| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/19/2004 03:35:39 AM · #101 |
Originally posted by Mousie:
I am very reluctant join this thread as the 'opposition' since the mood here seems to be one of outrage, but I think everyone needs to stop a second, take a deep breath, and try to think about the 'stealing' from this point of view.
The point of PhotoshopContest.com, and many others like it, is to show a person's skill in using Photoshop to manipluate an existing image into something different. Look at Fark's Photoshop threads, Something Awful's Photoshop Phridays, and Worth 1000. Sometimes pictures are tweaked for humor, to shock, even simply to share a subtle but elegant trick of editing. Not everyone is good at it, or can be creative enough to truly bring something of their own to a picture they've modified, but I sincerely think that they respect the work of the original creator (and in fact have selected pictures because they were impressed with them or saw something in them that they liked), are not trying to misrepresent the 'original' image as their own creation, and most importantly are doing it for fun and respect, not profit.
Sampling and remixing is a huge part of modern culture, in music, video, and art. The very fact that we live in times where intellectual property and copyright are such hotly debated, emotional issues, pushing the boundary of what constitutes acceptable re-use can be a statement in and of itself!
Please take another look at the intent of these people before you condemn them. Just like DPC, they are using a website for entertainment, to share, and to develop skills. Would you be upset seeing the cover of National Geographic modified in a skillful way? What if it's to communicate an idea or tell a joke using the cover as context? Or something commenting on the nature of the magazine itself? What if I modified the cover not in Photoshop but with a ball-point pen or in a collage? How do you even decicively separate parody, critique, and artistic re-use from 'stealing'?
Finally, what does making these websites take an image down actually get you? How does it protect your integrity or your pocketbook? In my opinion, the only thing it does is make a lot of people on those websites think you're an uptight jerk, and could quite possibly call down a shitstorm of extremely juvenile image-raping Photoshopped retribution that there's nothing you can do anything about, legally or otherwise.
Please, let them have their fun, they're not trying to claim anyone's work as their own apart from the changes they're making. |
I would agree with you in the most part. BUT click on this guys "Originals" will soon tell you he has no intention on giving any credit to the original photographer. He could always ask!
Bob
|
|
|
|
08/19/2004 03:58:03 AM · #102 |
I'd be very proud for my work to be used and appreciated by others, although I'd be mighty miffed to discover that people are doing it without any permission or credit given, to me that just shows a total lack of respect.
If someone emailed me saying 'I love your .... pic, can I used it for ....' as long as it was non-commercial, I'd be proud to say yes, additionally if I liked to work I'd include a reference to it on my portfolio/website
Message edited by author 2004-08-19 05:23:31.
|
|
|
|
08/19/2004 04:31:06 AM · #103 |
Originally posted by Gurilla:
Originally posted by Mousie:
I am very reluctant join this thread as the 'opposition' since the mood here seems to be one of outrage, but I think everyone needs to stop a second, take a deep breath, and try to think about the 'stealing' from this point of view... |
I would agree with you in the most part. BUT click on this guys "Originals" will soon tell you he has no intention on giving any credit to the original photographer. He could always ask!
Bob |
My thoughts exactly, Bob. As I pointed out in my previous post, he barely even touched the second example and claimed it as his own? I don't think so! Seanachai did all of that PS work and then he goes in, flips it, and then changes or adds a few different colored wires...That's not right.
|
|
|
|
08/19/2004 05:02:10 AM · #104 |
Tisk tisk tisk
Message edited by author 2004-08-19 05:07:18.
|
|
|
|
08/19/2004 05:11:54 AM · #105 |
Originally posted by Ami Yuy:
Originally posted by Gurilla:
I would agree with you in the most part. BUT click on this guys "Originals" will soon tell you he has no intention on giving any credit to the original photographer. He could always ask!
Bob |
My thoughts exactly, Bob. As I pointed out in my previous post, he barely even touched the second example and claimed it as his own? I don't think so! Seanachai did all of that PS work and then he goes in, flips it, and then changes or adds a few different colored wires...That's not right. |
Let's use that specific picture as an example. To anyone who's been exposed to the photoshopping scene for a length of time, when they see the 'original' image (which happened to be a rather drab picure of a variety of computer cables, linked right off the page) given as the basis for the modification of Seanachai's image, I'm sure that their reaction the majority of the time is going to be "Boy, he sure did a good (mediocre, bad) job of integrating those wires into that freaky picture." The 'original' is shown so the viewer can see exactly what was integrated into in the picture being modified. He didn't create the image he's modifying, and I believe there's little expectation that he has... he added the 'original's' wires to Seanachai's image, replacing some that were already there, moving others around, adding shadows and interleaving those blue cables in apparent 3D, replacing the mandala around the head with more blue, etc. These are not trivial feats, and that is what I think he is trying to show.
