| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/06/2009 01:28:14 PM · #51 |
There is a big difference between someone telling me my photo is crap and why, and someone taking my photo, making it high-key,B&W,tritone paint, now it's mine..
|
|
|
|
02/06/2009 01:31:59 PM · #52 |
Ok, I am listening and have been reading replies. So what I get out of this is:
I can take the Mona Lisa painting, erase all the color from it, and just add some different colors, seel it and make money for me, and that this is ok. This is what this guy basically did with the Obama picture. It's pretty plain and simple to see this. This is ok now? I thought this was illegal. Please correct me if it is not, because I am going to then start doing this to many famous paintings and pictures and make a fortune for me. This is what is being said here, and yes, I am listening. |
|
|
|
02/06/2009 01:49:22 PM · #53 |
Originally posted by rugman1969:
Ok, I am listening and have been reading replies. So what I get out of this is:
I can take the Mona Lisa painting, erase all the color from it, and just add some different colors, seel it and make money for me, and that this is ok. This is what this guy basically did with the Obama picture. It's pretty plain and simple to see this. This is ok now? I thought this was illegal. Please correct me if it is not, because I am going to then start doing this to many famous paintings and pictures and make a fortune for me. This is what is being said here, and yes, I am listening. |
The Mona Lisa has been reproduced and/or parodied many, many times. The Mona Lisa is not copyrighted, and never has been; it predates copyright laws.
There's a great book exploring these issues in relationship to battles fought by Grant Woods' grandaughter Nan over the use of "American Gothic", an iconic work of American art that was created in a time when copyrights of artwork had come into effect. The book, "American Gothic: A life of America's most famous painting" is by Stephen Biel and you can read a lot of it Here.
A good place to dip into it is around pg 120-160.
R.
Message edited by author 2009-02-06 13:52:38.
|
|
|
|
02/06/2009 02:02:43 PM · #54 |
This is basically what I'm trying to find out from the DPC community !
We have discussion here every day on this subject. In fact there is one right now about a site using dpc photos. Now I know it's different to take pixel per pixel...but I want to know what the dpc community thinks is "fair game" as it relates to one of "their" pictures.
Originally posted by alans_world:
There is a big difference between someone telling me my photo is crap and why, and someone taking my photo, making it high-key,B&W,tritone paint, now it's mine.. |
|
|
|
|
02/06/2009 02:04:12 PM · #55 |
 kenskid,  Bear_Music is one of the good guys.
It's kinda scary to think that someone with a paintbrush, or stencil and spray paint, not only have more rights, but those rights supersede those whose images they are based on..
Message edited by author 2009-02-06 14:06:43.
|
|
|
|
02/06/2009 02:06:17 PM · #56 |
| I believe the main thing we can take from this is to never admit that you used a particular photo of a popular individual as inspiration. |
|
|
|
02/06/2009 02:09:02 PM · #57 |
Me a Bear are ok...he is a bright one...
However, I was getting bent up because "I was not listening". If you look at my OP title I say...
....Would you want credit if your photo was used....
....I welcomed the "grey law" exchanges but that is not what I asked about originally...when I brushed the "law" aside I was accused of not listening". It wasn't that I was not listening it was that I wanted to see if you (dpc member) "Would you want credit if your photo was used"...not what the law is.
Originally posted by alans_world:
kenskid, Bear_Music is one of the good guys. It's kinda scary to think that someone with a paintbrush, or stencil and spray paint, not only have more rights, but those rights supersede those whose images they are based on.. |
|
|
|
|
02/06/2009 02:42:45 PM · #58 |
Kenny, I guess it all depends. If someone approached me and wanted to do a artist rendition of one of my photos and all proceeds go to Best Friends Animal Shelter, hell yes, but if later he is selling them for a profit for himself, well that was not part of the agreementâ€Â¦.NO!!!
|
|
|
|
02/06/2009 03:28:29 PM · #59 |
For me personally I think it would depend on the uniqueness of the photo. If I had gone to great lengths to capture a unique scene or happening or used a unique perspective or composition, I'd be more upset if someone used it as inspiration without credit. OTOH, as in this case, if my picture is one of literally a million pictures of Obama and the artist happened to select mine to work with, I can't imagine feeling too slighted. In my view on this case, the artist brought quite a bit to the picture himself. There is no way, for example, I believe the poster would be as popular if they had just used the photo with HOPE written underneath.
