You hit the idea behind my posting. I never intended to turn this into a discussion of the (im-)perfections of the legal profession.

My clients are very sensitive about their venues (they're churches, OK?) being used for commercial sales and other less than "upstanding" activities. But they are OK with normal "journalistic use," for lack of a better term. So, I've decided to limit my copyright by contractually eliminating those uses (at least by me).

I'm not seeking legal advice from fellow UHH posters, just experiences that they might have in similar situations; my attorney will advise me on the law in New Hampshire and will work with me (read: lead the activity) in drafting the copyright agreements.

If you think I've wasted your time, I apologize; the question was a genuine search for information. If that apology isn't enough, tough.

Hi, any advice is appreciated.

I'm creating a book containing images of sites around my city. All photos are made with the knowledge and, for interior shots, permission of the site owners. All images will be property released (and model released, if necessary) before publication.

But here's the issue.

Each site owner has requested copies of the images for their own use. We've discussed this pretty thoroughly and they're amenable to restrictions I usually place on such transfers (e.g., no modification except rescaling without my written permission). To maintain their cooperation and willingness to subject their properties to future shoots, I'd also like to explicitly restrict my own use of the copyrighted images to the above mentioned book and to advancing my business by including one or more images on my web site and in brochures and other promotional material. I'll explicitly exclude the use of the images in advertising (other than described above), marketing, and packaging of products other than the book and my business without the permission of the client.

This is a little convoluted since the normal property release provides me with total control, but I'm willing to give up some of that control in the name of good will unless someone can convince me otherwise.

Anyone have any pros or cons to this approach or any sample wording for a release? If you do, I'll gladly credit you in the book.

BTW, I do intend to see an attorney before publication to ensure that all releases are in order, but the more ground work I can do ahead of time, the more I learn, and the fewer billable hours the lawyer can charge for.

Thanks in advance.

I have several A mount cameras including an A99 and two A850s with a full repertoire of A mount lenses, including Sony, Minolta, Sigma, and Tamron.

I recently added an A6000 to my repertoire. With that I have the e mount kit lens and several other Sony branded lenses. But the best thing is that my complete selection of A mount lenses is usable with the A6000 because I also elected to include the A-to-E adapter. I works perfectly.

The only peculiarity of note is not a technical one, it's more esthetic: the A6000 can looked dwarfed when some of the A mount lenses are mounted -- in particular my 28mm to 70mm f/2.8 Sigma.

The adapter is a great deal and a lot cheaper than a new set of lenses.

I make images. Photographic images if you insist.

When I'm working, I start by selecting the camera I'll use (in my case, either full frame or APS-C) and the lens or lenses that are best suited to the task (wide, long, normal, macro). Then, by iteration, I determine the aperture and shutter speed I'll use. All of these are image manipulation activities since they directly affect the appearance of the final image.

The output of my camera is (almost) the photoghraphic starting point toward attaining the end image, some of which I know before pressing the shutter button and some of which arise as I examine and work with that output.

In going from this starting point to the end image, I use whatever tools are available to me: Photoshop and Lightroom for sure, but others, too. Among these others are filters (as! how do the "purists" feel about using graduated neutral density filters or circular polarizers? How about studio lights? Or off- (or on-) camera speedlights?). I've been doing this since I started in photography: cropping, straightening, burning, dodging, altering contrast during the developing and printing process, including, occasionally, using the "wrong" developer (film and/or paper).

Sometimes I overdo it and the results are obvious and not realistic or not attractive; sometimes I underdo it and the image lacks something.

And can be rotated around so it shades the viewfinder and reduces glare.

I hate to throw cold water on this, but if it's really a ransomware invasion by something like CryptoWare and if the files have already been encrypted, they're just about toast. The FBI told be that the key lengths we're looking at are somewhere between 20 and 200 characters in length. No system outside of those at NSA can recover files encrypted like that and even then, not quickly.