I really believe that you are looking for something that isn't there. You're seeing the computer cable 'original' as an attempt to obscure the existence of the modified picture's creator. I see it as the way he's showing everyone what he's added to another image, because the purpose of these sites is to combine images! To riff on existing pictures in a way that brings something new to them, for fun.
I mean, look at the mirrored ball on the beach! The guy took a picture of an intimate couple from some other source and mapped it onto the sphere in a realistic fashion, so well that you can barely tell it wasn't originally shot that way! Let's see you do that! Minor change my ass!
Message edited by author 2004-08-19 05:18:08.
|
|
|
|
08/19/2004 05:16:03 AM · #106 |
P.S. If any of you photoshoppers happen to read this, I'd be thrilled if you decided to use one of my images to mangle into something new. Have at them!
|
|
|
|
08/19/2004 05:16:48 AM · #107 |
| Mousie you are missing the point. That is you should ask permission first. |
|
|
|
08/19/2004 05:21:50 AM · #108 |
I agree, its all about asking permission, letting the owner know about it. You don't have to ask if you are only going to use it in your computer but when you are posting it online or showing it in any other way you need permisson. Most would be happy to let you use there photo.
Originally posted by keegbow:
Mousie you are missing the point. That is you should ask permission first. |
|
|
|
|
08/19/2004 05:47:02 AM · #109 |
Originally posted by keegbow:
Mousie you are missing the point. That is you should ask permission first. |
You know, I can't really say that I agree, considering that my very own signature contains an image I 'stole' from some random place on the internet... an image that someone else 'stole' from Van Gogh's estate, adding a doobie to it. I'm really sure that the guy who 'stole' it from Van Gogh's estate didn't ask permission before he added the joint, and I sure as hell didn't ask the dude I 'stole' it from.
Granted, the guy from PhotoshopContest.com undoubtedly knew where the image came from, and who made it. It would have been polite of him to ask. But think about the implications of enforcing a mandatory requirement to ask permission. It would effectively censor anyone from using any image in any context unless they knew who the originator was. Think about that. If you don't know who made something, you can't just assume that they won't care. The strictest copyright would apply by default to everything, at all times! It's not like Seanachai's picture can't be be found in thousands of location across the internet... there's at least one copy in my browser's cache right now! A good case could be made that it's already in the public domain, as we speak.
People are shouting for lawsuits, do you think this is really the best recourse for impoliteness?
Also, nobody's answered my question about what you'll actually be gaining by stopping him from modifying your pictures, online or not. What is the harm in letting someone hack up your picture for fun?
Message edited by author 2004-08-19 05:51:21.
|
|
|
|
08/19/2004 05:59:56 AM · #110 |
I think a lot of people should relax and enjoy photography. ;)
|
|
|
|
08/19/2004 06:02:22 AM · #111 |
missing the point again,
You used the analogy of your signature that you didn't seek permission but nowhere have you claimed it to be your work as this topic is all about. So how can that be a comparison.
This guy has used other people's work without permission and claimed to be his. I don't care if it's legal/copyright infringement or whatever all i now is it is morally wrong and should not be condoned. |
|
|
|
08/19/2004 06:05:12 AM · #112 |
What is the harm in letting someone hack up your picture for fun?
If one of my shots containing a model were hacked up in a way that degraded the model it would violate my model release and I could get in trouble, not to mention piss off some very good friends of mine. Plus its only fair to get credit for your work. |
|
|
|
08/19/2004 08:08:41 AM · #113 |
I've been following this thread with a great level of interest. It calls forth the great difficulties we find ourselves mucked in when it comes to electronic information, authorship and ownership. It's a 'wiggly world' (devo reference).
I've taught argumentation and writing courses at the university of oklahoma and at daytona beach community college. Plagiarism, of course, is a big deal in these courses - and MLA is the tool of choice in the American English Academic world. By MLA logic, this is absolutely a form a plagiarism - but, this guy's photoshopping endeavors (and that website's general goals) are not following MLA. Nor are they 'supposed' to.
