| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/19/2004 02:37:34 PM · #126 |
There is a similar, but different shift going on in the fine art photography world.
Used to be, with a negative, it would take hours to get a good print of an image - hours of trial and error, mistakes and throwing away prints. This meant that even though the negative could theoretically be duplicated a lot of times that the reality was there was still a limited supply of prints of a given image, restricted by the time taken to make a good print. Also subsequent prints would be different and again difficult to reproduce.
The advent of decent digital printing is changing that. You edit the image - still potentially spending hours to get it right, printing tests, throwing them away - getting it right. Then you hit print. and that takes about 2 minutes. and you hit print - and you get an almost perfectly exact duplicate, in 2 minutes.
So you can start considering 'licensing' your prints to people. You sell them it with a lifetime replacement guarantee if you like. You could do a gallery show and rip them up and throw them away afterwards - the cost of storage space potentially being larger than just reprinting later if you actually need them again or make a sale.
You don't need to ship images across country or around the world, with correct printer setups, you could just transfer files.
Usage changes over time, largely due to the 'value' placed on things. Used to be the 'value' was in the print - this is shifting to be in the digital file.
|
|
|
|
08/19/2004 02:39:48 PM · #127 |
i think with all the fury and seriousness, everyone is missing the important point -- the misuse of the Adobe Photoshop trademark!
from:
Proper use of the Photoshop trademark
Trademarks help protect corporate and product identity, and Photoshop is one of Adobe's most valuable trademarks. By following the below guidelines, you can help Adobe protect the Photoshop brand name.
The Photoshop trademark must never be used as a common verb or as a noun. The Photoshop trademark should always be capitalized and should never be used in possessive form, or as a slang term. It should be used as an adjective to describe the product, and should never be used in abbreviated form. The following examples illustrate these rules:
Trademarks are not verbs.
CORRECT: The image was enhanced using Adobe® Photoshop® software.
INCORRECT: The image was photoshopped.
Trademarks are not nouns.
CORRECT: The image pokes fun at the Senator.
INCORRECT: The photoshop pokes fun at the Senator.
Always capitalize and use trademarks in their correct form.
CORRECT: The image was enhanced with Adobe® Photoshop® Elements software.
INCORRECT: The image was photoshopped.
INCORRECT: The image was Photoshopped.
INCORRECT: The image was Adobe® Photoshopped.
Trademarks must never be used as slang terms.
CORRECT: Those who use Adobe® Photoshop® software to manipulate images as a hobby see their work as an art form.
INCORRECT: A photoshopper sees his hobby as an art form.
INCORRECT: My hobby is photoshopping.
Trademarks must never be used in possessive form.
CORRECT: The new features in Adobe® Photoshop® software are impressive.
INCORRECT: Photoshop's features are impressive.
Trademarks are proper adjectives and should be followed by the generic terms they describe.
CORRECT: The image was manipulated using Adobe® Photoshop® software.
INCORRECT: The image was manipulated using Photoshop.
Trademarks must never be abbreviated.
CORRECT: Take a look at the new features in Adobe® Photoshop® software.
INCORRECT: Take a look at the new features in PS.
The trademark owner should be identified whenever possible.
Adobe and Photoshop are either registered trademarks or trademarks of Adobe Systems Incorporated in the United States and/or other countries.
Smile. It's amusing. |
|
|
|
08/19/2004 02:40:32 PM · #128 |
Perhaps instead of demanding that the site take down the images, we recommend that they institute a section in their form for uploading where the artist has to provide the link(s) to the original works or the name of the original artist(s)?
Honestly, Mousie, chill. I was pointing out that they had done minimal VISIBLE work to the original image. It doesn't matter how much work went INTO that editing because it made barely any changes to original, and therefore really doesn't deserve to "win" or whatever that site does, because the MAJORITY of the work was not his. I can say this for him, he has a good eye for photos.
|
|
|
|
08/19/2004 04:27:38 PM · #129 |
Originally posted by d14:
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. |
I have sort and gained permission to reproduce photo's (for training and promotion) from books, CD's and the internet in the past and have never been knocked back. In deed most people were quite surprised that I even asked.
Most people here would be happy to have their photo's used for these workshops, maybe it would be as simple as making the administrators aware of this as long as permission is sort before entering. "An understanding between sites" if you like.
Bob
|
|
|
|
08/19/2004 04:49:02 PM · #130 |
This story has a happy ending :) I emailed the Admin folks @ PSC and asked to have my source image removed from the yesterdays contest and it was. I applaud the PSC Admin staff for removing the use of unauthorized images on their site in such a quick fashion and hope they keep up the good work. I really have no problem if someone would like to use my images I just want to be asked first.
Thanks for all your replies and thoughtful insight. It's nice to belong to such a diverse and interesting community. Happy Shooting!
Sean |
|
|
|
08/19/2004 05:09:28 PM · #131 |
Originally posted by Mousie:
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? |
I wish I could give a clear and concise answer to the "What is the harm..." question. Let me remind everyone that all of the pages on this website carry the following statement at the bottom- "All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission." That is clear and easily understood to my way of thinking. I would venture to say that the wording is specifically designed to withstand a legal challenge, and is included to protect our images and the website. What else needs to be done to tell people, old or young, that it is wrong to take an image from here without permission?
BTW- How far do you think I'd get if I tried to use that "What is the harm..." line of reasoning to a state trooper who has just stopped me for speeding?
|
|
|
|
08/19/2004 06:36:02 PM · #132 |
Lets everyone sign up there. Copy an already "chopped" image of "theirs." Change something very minor (lke paint a toenail green, or put a tan line on a foot) that it is barely visible without intense looking. Then repost it as yours. See how many "You stole that from such and such. He chopped that and yours is exactly the same as his."
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/27/2024 03:29:47 AM EDT.