That's my 0.02. |
|
|
|
02/06/2009 03:37:51 PM · #60 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
For me personally I think it would depend on the uniqueness of the photo. If I had gone to great lengths to capture a unique scene or happening or used a unique perspective or composition, I'd be more upset if someone used it as inspiration without credit. OTOH, as in this case, if my picture is one of literally a million pictures of Obama and the artist happened to select mine to work with, I can't imagine feeling too slighted. In my view on this case, the artist brought quite a bit to the picture himself. There is no way, for example, I believe the poster would be as popular if they had just used the photo with HOPE written underneath.
That's my 0.02. |
That's about how I feel about it too. I can't imagine why AP is making such a fuss, except I have the cynical suspicion that it's a PR ploy, whereby the image itself (one of millions) is attaining independent fame through its association with the poster/artwork, far more recognition than it ever would have garnered had it not been used this way and become a cause celebré.
R.
Message edited by author 2009-02-06 15:38:03.
|
|
|
|
02/06/2009 03:45:18 PM · #61 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
For me personally I think it would depend on the uniqueness of the photo. If I had gone to great lengths to capture a unique scene or happening or used a unique perspective or composition, I'd be more upset if someone used it as inspiration without credit. OTOH, as in this case, if my picture is one of literally a million pictures of Obama and the artist happened to select mine to work with, I can't imagine feeling too slighted. In my view on this case, the artist brought quite a bit to the picture himself. There is no way, for example, I believe the poster would be as popular if they had just used the photo with HOPE written underneath.
That's my 0.02. |
Ditto, and would also depend what they created from it. If I didn't approve I most likely wouldn't want my name associated with it in any way. |
|
|
|
02/06/2009 04:01:57 PM · #62 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
For me personally I think it would depend on the uniqueness of the photo. If I had gone to great lengths to capture a unique scene or happening or used a unique perspective or composition, I'd be more upset if someone used it as inspiration without credit. OTOH, as in this case, if my picture is one of literally a million pictures of Obama and the artist happened to select mine to work with, I can't imagine feeling too slighted. In my view on this case, the artist brought quite a bit to the picture himself. There is no way, for example, I believe the poster would be as popular if they had just used the photo with HOPE written underneath.
That's my 0.02. |
I also believe that there's a bit of a culture of over-entitlement going on as well. Perhaps that's the wrong term, but I find that the more the digital age of photography advances, the more photographers believe they are worth far, far more than they actually are, leading to a sense of entitlement about their images that is completely overblown and doesn't represent the reality of what they are actually worth.
Far too often I see people go stark-raving mad over use of an image that would never, in wildest dreams, become a money making image for said person, and I feel that the only reason they're mad over it is because of an over-inflated sense of self-worth.
That's just my opinion though, and it by no means is applicable to everyone, but it does seem to be becoming more and more prevalent. |
|
|
|
02/06/2009 04:04:40 PM · #63 |
kenskid instead of asking everyone what they would consider legal use changes of a photo maybe it would be easier for you to find a photo you'd like to use and you can discuss that with the owner of the photo or talk to a lawyer. Another good place to go is //copyright.gov/ thou that only covers US Copyright laws that is a start. I tried looking for Canadian but I just woke up and kinda lazy till I get breakfeast :P Also came across //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work which has alot of information on "Derivative Work" and legal positions. A very good read.
Editied to add wiki link
Message edited by author 2009-02-06 16:11:19. |
|
|
|
02/06/2009 04:16:54 PM · #64 |
Now we're getting somewhere. So no matter how much or how little and "artist" changed your picture your sticking point would be how much work you put in to the original picture.
So let's say on a first place ribbon winner here on DPC that took you hours to setup...maybe even days...you would not want that being altered and used by others to profit.
...but...you wouldn't mind...let's say... you were at the park with your camera and a duck flew by, you clicked...captured a "quick" shot of the duck against the setting sun...
....the friend of the leader of a rock band called...let's say...."The Sunset Duck Boys" is hired to create a logo for the band. He uses your duck photo and alters in much the same way as the photo that my OP speaks of...The band takes off plays concerts around the world and makes millions off shirts, headbands, bongs, and guitar case stickers...all showing the altered image that you snapped at the park....the "friend" is paid a % of every dollar earned...
....I personally would feel sick..however..most of my shots are sort of like snapshots...
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
For me personally I think it would depend on the uniqueness of the photo. If I had gone to great lengths to capture a unique scene or happening or used a unique perspective or composition, I'd be more upset if someone used it as inspiration without credit. OTOH, as in this case, if my picture is one of literally a million pictures of Obama and the artist happened to select mine to work with, I can't imagine feeling too slighted. In my view on this case, the artist brought quite a bit to the picture himself. There is no way, for example, I believe the poster would be as popular if they had just used the photo with HOPE written underneath.