We use the copyright/ownership model with sampling music in my courses. This thread is a particularly strong parallel to that line of reasoning. The almighty $ is often chunked at the heart of this debate, but not always. DJ Danger Mouse found himself in a torrential downpour of debate after his Beatles/Jay-Z mix was released freely on the web. Basicallly, electronic art has radically challenged our notions of authenticity and ownership. It's a form of information that challenges our western traditional models of authenticity. So it goes (kurt vonnegut reference).
I'm reminded of when a student asked me about literary allusions in literature. So it goes. Wiggly World. And so on. The rules are also bent somewhat in written creative literature. Of course you're not supposed to cite the source of a literary allusion in 'literature'. By 'literature', we tend to mean 'written' literature (in terms of stories, theatre, novels, etc). Music is still out of the bag (despite lyrical connections to poetry). Film is still out of the bag (despite scripting connections to theatre). And painting? Photography? Digitography? Oh hell, we just dont' know what to do about that...
This idea of ownership of thoughts and ideas, works and efforts, is a particularly western ideology. It seems to be very capitalist-based. "I made this, it's a product of my efforts. I own it. Only I can make money from it." But, this ideology of ownership is so deeply rooted now that it doesn't even have to be a matter of money. We're proud of what we create and we wan't credit where credit's due. It's pretty much that simple.
And this just doesn't mix well with online postings... Right? On the one hand, we get to share the fruits of our labor. We get to post images, words, ideas - and get an incredible amount of feedback from people across the world. But, at the same time, we also open this up to anybody else who may want to take our work and sell it, manipulate it, repost it, etc... And 'credit' usually isn't given.
Ironically, I wonder what we are to do when we photograph something that happens to have somebody else's graphic art in the frame. I took a relatively lame photograph of one of my favorite commercial signs in the world. Shot in downtown Orlando, I call this "Own Your Future":
So, I took a picture of an advertisement (a graphical image). In addition, that sign was composed of multiple images. Who shot those? There's no credit, it's all a blur. Odds are, of course, that those images were legally produced or acquired by this particular business advertising their new mega-live-in-complex near Church Street Station. Either way, I really didn't think anything about this when I took this snapshot. I just loved the absurdity of 'own your future'. It's sooo Orlando.
Arguably, my photograph (even though it contains another's work) is my own. It is defined by my own arguments in the image - my composition, my framing, etc... The camera was the tool by which I captured the image. And that's that. So, this photoshop thing? The camera isn't the primary frame, it's this editing software. Where do we draw the line between authorship and ownership? By editing and changing an image, do we not 'make it our own'?
As far as the person's work that started this site, it's hack photoshopping at best. It's just not very creative and it doesn't really do anything to the images (in my opinion). Most of the creative success of those images harkens back to the originals. But, that's a value-judgment. That's my opinion. And what we're stuck with here is either morality or ethics of using the photographs, not the success and craft of this person's final products.
Again, in my opinion, this is shabby, misleading work. But I'm just not sure if we can (or even should?) stop it... it -is- edited, isn't it? Somebody could grab my 'own your future' image and add a little ferrett straddling the fence-ad... And then it's theirs? Really, they could even just tint the image and give it a blue hue - and it's theirs? Where the hell do we draw the line?
For me personally, I'm most interested in why it's so important for us to actually draw the line in the first place. I have no answers. It's not just money, although - beware - just because the image is small in size and couldn't be made into a nice print, that's no longer the only way to make money off of images... The internet throws a big, wiggly loop on the surface of things (nietzsche reference).
I just went back and added (references) to my references. Never really would've thought to do this, but it seemed oddly relevant.
Sorry for the long post. I guess I'm workshopping ideas more for myself at this point. I'm working on a digital literature unit and building an ethical argument project into it.
What's your take on this question:
Why is ownership and authorship so important to you?
- thanks for all the great posts in this thread. It's been really fascinating! And sorry for the confused rant. just working ideas out, not really making a sound argument!!!
-bacchus.
EDIT:
If you haven't seen it yet, check out this copyright discussion thread started by lode.
Message edited by author 2004-08-19 08:18:09.
|
|
|
|
08/19/2004 08:38:28 AM · #114 |
Originally posted by kiwiness:
DPC isn't the only site he is stealing from, he is also taking photos from another site I post to:
Original |
K-ness, that image ROCKS! |
|
|
|
08/19/2004 08:41:31 AM · #115 |
Originally posted by soup:
... you can try to steal one here if you'd like, and let me know if you succeed. |
On a Mac in OS X I just click the shot in your Flash file, press cmnd+4, select around the desired area and voila! It's saved as a screen-quality PDF or JPEG on the desktop.
