32 thoughts on “Most amazing photos of 2012

  1. Why do you publish copyrighted photos without any mention of the photographer?

    The award-winning Swedish underwater photographer Magnus Lundgren has spent a decade or two perfectioning his craft, before shooting the amazing sleeping sperm whales. Don’t you think he deserves some credit – even more than the h/t to Paula?

    And please don’t tell me you didn’t know. Google picture search confirmed my guess in this case, and it also reveals that Michael Zelensky shot the snow tunnel, and Yu Wu shot the ant…

    A couple of the other images have been reproduced so many times that it’s a bit harder to track down the photographer. That’s no excuse for not even giving it a try.

    1. He posted the link where he found the pictures. That’s all he’s obligated to do for a quick post like this.

      You have unreasonable expectations.

      1. Certainly not. Someone else’s copyright infringement is no excuse for you doing the same thing.

        In my world, people are responsible for what they do, and you don’t get off the hook by providing a link to someone who did it first.

        1. Sorry, I went to the other site where the pictures were posted and it had disappeared. HuffPo didn’t post credits and I assumed that if they could post them like that, I could, too. I always give photo credits where I can, and if permission is required I try to get it.

          But you, Mr. Horn, are rude, and the sad thing is that you could have made your comment without being so rude.

          1. I am not sure he was rude as much as just forthright without adding any apologetic tone.

            I am (was) an artist and my artwork has been stolen for 25+ years, even before the web. No one cares. Everyone wants something for nothing. One guy even showed me his new business cards, so proud of the design on them, and it turned out he stole MY drawing from a publication. I called him on it but facts are it is too expensive to pursue legal action and he just goes on his merry way.

            So what happens is that artist and photographers don’t get credit, don’t get paid, don’t even get royalties. They end up having to finance their own art so others can use it for their own social networking.

            Maybe I am just too jaded by now.

            I am only mentioning this so you can see the viewpoint the commenter might be coming from, direct as his words might appear. Careers and salaries for visual artists are diminishing. If the photo is plastered all over the web in large format and can even be printed out, then what hope does that photographer have of selling many prints of it?

            I also notice that people with a salaried jobs do not quite understand the problems of a self-employed person.

            Just trying to bring some points to light here. The net is rife with this sort of image use and I’m not in any position to fight it. Just wanted to give some facts or viewpoints in case these were unknown.

            1. Yes, I’m trying to be sensitive to this, and my excuse this time is that I simply had no time to search for the original images. But I do credit photographers when I can, and you don’t know the number of times I’ve written to photographers asking permission to reproduce their image on this site (most of the time I get no reply, so I don’t post the image).

              But yes, I know the problems of self-employment and will try in the future to give credit so long as I can fairly readily find the artist. But I still maintain that the point could have been made, as you did, without rudeness.

              There ARE rules here. . .

              1. I’ve always asked Alex’s permission to use his photos, and he finally gave me blanket permission to use any of them without asking. Nice guy!

            2. Well said, jesse. And isn’t that just a part of the larger intellectual property debate? Musicians don’t particularly like to give away their songs, either.

              I’m old-school, on this, but I think old-school has already lost . . . I fear how things will end up now that arts and journalism are all “free.”

              Agree with JAC that he’s usually most sensitive to these concerns and also that the original objector could have been a lot more pleasant about it.

            3. One guy even showed me his new business cards, so proud of the design on them, and it turned out he stole MY drawing from a publication. I called him on it but facts are it is too expensive to pursue legal action and he just goes on his merry way.

              I noted a couple of months ago that some of the first of the celebrities and non-celebrities who had their phones “hacked” by representatives of News Corporation had agreed to pool their out-of court libel/ slander/ theft settlements to make a “fighting fund” to support other victims to pursue News Corp for damages. Shortly after, News Corp started announcing offers for blanket settlements. Then they started to raise the offers.
              OK, that’s a single large target organisation, which is much more attackable than a diffuse cloud of bloggers et al, but it was a cheering example of communal action managing to call a major corporation to some sort of account. May be worth emulating, if you can get enough victims together.

              1. Not when a person only makes $20,000 a year total sales in their artwork. I have spent hundreds of hours looking into various problems over the years. I don’t get paid for any of that time. There is just no point to making artwork anymore, at least not for the purpose of making money at it. Most artwork is made by people who have jobs to subsidize it, or spouses who subsidize it. There is too much free fun stuff on the web now, too. there is simply no point. I am in informal liquidation, myself. There is no way I can pay my $14,000-a-year plus $4K deductible health insurance. Oh, God Bless the U.S.A., rah rah rah.

              2. Sorry for the whine session : ) Just wanted to say that a person needs to look at the bottom line and realize when it’s fruitless.
                How’s that for a mixed metaphor : )
                Yikes! I should not have come back here to look at comments!

              3. Well, I was trying to be constructive. I’ve got friends in the “artwork” profession, and with a history of being ripped-off by plagiarists and publishers alike.

    1. That’s mostly because the male carries the fetus to the end of gestation. Not many males would do that. That’s why there are still people around.

    1. Seals are considerably modified canines and so “cousins” to “dogs” (in a loose sense ; “dogs” including wolves and bears).
      Cats form their own distinct group at the same (approximate) phylogenetic level as the canines (including “dogs” and “seals”. So the seal-to-cat relationship would be phylogenetically comparable to human second cousins?
      One of these days I’ll learn the terminology for expressing these trees. But the human terminology has to deal with trees whose branches re-cross, which is extremely rare in phylogenetic work.

  2. What puzzles me is which Greek anatomist named sea horses after the hippocampus buried away in the middle of the human brain.
    Or am I getting the motor boat in front of the sea horse?
    I’ve not seen one – yet- in my diving ; plenty of their reasonably close relatives the “pipe fish” though. There are publicly announced populations at Poole on the south coast of Britain, so it’s a reasonably safe bet that there are un-announced populations elsewhere. So I’ll be keeping my eyes peeled where the water is warm.

Leave a Reply