That's my 0.02. |
That's about how I feel about it too. I can't imagine why AP is making such a fuss, except I have the cynical suspicion that it's a PR ploy, whereby the image itself (one of millions) is attaining independent fame through its association with the poster/artwork, far more recognition than it ever would have garnered had it not been used this way and become a cause celebré.
R. |
|
|
|
|
02/06/2009 04:17:52 PM · #65 |
Nah...I don't want to copy anyones pic...the OP stands on it's own.
Originally posted by skovick:
kenskid instead of asking everyone what they would consider legal use changes of a photo maybe it would be easier for you to find a photo you'd like to use and you can discuss that with the owner of the photo or talk to a lawyer. Another good place to go is //copyright.gov/ thou that only covers US Copyright laws that is a start. I tried looking for Canadian but I just woke up and kinda lazy till I get breakfeast :P Also came across //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work which has alot of information on "Derivative Work" and legal positions. A very good read.
Editied to add wiki link |
|
|
|
|
02/06/2009 04:21:45 PM · #66 |
Your observation in part is one (small) reason that I posted this thread. I see every day here at DPC many of us complaining and trying to track down the thief that put a DPC member's picture on an obscure website.
We even alert others they we've seen their pic on a website...sometimes it's just "this pic looks familiar...doesn't it belong to a DPCer" !
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
For me personally I think it would depend on the uniqueness of the photo. If I had gone to great lengths to capture a unique scene or happening or used a unique perspective or composition, I'd be more upset if someone used it as inspiration without credit. OTOH, as in this case, if my picture is one of literally a million pictures of Obama and the artist happened to select mine to work with, I can't imagine feeling too slighted. In my view on this case, the artist brought quite a bit to the picture himself. There is no way, for example, I believe the poster would be as popular if they had just used the photo with HOPE written underneath.
That's my 0.02. |
I also believe that there's a bit of a culture of over-entitlement going on as well. Perhaps that's the wrong term, but I find that the more the digital age of photography advances, the more photographers believe they are worth far, far more than they actually are, leading to a sense of entitlement about their images that is completely overblown and doesn't represent the reality of what they are actually worth.
Far too often I see people go stark-raving mad over use of an image that would never, in wildest dreams, become a money making image for said person, and I feel that the only reason they're mad over it is because of an over-inflated sense of self-worth.
That's just my opinion though, and it by no means is applicable to everyone, but it does seem to be becoming more and more prevalent. |
|
|
|
|
02/06/2009 04:22:38 PM · #67 |
Originally posted by skovick:
kenskid instead of asking everyone what they would consider legal use changes of a photo maybe it would be easier for you to find a photo you'd like to use and you can discuss that with the owner of the photo or talk to a lawyer. Another good place to go is //copyright.gov/ thou that only covers US Copyright laws that is a start. I tried looking for Canadian but I just woke up and kinda lazy till I get breakfeast :P Also came across //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work which has alot of information on "Derivative Work" and legal positions. A very good read.
Editied to add wiki link |
Reposted to parse the links...
R.
|
|
|
|
02/06/2009 04:33:07 PM · #68 |
Here's an interesting sidetrack from the Wiki discussion on Derivative Work:
When does derivative-work liability exist?
Copyright infringement liability for a later work arises only if the later work embodies a substantial amount of protected expression taken from the earlier, underlying work. The later work must take enough protected expression (it does not matter how much unprotected material is taken, for the latter is open to the public) for the later work to be "substantially similar" to the earlier work.[4]
This issue arises, typically, in the context of the defendant purchasing a copy of a picture or some other work from the copyright owner or a licensee, and then modifying it. For example, pictures from greeting cards might be affixed to tiles or one kind of textile product might be turned into another that can be sold at a higher price. In Lee v. A.R.T. Co.[5] (the Annie Lee case), when the defendant affixed the copyright owner’s copyright-protected note cards and small lithographs to tiles and then resold them, “[t]he art was bonded to a slab of ceramic, but it was not changed in the process.†Therefore the defendant’s conduct did not give rise to copyright infringement liability. The court held that the defendant's tile-plus-card was too unoriginal to rise to the level of a derivative work, and therefore it could not be a derivative work at all, much less an infringing one.[6]
When the defendant's modification of the plaintiff's work is too insubstantial to "count," there is no infringing preparation of a derivative work. At the same time, the first sale doctrine permits the defendant to operate with immunity, although the affirmative defense is largely redundant in such cases. So long as there is no derivative work, there is no infringement -- since no conduct that the Copyright Act forbids has occurred.