Further to this discussion theme - having looked at what those guys do and why they do it, it doesn't really offend me that much. I accept that people (who don't really have much influence) will do this kind of thing anyway so I don't really care. If they were taking them and uploading them as their own photgraphy then that would be totally different.
It's ultimately a form of flattery, but I suppose a note to let you know that they've done it (and to ask opinion) wouldn't be a bad thing.
|
|
|
|
08/19/2004 08:47:49 AM · #116 |
in windows alt+printscreen then paste into your image editing software and crop as appropriate.
if it can been seen, it can be stolen
Message edited by author 2004-08-19 08:48:05.
|
|
|
|
08/19/2004 09:11:17 AM · #117 |
Originally posted by bacchus:
For me personally, I'm most interested in why it's so important for us to actually draw the line in the first place. I have no answers. It's not just money, although - beware - just because the image is small in size and couldn't be made into a nice print, that's no longer the only way to make money off of images... The internet throws a big, wiggly loop on the surface of things (nietzsche reference).
|
Yeah, good question. Perhaps the answer lies somewhere in the individuality praised by western culture. "We are living the golden age of individuality, right now!" (a friend of mine said that). I always think this is a funny idea, being so individual, just one being among all.
Im not sure about the etymology of phrase "Divide and conquer", but it is quite old. Think capitalism as dividing masses to individuals and then conquering your wallet ;D.
Ok, back to the subject. If a line needs to be drawn, it has to be done in technical terms. Subjective quantities are impossible to measure, so perhaps a more pragmatic aproach would apply here?
Modifying a digital image by one bit makes it modified. That makes it your product. But the origin (source) still remains unchanged. What comes to the photoshop contest kind of sites I think its rather stupid to look at the end product without knowing about the original work your modifications are based on. If I see a beutiful trick made with photoshop I am impressed (like the reflection in the gaze ball). But it would be less impressive if this image was produced by alterin 1 pixel in the original. It would be more impressive if the original image was a yellow square only.
So in this context it would be only logical to include the sources (in a sense originals) the photoshopper used.
I agree that lawsuits and punishments wont stop copyright infrigements, or make the number of those cases smaller. So why not make the copyright a bit looser to give free art some more room in legal terms.
|
|
|
|
08/19/2004 11:13:39 AM · #118 |
At least one of the photographers mentioned in this thread as having an image taken is a professional, making a living from his images. I think several others have images for sale here at DPCPrints. Many others of us aspire to those levels. We are, for the most part, a community of people who are serious about our photography. Nothing in this thread changes the fact that to take a copyrighted (or copyrightable) image without permission and to present it publicly as one's own without credit is illegal. Nice that some have felt flattered and that others have such a great depth of knowledge on so many subjects from Neitzsche to plagerism.
Bottom line- no matter how you dress it up theft is theft. |
|
|
|
08/19/2004 11:37:26 AM · #119 |
MAn, has anyone gone over to psc to see their replies. This one unnerves me a bit
[quote]
Thanks to the bitter person for the URL to that website! Not only do I plan on using some of their photographs in the future, I joined the site! - lol, me too. I wonder if they'll get a sudden surge in membership now? ;)[/quote]
Great, I guess we will be seeing all our images stolen now!
This is also amusing!
[quote]This site is about the chop. We own the chop, not the materials we find on the web.[/quote]
So I guess just because they move it around in PS that they now can call the photo their own? These are just a bunch of punk kids. |
|
|
|
08/19/2004 11:48:53 AM · #120 |
Originally posted by smokeditor:
This is also amusing!
This site is about the chop. We own the chop, not the materials we find on the web.
So I guess just because they move it around in PS that they now can call the photo their own? These are just a bunch of punk kids. |
maybe - this is the New Millenium and the rules are changing. What can be done vs what is (was) accepted has changed.
Examples: Today's teens grew up with PCs and playstations, MP3s and most of their lives the internet and Napster/Kazaa, etc. swapping things and copying things is common - WAY common. Partly because kids have no money, partly because they can and get away with it, maybe because they have lilttle experience in what things are actully 'worth' to the creator of them. See info about RIAA.
Plagarism is rampant in schools too - there is software for teachers to scan student's work to find it. way easy to cut and copy from the net or a CD or encyclopedia.
