| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 2968.1 | SuperView V3.0 | DICKNS::MACDONALD | WA1OMM 7.093/145.05/223.58 AX.25 | Fri Sep 29 1989 13:46 | 5 |
| >> Superview 2.0 is bar FAR the fastest picture viewer I've
>> seen.
SuperView V3.0 is now available.
|
| 2968.2 | | WJG::GUINEAU | Impossible Concentration | Fri Sep 29 1989 14:31 | 5 |
| Steve, you mentioned pics for color workstations?!?
Do you have these somewhere?
John
|
| 2968.3 | | MILKWY::JANZEN | cf. ANT::CIRCUITS,ANT::UWAVES | Fri Sep 29 1989 16:16 | 4 |
| This brings up some interesting issues about sexual harrassment at work
as well as copyright violation. It's just like copying protected
software, I believe.
Tom
|
| 2968.4 | | LEDS::ACCIARDI | | Fri Sep 29 1989 17:27 | 21 |
|
You are technically kind of correct, Tom. Copywritten material, be it
software, poetry, or naughty pictures, may not be reproduced without
the permission of the copyright holder.
In spite of this, commercial networks such as PLINK routinely provide
digitized images and sounds that are taken from sources that are
undoubtedly copywritten, such as PlayBoy centerfolds etc.
PLINK's position is that you should not reproduce such material for
profit, which is a bit hypocritical since they profit from download and
connect charges. They have never been harassed or restrained by any
copyright holders, except for cases of accidental posting of commercial
software. No one has ever compalined about digitized photos or sounds.
This doesn't make it legal; it's just that a measly few thousand PC
owners probably don't make litigation worthwhile. I doubt that they
even know or care about it.
Any legal minds know the exact laws in this matter?
Ed.
|
| 2968.5 | Don't put DEC at risk! | SPIDER::LONG | | Fri Sep 29 1989 22:20 | 19 |
|
Re: .4
> This doesn't make it legal; it's just that a measly few thousand PC
> owners probably don't make litigation worthwhile. I doubt that they
> even know or care about it.
Watch them care about it when it's a deep pockets company like DEC!!!
The same goes for the naughty pictures and the sexual harrasment issue. A
good lawsuit threat is going to win somebody a good sized settlement to
keep that kind of thing out of the papers ( if you thought the response to
the last few WSJ articles was bad ... ).
I would play it safe if there is any question. I don't put DEC at risk, and
they continue to provide me with a paycheck and a place to live during the
day ;^}.
Dick
|
| 2968.6 | ... is this a tad paranoid? | LEDS::ACCIARDI | | Sat Sep 30 1989 01:23 | 23 |
|
.5> The same goes for the naughty pictures and the sexual harrasment
.5> issue.
This confuses me... who is being sexually harassed by images of females
(or males, or aardvarks) clothed in swimsuits? Not even Jimmy Swaggart
is calling for Sports Illustrated to be banned.
Consider this example... a gay employee brings a photo to work of
his/herself holding hands or kissing their lover. Would some straight
employees find this offensive? Possibly. Is it harassment?
Absolutely not. No more than a photo of a straight employee kissing
his/her spouse would be harassment of a gay employee.
I don't have a policy manual nearby, but I believe sexual harassment
implies forcing lewd suggestions, comments or actions on another
employee.
Let's not create an issue where none exists. If there's a copyright
problem, fine, don't make the images available.
Ed.
|
| 2968.7 | wake up and smell the roses | CGOFS::DREW | Steve Drew | Sat Sep 30 1989 02:16 | 14 |
|
Lets not get to crazy over this. These pictures just happen
to be a good example of Amiga hi-res overscanned HAM images.
For those that are offended by swim suit pictures try the
MISC_A, and MISC_B zoo files.
As for copyrights, these files have been available on the
enet for sometime in DDIF and RGB format, all I did was
convert them to the Amiga. I wanted to see how high quality
scanned images would look converted to Ham.
I agree with Ed, lets not get too paranoid.
/Steve
|
| 2968.8 | Just enjoy them for what they're worth | LOWLIF::DAVIS | That's not a BUG it's a FEATURE! | Sat Sep 30 1989 03:48 | 5 |
| re: last few
Personally, I think they look real good. Good job, Steve.
...richard
|
| 2968.9 | very nice | SMAUG::SPODARYK | Binary Throttle | Sat Sep 30 1989 16:27 | 4 |
| The images do look sharp. Some of the highest quality I've seen
(from a technological viewpoint :^). Great work on the converter.
~Steve
|
| 2968.10 | | LEDS::ACCIARDI | | Sun Oct 01 1989 01:42 | 4 |
|
Excellent images. Anyone know what was originally used to scan them?
Ed.
|
| 2968.11 | Nice, but... | NOTIBM::MCGHIE | Thank Heaven for small Murphys ! | Sun Oct 01 1989 09:22 | 21 |
| Hi Guys,
yes great stuff, please spread MORE of this wonderful artistic imagery
around !!!! (we don't get these adverts down here ;-} I didn't know
what I was missing out on...)
One small point though, the images on my A500 seem rather distorted.
The aspect ratio is out. Height seems to be compressed. This is not a
total disaster (heh-heh) but to fully appreciate this I would like to
see the images without the distortion.
I suspect the problem lies with my location and thus the system. I have
a PAL Amiga. This time all that extra resolution is a pain.
Is there an easy solution to my problem ? (other than moving to North
America !!)
Regards
Mike
P.S. keep them artistic images coming...!
|
| 2968.12 | don't use superview 3.0 | CGOU01::DREW | Steve Drew | Mon Oct 02 1989 00:03 | 8 |
|
Superview 3.0, doesnt work with many of this pictures. It does'nt
seem to like the ones that are less that half the screen in height.
So stick with Superview 2.0 for these guys...
/Steve.
|
| 2968.13 | conversion to PS? | SMAUG::SPODARYK | Binary Throttle | Mon Oct 02 1989 16:38 | 14 |
| I didn't know whether to reply here or note 2961 (IFF to Postscript).
I know CLAZ is not very robust in terms of what it can handle, but I've
had fairly good luck with it. (Until I tried it with these HAM's)
Has anyone else tried converting these. Even the smaller (ie. not
overscanned) pictures cause CLAZ to crash.
I have IffToPS.c, but that is some _seriously_ ugly code, and I don't
want to spend the time to get it running on VMS. And even then, it
might not work, since it's based on CLAZ.
Any ideas?
Steve - When will the 1988 calendar be available? :^) 1990 :^)
|