| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/12/2009 11:18:51 AM · #1 |
Hi All,
Please can you help.....
1. Person goes to photographer has pics taken.
2. Person gets prints and pays snapper.
3. Person then gives pics to a toucher for airbrushing etc.
Does airbrusher need permission from the snapper prior to touching it?
cheers
Tony
|
|
|
|
02/12/2009 11:59:57 AM · #2 |
| Yup. Doesn't stop people from doing it though... I don't want any random person who thinks they know what they are doing with airbrushing to touch my pictures. |
|
|
|
02/12/2009 12:48:24 PM · #3 |
| Waitaminute. I disagree. If you buy a picture, you own it. You can do whatever you want with the physical picture. You could draw on it. You could rip it up. You could use it as a coaster. I assume we're talking about physical airbrushing and not digital manipulation? The first? I don't see any problem at all. The second? That's a gray area. |
|
|
|
02/12/2009 01:24:53 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Waitaminute. I disagree. If you buy a picture, you own it. You can do whatever you want with the physical picture. You could draw on it. You could rip it up. You could use it as a coaster. I assume we're talking about physical airbrushing and not digital manipulation? The first? I don't see any problem at all. The second? That's a gray area. |
Actually, not a grey area. In either case, the original photographer still holds the copyright, unless he's signed it away for some reason. Airbrushing would create a derivative work, and the airbrusher has to get permission from the original copyright holder. In practice, it would be hard to enforce, especially with the print. Once the airbrusher gets permission to create the airbrushed version, then the airbrusher holds the copyright to the airbrushed version. |
|
|
|
02/12/2009 01:31:37 PM · #5 |
| It all should be established in the contract. It really depends on what the client is paying you for. If they are paying you for an image license, it should also be spelled out. |
|
|
|
02/12/2009 01:46:27 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by Ann:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Waitaminute. I disagree. If you buy a picture, you own it. You can do whatever you want with the physical picture. You could draw on it. You could rip it up. You could use it as a coaster. I assume we're talking about physical airbrushing and not digital manipulation? The first? I don't see any problem at all. The second? That's a gray area. |
Actually, not a grey area. In either case, the original photographer still holds the copyright, unless he's signed it away for some reason. Airbrushing would create a derivative work, and the airbrusher has to get permission from the original copyright holder. In practice, it would be hard to enforce, especially with the print. Once the airbrusher gets permission to create the airbrushed version, then the airbrusher holds the copyright to the airbrushed version. |
Ah, but it is gray because there is a "fair use" for derivative work with four criteria that need to be met. Digital, again, is gray to me and I think practically it's unenforcable, but theoretically is possibly to likely illegal. Physical manipulation, however, I think is quite safe. Again, the photographer own the copyright, but they do not own the physical print. The photographer cannot tell you what you can do with it unless it's specified in a contract and then the crime would be breech of contract not violation of copyright. |
|
|
|
02/12/2009 01:52:43 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Ann:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Waitaminute. I disagree. If you buy a picture, you own it. You can do whatever you want with the physical picture. You could draw on it. You could rip it up. You could use it as a coaster. I assume we're talking about physical airbrushing and not digital manipulation? The first? I don't see any problem at all. The second? That's a gray area. |
Actually, not a grey area. In either case, the original photographer still holds the copyright, unless he's signed it away for some reason. Airbrushing would create a derivative work, and the airbrusher has to get permission from the original copyright holder. In practice, it would be hard to enforce, especially with the print. Once the airbrusher gets permission to create the airbrushed version, then the airbrusher holds the copyright to the airbrushed version. |
Ah, but it is gray because there is a "fair use" for derivative work with four criteria that need to be met. Digital, again, is gray to me and I think practically it's unenforcable, but theoretically is possibly to likely illegal. Physical manipulation, however, I think is quite safe. Again, the photographer own the copyright, but they do not own the physical print. The photographer cannot tell you what you can do with it unless it's specified in a contract and then the crime would be breech of contract not violation of copyright. |
That seems logical to me, until the owner then sells, displays, or otherwise presents the work in a way that undercuts the photographer's claim to the original. So I can tear up and throw away a print, but to tear it up and display it as "Torn Up Photo #12" seems like it might be different. Though that might be covered by the transformative work clause. |
|
|
|
02/12/2009 01:58:29 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Ann:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Waitaminute. I disagree. If you buy a picture, you own it. You can do whatever you want with the physical picture. You could draw on it. You could rip it up. You could use it as a coaster. I assume we're talking about physical airbrushing and not digital manipulation? The first? I don't see any problem at all. The second? That's a gray area. |
Actually, not a grey area. In either case, the original photographer still holds the copyright, unless he's signed it away for some reason. Airbrushing would create a derivative work, and the airbrusher has to get permission from the original copyright holder. In practice, it would be hard to enforce, especially with the print. Once the airbrusher gets permission to create the airbrushed version, then the airbrusher holds the copyright to the airbrushed version. |
Ah, but it is gray because there is a "fair use" for derivative work with four criteria that need to be met. Digital, again, is gray to me and I think practically it's unenforcable, but theoretically is possibly to likely illegal. Physical manipulation, however, I think is quite safe. Again, the photographer own the copyright, but they do not own the physical print. The photographer cannot tell you what you can do with it unless it's specified in a contract and then the crime would be breech of contract not violation of copyright. |
In practical terms, I agree that, for personal use, modifying a print is probably fair use. But fair use ends, for example, if you're making money off the derivative work. For example, somebody buys a print from you, airbrushes in some clouds, then sells the work as his own. That's not fair use, that's a copyright violation.
There's a loophole for "transformative works", though. The whole Obama poster thing that's in the news right now is a test of that. |
|
|
|
02/12/2009 02:00:58 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by Ann:
In practical terms, I agree that, for personal use, modifying a print is probably fair use. But fair use ends, for example, if you're making money off the derivative work. For example, somebody buys a print from you, airbrushes in some clouds, then sells the work as his own. That's not fair use, that's a copyright violation. |
I totally agree. |
|
|
|
02/12/2009 02:10:36 PM · #10 |
| I checked the metadata of the image - its said you need signed and dated permission to modify - so thats it I cant brush it. |
|
|
|
02/12/2009 02:42:38 PM · #11 |
| i have a signed letter from the photographer who did my wedding saying i can make prints with the negatives, i never had to have anything signed for what i did with the prints after i had them |
|
|
|
02/12/2009 02:53:59 PM · #12 |
I believe I read somewhere that a model is entitled by law (US) to have small blemishes and the like removed (I believe it was quoted under fair rights usage) but anything more than that and the copyright owners permission would be required. I can't find the original thread or forum I read it on now but will post it if I find the darn thing.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/15/2025 06:23:10 AM EDT.
