| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/26/2015 08:02:20 PM · #1 |
Being overweight, I saw this "under height", plus-sized model getting a modeling contract and rejoiced (although I know that if I'd quit consuming so many calories and exercise more, that I would no longer be overweight ... but... I digress).
I love it that a person can feel good about him/herself wherever they are if he/she is working to make him/herself better!
This is what I saw:
(//www.nydailynews.com/life-style/plus-size-model-tess-holliday-busts-stereotype-article-1.2090500)
But... the reality of it is... that... They're not opposed to her size... but...
 (//www.bustle.com/articles/60095-plus-size-model-and-blogger-tess-munster-has-officially-been-signed-to-milk-management-and)
to... her tattoos and cellulite.
I suppose the cellulite is like wrinkles to the "stars" who regularly get PhotoShopped for their magazine covers.
But... the tats.
That's what made me think.
IF her body is the film... or the canvas... and someone puts their work of art onto it... a tattoo...
And... someone Photoshops out that "signature"... that "copyright" written to her body... is that like editing out our Copyright on our images... and reposting our images without it as if it were their own work?
Interesting...
|
|
|
|
01/26/2015 08:49:15 PM · #2 |
| My first thought is that there is some excellent photoshopping! I could not do that. (And I like her ink just fine.) |
|
|
|
01/26/2015 09:26:16 PM · #3 |
Interesting premise, Lydia. But I think the opposite would be true: to photography and use an image with someone else's work on it, without the inker's permission, would be infringement.
But the tats are hers to do with as she wants, and it's her body. So I don't think it applies. |
|
|
|
01/26/2015 10:03:35 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by tanguera:
Interesting premise, Lydia. But I think the opposite would be true: to photography and use an image with someone else's work on it, without the inker's permission, would be infringement.
But the tats are hers to do with as she wants, and it's her body. So I don't think it applies. |
Yep! |
|
|
|
01/26/2015 10:36:58 PM · #5 |
If she was all for having the tats removed from the image that's fine.
As for the quality of the photoshopping - very good except for the lower edge of the right leg. It looks like they couldn't get the edge right. |
|
|
|
01/27/2015 10:52:09 AM · #6 |
infringement occurs when someone displays or distributes the works without the artist permission and the artist loses out on monetary gain. when you purchase a tattoo, it is presumed that you intend to show it and thus no infringement could possibly occur. a record company cant sue you for playing music out loud for a crowd of people.
with a tattooed model, the showing of the tattoos is generally not for profit and in the case he/she gets paid its not the tattoo generating the profit, but the fact that they have them, its akin to wearing designer clothes in a photoshoot, if you arent advertising the content in the image its fine.
in your case, removing the tattoo isnt infringment becuase they are no longer showing them, again it would akin to photoshopping out a logo on clothing or covering up a logo on a product.
Message edited by author 2015-01-27 10:56:18. |
|
|
|
01/27/2015 01:20:15 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by Mike:
a record company cant sue you for playing music out loud for a crowd of people. |
They can't sue you for copyright infringement but they can demand payment of performance royalties ... same with movies -- read the fine print on the disclaimer next time you view w DVD ... |
|
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: 08/08/2025 11:46:34 PM EDT.