Note that there's been no infringement because the defendant used plaintiff's actual art (note cards etc) which s/he physically purchased, and then s/he bonded them to tiles and sold the tiles, thereby profiting legally from the copyrighted work! As I read it, there's nothing that says you can't buy art then resell it for a profit (duh) and the tile-bonding is adding value to the art in much the way that matting and framing it would. Interesting...
R.
|
|
|
|
02/06/2009 04:33:43 PM · #69 |
| Thank you Bear_Music I am a new member to the forums. It does make the links stant out more and I really found the wiki one a good read. |
|
|
|
02/06/2009 04:34:20 PM · #70 |
Originally posted by kenskid:
Now we're getting somewhere. So no matter how much or how little and "artist" changed your picture your sticking point would be how much work you put in to the original picture.
So let's say on a first place ribbon winner here on DPC that took you hours to setup...maybe even days...you would not want that being altered and used by others to profit.
...but...you wouldn't mind...let's say... you were at the park with your camera and a duck flew by, you clicked...captured a "quick" shot of the duck against the setting sun...
....the friend of the leader of a rock band called...let's say...."The Sunset Duck Boys" is hired to create a logo for the band. He uses your duck photo and alters in much the same way as the photo that my OP speaks of...The band takes off plays concerts around the world and makes millions off shirts, headbands, bongs, and guitar case stickers...all showing the altered image that you snapped at the park....the "friend" is paid a % of every dollar earned...
....I personally would feel sick..however..most of my shots are sort of like snapshots... |
Well, we'd all likely get that knot in the pit of our stomach because someone else is making a lot of money, but that's not to be confused with you having been ethically wronged and REALLY not to be confused with you being legally wronged.
If it's all so easy as you seem to implicate, why in the world didn't the original photographer see the obvious chance to take his apparently AWESOME image and make some coin? Well, part of the answer is the AP owns the photo, not the photog, but why then didn't the AP see this obvious money making opportunity? The answer is because it wasn't there. It was only there for the artist.
Message edited by author 2009-02-06 16:41:32. |
|
|
|
02/06/2009 05:09:10 PM · #71 |
Yes...it was there for the artist...just like every image on DPC !
**************
It was only there for the artist.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by kenskid:
Now we're getting somewhere. So no matter how much or how little and "artist" changed your picture your sticking point would be how much work you put in to the original picture.
So let's say on a first place ribbon winner here on DPC that took you hours to setup...maybe even days...you would not want that being altered and used by others to profit.
...but...you wouldn't mind...let's say... you were at the park with your camera and a duck flew by, you clicked...captured a "quick" shot of the duck against the setting sun...
....the friend of the leader of a rock band called...let's say...."The Sunset Duck Boys" is hired to create a logo for the band. He uses your duck photo and alters in much the same way as the photo that my OP speaks of...The band takes off plays concerts around the world and makes millions off shirts, headbands, bongs, and guitar case stickers...all showing the altered image that you snapped at the park....the "friend" is paid a % of every dollar earned...
....I personally would feel sick..however..most of my shots are sort of like snapshots... |
Well, we'd all likely get that knot in the pit of our stomach because someone else is making a lot of money, but that's not to be confused with you having been ethically wronged and REALLY not to be confused with you being legally wronged.
If it's all so easy as you seem to implicate, why in the world didn't the original photographer see the obvious chance to take his apparently AWESOME image and make some coin? Well, part of the answer is the AP owns the photo, not the photog, but why then didn't the AP see this obvious money making opportunity? The answer is because it wasn't there. It was only there for the artist. |
|
|
|
|
02/06/2009 05:24:48 PM · #72 |
It was only there for the artist.
But it was not there until the photographer took the photo.
Message edited by author 2009-02-06 17:25:14.
|
|
|
|
02/06/2009 05:43:38 PM · #73 |
Originally posted by alans_world:
It was only there for the artist.
But it was not there until the photographer took the photo. |
Incorret. It was not there until the artist brought the magic. At least in my opinion that is. The picture in itself was nothing and could never have supported a successful populist poster like the one we have. |
|
|
|
02/06/2009 05:57:36 PM · #74 |
If that exact image, was not taken at that exact time, with the photographers knowledge of his camera, light, and composition. The artist rendition would not exist as is. Yes he might have stole a different image from someone else, but it would not be the same image..
|
|
|
|
02/06/2009 05:59:04 PM · #75 |
Again likely correct...but that goes for every boring image ever captured....including, mine, yours, IreneM's, Bear_Music etc....
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by alans_world:
It was only there for the artist.
But it was not there until the photographer took the photo. |
Incorret. It was not there until the artist brought the magic. At least in my opinion that is. The picture in itself was nothing and could never have supported a successful populist poster like the one we have. |
|
|