Kids see stuff everywhere that has been licensed in some form or is co-branded. without the knowledge of such behind the scenes legality, there is no outward appearing difference to that and theft (commercials, logos on all kinds of odd things, music snippets in other music, in ads, etc - if i recall correctly, you can use up to 4 bars of music w/o copyright infringement)
Does this make it right? maybe not, but rules change. I recall having a discussion about how much something has to be changed to be original (be it a book, music, etc). Never got a clear answer. Same here for 'photo of work of art'. take a pic of a work of art - and the rules state it is OK if 'it interprets that art' - well, what is chopping but an interpretation??
edit:fix quote
Message edited by author 2004-08-19 11:54:32.
|
|
|
|
08/19/2004 01:33:50 PM · #121 |
Originally posted by smokeditor:
Originally posted by photoshopper:
This site is about the chop. We own the chop, not the materials we find on the web. |
So I guess just because they move it around in PS that they now can call the photo their own? These are just a bunch of punk kids. |
Where are these 'kids' (a huge assumption, IMO) claiming that a 'photograph' is theirs? All I see are people claiming a 'Photoshop' is theirs. Don't you see the difference? I believe they have every right to move stuff around and call *that* their own, but then again I believe that an artist can sign his or her name on a urnial, place it in a museum, and call it their own.
By the way, excellent post bacchus.
Message edited by author 2004-08-19 13:35:12.
|
|
|
|
08/19/2004 01:55:39 PM · #122 |
Originally posted by d14:
What is the harm in letting someone hack up your picture for fun?
If one of my shots containing a model were hacked up in a way that degraded the model it would violate my model release and I could get in trouble, not to mention piss off some very good friends of mine. Plus its only fair to get credit for your work. |
First, thanks for responding to my question. You're the only one so far. :)
I don't see how you could be in violation of your model release in this situation, unless your model release guarantees that you will remain in absolute control of an image even after it has been published and placed in the commons. Your image isn't being modified in an insulting way by you, you had nothing to do with it other than placing it out there, which you recieved the permission to do.
Also, what influence does the emotional state of your friends really have to do with what another person can and can not express in their own artistic efforts? Please tell me that you're not predicating what constitutes legitimate artistic expression on whether people like it or not. :)
Message edited by author 2004-08-19 14:12:28.
|
|
|
|
08/19/2004 02:02:07 PM · #123 |
Easy now we are getting into age Profiling... *Laughing*... Seriously mousie if you look at the posts on that site they are chock full of "IM ebonics" for lack of a better term... That is a clear indicator that some of the members over there are (photoshopping) Errrrr. Sorry, The image was enhanced using Adobe® Photoshop® software. while they tell mom they are doing their geometry homework...
This is getting way to serious, and it is not going to get solved in this forum... Maybe SC should declare it dead!
Edit Sp
Message edited by author 2004-08-19 14:54:12. |
|
|
|
08/19/2004 02:10:34 PM · #124 |
Originally posted by Mousie:
Originally posted by d14:
What is the harm in letting someone hack up your picture for fun?
If one of my shots containing a model were hacked up in a way that degraded the model it would violate my model release and I could get in trouble, not to mention piss off some very good friends of mine. Plus its only fair to get credit for your work. |
First, thanks for responding to my question. You're to only one so far. :)
I don't see how you could be in violation of your model release in this situation, unless your model release guarantees that you will remain in absolute control of an image even after it has been published and placed in the commons. Your image isn't being modified in an insulting way by you, you had nothing to do with it other than placing it out there, which you recieved the permission to do.
Also, what influence does the emotional state of your friends really have to do with what another person can and can not express in their own artistic efforts? Please tell me that you're not predicating what constitutes legitimate artistic expression on whether people like it or not. :) |
here's the actual paragraph from the release:
I hereby waive any right that I may have to inspect and approve the finished product or copy that may be used in connection with an image the Photographer has taken of me, or the use to which it may be applied so long as that use is legal, is not used for any sensitive subjects including but not limited to sex, birth control, drugs, and that the image is not purposely distorted.
As for the second part,. If my friends see thier photo's in ways that aren't very flattering, the chances of any of them letting me use them as models agian will be slim. Plus I'd just hate to see it come to that. |
|
|
|
08/19/2004 02:13:55 PM · #125 |
| Guess I should also add that I have let people use my photo's as stock before. They manipulators did ask permision however and let me know what was going to happen with the photo. All was cool,. and the actually came out quit nice. |
|