I never did recover the files that were encrypted when I was infected, but there seem to be so few of them that, at least in my case, they weren't of consequence. You'll have to judge your own situation.

Just to add some more confusion/data to the situation:

I've been attempting to do this in S mode with the shutter set to 1/125.
When I hit the "test fire" button on the transmitter, the light on the receiver comes on (and off, just as one would expect).
Also, I have a SIGMA EF-530 DG Super which is behaving the same way.

Fortunately, they're transitioning from that proprietary design back to the more conventional universal hot shoe.

Be that as it may, I have a problem with the Sony shoe. I have an A77 that refuses to recognize my Yongnuo 560 II flash even though they supposedly have compatible Sony shoes. The flash selection is for fill in flash, but the electronic display shows the flash is off or not attached.

I also have a remote trigger that the camera won't recognize either. I suspect the either the camera shoe is faulty (would have happened suddenly) or (just as likely) I'm doing something or not doing something that keeps the camera from seeing the flash.

Any ideas?

Thanks in advance.

Keep in mind that this problem has two facets: (1) the presence of the malware infestation itself, and (2) the encrypted files.

Based on my experience, removing the infestation (the virus) is pretty easy: Malware bytes killed it quickly, and the Microsoft program and others very well may, too.

Recovering the encrypted files is the real problem and this is where the FBI threw up their hands when I spoke to them. To the best of their knowledge, even NSA would have a problem breaking that code.

So there you have it.

Unfortunately, there is no solution -- other than (a) trying to muddle through without the affected files, or (b) paying the ransom.

Earlier this year (around March), I was infected with a similar virus and went so far as to report the problem to our local FBI office; their advice:
"If you need the files, pay the ransom." Of course, if you do pay, there's no absolute assurance that the files will be released, but, so far, that doesn't seem to have been an issue.

I did notice (prior to actual discovery of the infection) a degradation in system performance (probably due to the virus' encoding algorithm working in the background) and froze my back up. I use Carbonite and was hoping that I stopped the backup before too many files were affected. I initially decided to pay the ransom, but by the time I figured out how to get the BitCoins requested, the time limit had expired and the ransom had doubled. That P*ssed me off and I decided to proceed without paying the ransom.

In the subsequent ransom message, the culprits let slip that they'd infected some 800+ files. Well, my computer had well over 10,000 files on it so I figured I would play the odds and take my chances.

I had my computer wiped clean and a fresh OS installed. I called Carbonite (they were extremely helpful) and was able to copy back all the backed up files. In fact, all my software vendors were both sympathetic and helpful. Took me about 10 days to get fully back and running. Fortunately, the virus that affected me does not reproduce, so re-installing the backup had no additional consequences. I did install MalWareBytes which has been (apparently) quite effective in subsequent file protection.

If you can stand the loss of some files, give thiese guys the electronic finger; if you can't, pay the ransom.

If you need more information, feel free to message me.

Tom

Perhaps, but once they let one (few, many) other visitors to photograph (which they almost assuredly have, they've granted defacto permission to all photographers to shoot. They can't "pick and choose".

Quite to opposite. I upgraded to Win 10 from Win 7 and had no problems at all. Of course I'm running LightRoom CC -- what version do you have?

Other than that, sorry I can't help.

Perhaps against my better judgement, I jumped right in and upgraded from Win7 to Win10. I went about as smoothly as I could have wanted -- the only problem was finding a few icons and files that the two OSs have in different places.

Photoshop and Lightroom both worked perfectly right through the transition.

I'm very impressed.

Either are actually good, but sunsets are best since WS is east of the mountains. If you're lucky, at sunset, you'll get a cloud bank stacked up on the west side of the mountains and "leaking" over them to the east side.

OK. I've read the responses to this thread and agree with all of them -- New Mexico is a beautiful state (I used to live in El Paso TX which is really "southern NM" for all practical purposes).

But no one has yet mentioned White Sands National Monument -- it's breathtaking.