DSLRUsers.com

Nice D2x setup WT2 and 400 2.8. Found this at Nikonians.org

http://www.nikonians.org/dcforum/User_files/42d5de3979088da0.jpg

HB,
That what I wish and they're on my wish list.

The total set up for WT2, antenna and other bits + pieces cost US$1300.00
(Camera, 200-400VR, tripod, head, WAP, Wireless Hdd are not included)

Then I can set it up at Bondi beach this summer and shoot.

I should have guessed!

And you will have extra reach and VR over the setup above. Very cool.

EDIT - not to mention a FAR better looking tripod than above...

Birddog,

I pose at Bondi for you even if you did not have all that kit.

On another point ....

I hate to be a nark, but in relation to last week's issues of posting material from one forum site to another and the attendant infringement of Copyright, does the posting of this picture contravene the rules?

Cheers,

Hand me my lust pills, Jeeves. I think I'm having another one of my turns...

Sheetshooter wrote:Birddog,

I pose at Bondi for you even if you did not have all that kit.

On another point ....

I hate to be a nark, but in relation to last week's issues of posting material from one forum site to another and the attendant infringement of Copyright, does the posting of this picture contravene the rules?

Cheers,

I'm not worried about being dragged into court for this offence... but what became of that debate? Are there rules here now?

must get that lens one day

Heath,

My preference is that this image not be directly posted, but that a link to it be given instead.

Heath Bennett wrote:I'm not worried about being dragged into court for this offence...

That's easy for you to say, but this is not your site, and your name and address are not linked to the URL. Mine are, and in the interests of respecting the IP of the original photographer of this image, I'd appreciate it if you could adjust your posting appropriately.

but what became of that debate? Are there rules here now?

There always have been rules, and last week's debate ended by me reiterating what that policy is.

Thanx for asking.

gstark wrote:Heath,

My preference is that this image not be directly posted, but that a link to it be given instead.

Heath Bennett wrote:I'm not worried about being dragged into court for this offence...

That's easy for you to say, but this is not your site, and your name and address are not linked to the URL. Mine are, and in the interests of respecting the IP of the original photographer of this image, I'd appreciate it if you could adjust your posting appropriately.

but what became of that debate? Are there rules here now?

There always have been rules, and last week's debate ended by me reiterating what that policy is.

Thanx for asking.

Just out of interest, if heath were to ask for permission to use the image, it would be ok?

genji wrote:Just out of interest, if heath were to ask for permission to use the image, it would be ok?

Yes, that would be fine.

So -only- if permission is given? I gave credit to the site I found it at but I guess that is not enough.

Apologies to Gstark as it appears I would be putting himself in trouble rather than myself!!!

I will amend it right now.

he missing some pws to complete the remote setup

Heath Bennett wrote:So -only- if permission is given? I gave credit to the site I found it at but I guess that is not enough.

Not for me; sorry.

I don't have the resources to check each and avery other site's policies as regards how they might view any copyright that they hold, or perhaps the holder of the copyright of an image posted to that site.

I regard the providing of a link as a fairly safe practice, as against the direct publishing of an image, the source of which, and the policies of the copyright holders of which, I have no direct knowledge.

Taking a conservative approach to this seems, to me, to be a prudent course of action.

Apologies to Gstark as it appears I would be putting himself in trouble rather than myself!!!

I will amend it right now.

No worries, and thanx for this.

As someone who has had their bandwidth chewed up by people leeching images onto other boards, I agree with gstark's policy.

However, as someone with legal training and knowledge, let me say that there is no basis in copyright for it. gstark can make whatever policies he wants on his board, but saying that the reason is copyright adds to the general uncertainty and doubt that people have over copyright. And that doesn't do anyone any good.

Copyright is not all that hard - it's statute-based and therefore far easier to understand than some of the other branches of the law. The Act is in fairly plain English and is quite readable.

Please let's not add to the general confusion around copyright.

Helpful links:
- Australian Copyright Council: http://copyright.org.au
- ComLaw (where you can read the Act): http://www.comlaw.gov.au/

thaddeus

thanks for the above link, for those interested the direct link is here, 9 page pdf
http://www.copyright.org.au/pdf/acc/InfoSheets/G011.pdf

thaddeus wrote:The Act is in fairly plain English and is quite readable.

Only a lawyer could say that.