PetaPixel

Confuse Your Friends with this Canon DSLR USB Speaker

Pardon the obnoxious watermarks, but Gadget4all is selling this funky USB speaker that looks just like a Canon 5D Mark II 7D and 24-105mm lens. It’s a 1:1 clone of the actual camera, though the camera and lens both sport “Caoon” as the brand. Audio files can be played from a computer, USB devices, or SD/MMC memory cards, and various buttons on the back of the camera have been changed to control volume and playback. If random photography novelty gifts is your thing, you can pick this one up for $83 bucks over at Gadget4all’s online store.


 
 
  • Hustheman739

    What if you hooked up a real Canon 5d to the speaker one…0.o

  • Guest

    “Pardon the obnoxious watermarks”

    Then maybe you shouldn’t be taking images from websites who’s photos are copyrighted.

  • Yitzy

    Thats a 7D

  • Supersquirrel2007

    the fool is right

  • Anonymous

    You’re an idiot. It’s called free advertising for gadget4all.com.

  • http://www.petapixel.com Michael Zhang

    Thanks. Updated

  • Guest

    I respectfully disagree. PetaPixel didn’t create this article to give gadget4all free advertising. They did it to draw traffic to this site. Just because PetaPixel links to the site they took an image from and credits them doesn’t mean it’s right (or legal). The gadget4all site specifically says “Copyright © 2010 Gadget4all.com. All Rights Reserved.” That means they own the images and others are not allowed to use them. If someone took a copyrighted photo of yours and used it without permission to generate income (ads) on their site, is it alright? No, it’s not. But calling it “free advertising” makes it right?

    For some reason blogs in general feel that as long as you link and credit the source, it’s okay to use other people’s media, regardless of copyright. This is even more absurd when you consider that this is a photo blog where copyright issues routinely pop up. It’s irrelevant whether it’s a personal photo or web graphics. If it’s copyrighted, then it’s not yours to use.

    @PetaPixel: I’m not trying to be a pain in the butt, I was just surprised by you using their image and then apologizing for the watermarks.

  • Temperaturesarah

    *whose

  • Common Sense

    If I had an online store, I’d want as many people as possible to post links to it….

  • Pingback: Harry Lim Photography's Blog

  • Anonymous

    you want to convey that you’re an expert in this topic, but it really seems like you’re talking out of your ass. if you were to tell gadget4all that someone was using their copyrighted image to write a blog post about their product, do you think they would call up petapixel and tell them to take it down? no… its free press dude… sure petapixel could probably send gadget4all an email asking if they can use the image… but the answer would be yes anyway… so stop complaining

  • http://www.petapixel.com Michael Zhang

    Hiya Guest,

    Copyright issues certainly are important, so thanks for voicing your concerns.

    The question in our minds is the purpose of the photographs/images. How does gadget4all make money? If they make money through advertising on their website or through the images themselves (e.g. displaying them in a gallery, selling prints/licenses) etc… then I would agree with you. We don’t publish those kinds of images here without first requesting permission from the copyright owners.

    However, Gadget4all is an online store. They don’t have advertising on their website, and it’s pretty clear they’re not making money from the images of their products themselves. The purpose of the watermarks is likely to keep people from talking about the product all over the web without sending potential buyers over to the website. Since this post is indeed “free press” for them, can you please explain how they’re getting ripped off?

  • Photosophy

    I couldn’t buy this.

    Looking so realistic, it would only taunt me cruelly for not having the real thing.

    Then it would mock my XSi and I’d have to hit it.

  • Guest

    Thanks for replying. I am not an expert on copyrights, and judging by everyone’s reaction, my point of view is wrong. Although I understand everyone’s point of view 100%, I still disagree with it on principle. My issue isn’t that they are getting ripped off, harmed, or getting free press (and I never said that they were), it’s that you are using their copyrighted images, work, and/or products to generate income for your site (through ads). I do agree that gadget4all would probably not complain about it though because they are a store and will get traffic from your post.

    I was going to bring up this post as another (better) example:

    http://www.petapixel.com/2010/12/27/kodak-brownie-converted-into-a-clock/

    I see that credit has been given in the article (which I’m pretty sure wasn’t there a couple of days ago – was it added after the fact or did I just miss it?). But in my point of view, just giving credit to the original image does not give anyone the right to use it on their website. If the owner of the image was okay with others using it, they would have given it a Creative Commons license instead of an “all rights reserved” copyright.

    I’ve stated my views, everyone else has stated theirs, nobody has changed each others opinions. There is no point discussing it anymore. Sorry if my posts came across as questioning this sites integrity, as that wasn’t my intention. I’ve been following your blog for quite a while now and will continue to do so. Thanks.

  • http://www.petapixel.com Michael Zhang

    Ah, good point. That’s a good example. I did ask the copyright owner for permission, but simply forgot to state that I did at the bottom of the post. Thanks for the catch :-)

  • Ethan

    Why does it says “Caoon”? LOL

  • Soapbox

    ‘Guest’ is absolutely correct, and Mr. Zahn was also correct in seeking permission. Calling people an idiot for defending copyright ownership is asinine, Mr. Killapenguin- you have no concept of how things work.

  • Pingback: Computer Speakers in the Form of a DSLR Camera | PhotoWeeklyOnline INC.

  • Pingback: Geeky Speaker Masquerades as a Nikon 55-200mm Lens

  • Mym

    Whether it is free press that benefits them or not is beside the point. Guest is right that the images that are Copyrighted with All Rights Reserved cannot be used by another party without permission from the copyright holder. Of course if they were asked by PP gadget4all are likely to agree but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t a breach of copyright to use them without permission. Don’t be so quick to be aggressive in your comments.