doubtless aware it is simply a matter of making clear when you are using
the work of others (as we all do) rather than claiming it or implying it
as your own work. I don't really see where it comes in here.

I imagine Terry might well be interested in such a comparison - and I
suspect it would be something worth discussing with him off list rather
than in public.

Regards,

Peter

Peter Marshall
petermarshall@cix.co.uk
_________________________________________________________________
My London Diary http://mylondondiary.co.uk/
London's Industrial Heritage: http://petermarshallphotos.co.uk/
The Buildings of London etc: http://londonphotographs.co.uk/
and elsewhere......

Ryuji Suzuki wrote:
> From: Loris Medici <mail@loris.medici.name>
> Subject: RE: palladium drydown and developer (albumen & collodion)
> Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2006 22:44:16 +0300
>
>
>> - How am I supposed to do a credible / extensive review / comparison
>> without revealing copyrighted information?
>>
>
> This is not a problem at all. One cannot protect "information" by
> copyright. That is, the idea, such as the formula, cannot be protected
> by copyright. Practically speaking, one loses control on the
> information of the formula once it is published in some way. The only
> way I can think of to keep right on this type of information is to
> obtain a patent, but in this case you'll have to disclose the best way
> to achieve the goal.
>
> If you quote formula and some descriptions from his PDF file, to a
> reasonable extent to illustrate your points in your review, it is also
> considered fair use in the context of copyright law.
>
> I've seen chemical formula published with copyright warning, but they
> are completely ineffective, other than to scare away some naive
> people. Unless you extensively reproduce the graphics or anything on
> the article by photographic means, I don't know how copyright applies
> to such work.
>
> However, be careful about plagiarism. This is not a legal issue but
> rather an ethical issue. I can easily name a few on alt-photo-process,
> APUG, pure-silver and photo.net who are repeat offenders. I have
> absolutely no respect for them.
>
>
>> About expelling Terry out of the list: I think it's a too hard measure
>> to take for the current situation (this is the sensible/logical part
>> of me writing, my emotional part is with Don). Anyway, just disregard
>> him when he starts writing nonsense and/or he plays his famous game...
>> Let him alone with his buffoonery when he does so.
>>
>
> Agreed.
>
>
>
Received on 07/23/06-10:08:54 AM Z