Wife's Birthday Project: Needing PS Help...

[MLeeK]

I will give an update once I hear back from the photographer on whether or not he's okay with me editing the photo...

If I were you, I'd take all the copyright warnings on this forum with a grain of salt. Lots of Barney Fifes here, if you know what I mean.

There's no way in hell I am doing an edit on something without a release. Barney or not.
I refuse to screw over some other photographer. I'd be livid if they did it to me. Have some respect for your own work and others.

 

[Peano]

I refuse to screw over some other photographer.

That's pure Barney Fife. "Screw over" the photographer? How on earth would cloning out a rope "screw over" the photographer? How much money or business or reputation would he lose as a result?

Phooey. The job has already been done. At no charge. Get over it.

 

[MLeeK]

I have a real problem with that. That's a major ethical problem and as a photographer I am really not comfortable with someone in our group who would do an illegal edit like that.

I am really uncomfortable with any of my images that are here considering you think it's no big deal and you are one of us.
At which point I am sure you're now having a heyday with some ingenious image edits.
THAT IS A PROBLEM.

 

[tirediron]

I refuse to screw over some other photographer.

That's pure Barney Fife. "Screw over" the photographer? How on earth would cloning out a rope "screw over" the photographer? How much money or business or reputation would he lose as a result?

Phooey. The job has already been done. At no charge. Get over it.

How much of anything he would lose is irelevant. The law is the law. Editing the image without authority is breaking the law. Would you like someone to go find a few of your images and "edit" them in any way they saw fit? Wind your neck in!

 

[MK3Brent]

Hmm interesting topic.

If I buy a painting from an artist, and use it for another piece of artwork I created... like maybe a collage of other paintings... is that infringement?

Or, if I buy a service and buy photos... and they're my property to cut in half, can't I? I'm not re-selling or anything else for monetary gain.

*serious questions.*
Which laws are they, and where can we read them in detail?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#User-created_images

 

[MLeeK]

Hmm interesting topic.

If I buy a painting from an artist, and use it for another piece of artwork I created... like maybe a collage of other paintings... is that infringement?

Or, if I buy a service and buy photos... and they're my property to cut in half, can't I? I'm not re-selling or anything else for monetary gain.

What does that have to do with editing the image?

 

[MK3Brent]

Hmm interesting topic.

If I buy a painting from an artist, and use it for another piece of artwork I created... like maybe a collage of other paintings... is that infringement?

Or, if I buy a service and buy photos... and they're my property to cut in half, can't I? I'm not re-selling or anything else for monetary gain.

What does that have to do with editing the image?

It's being altered, and is his property doing so.

In any case, it should be pretty easy to get a hold of the photographer and ask.
They might even offer to do it for him.

I didn't see what was posted before he removed it.
*edit* Oh, is it just a clone out job? n/m

 

[MLeeK]

The problem here is the OP posted an image that did not belong to him and asked for it to be edited. Peano decided that all of us who refuse to edit an image without written consent from the SHOOTER are stupid and should just do it anyway, so he went ahead and did it so the OP could have it printed.
It's a blatant copyright violation and if the OP were smart he'd team up with the original shooter and file a big ol' infringement suit and split the cash.
I cannot do that to another's work. 1. it's illegal and that's the bottom line. BUT 2. it's unethical. I can't expect anyone to respect my copyright if I don't respect others

 

[rexbobcat]

Hmm interesting topic.

If I buy a painting from an artist, and use it for another piece of artwork I created... like maybe a collage of other paintings... is that infringement?

Or, if I buy a service and buy photos... and they're my property to cut in half, can't I? I'm not re-selling or anything else for monetary gain.

*serious questions.*
Which laws are they, and where can we read them in detail?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#User-created_images

http://painting.about.com/gi/o.htm?...tp://www.funnystrange.com/copyright/myths.htm

 

[tirediron]

... BUT 2. it's unethical. I can't expect anyone to respect my copyright if I don't respect others

QFT!!

 

[rexbobcat]

It's being altered, and is his property doing so.

In any case, it should be pretty easy to get a hold of the photographer and ask.
They might even offer to do it for him.

I didn't see what was posted before he removed it.
*edit* Oh, is it just a clone out job? n/m

Printing rights /=/ copyrights

 

[MLeeK]

It's being altered, and is his property doing so.

In any case, it should be pretty easy to get a hold of the photographer and ask.
They might even offer to do it for him.

I didn't see what was posted before he removed it.
*edit* Oh, is it just a clone out job? n/m

Printing rights /=/ copyrights

Or in other words... Printing rights do not equal copyright. It's only the right to print as spelled out in the release given with the photograph.

 

[KmH]

Hmm interesting topic.

If I buy a painting from an artist, and use it for another piece of artwork I created... like maybe a collage of other paintings... is that infringement?

Or, if I buy a service and buy photos... and they're my property to cut in half, can't I? I'm not re-selling or anything else for monetary gain.

*serious questions.*
Which laws are they, and where can we read them in detail?

Wikipedia:Image use policy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A collage of other paintings would be a 'derivative'. Only copyright owners have the right to make derivatives of their images.
Copyright is actually a pretty large bundle of exclusive rights.

From your Wikipedia link User Created Images

....Such images can include photographs which you yourself took. The legal rights for images generally lie with the photographer, not the subject. Simply re-tracing a copyrighted image or diagram does not necessarily create a new copyright—copyright is generated only by instances of "creativity", and not by the amount of labor which went into the creation of the work....

Which laws here in the USA are the copyright laws, which are United States Code Title 17 (USC 17) - found here U.S. Copyright Office - Copyright Law of the United States
Their main page is www.copyright.gov

Monetary gain has nothing to do with infringing copyright on a civil level. Infringement for monetary gain is covered in USC 18 which is the criminal federal statues regarding federal penalties.

Civil infringement awards vary from $250 to millions and could included the loser paying the winner,s court and attorney fees. If there was monetary gain, the winner can also be awarded all that money too.

Add www.photoattorney.com to your bookmarks too.

 

[AaronLLockhart]

I understand the "severity" of all of this as far as an ethical standpoint goes. I also know what the law says. Let me open this by saying that I am in no way condoning illegal behavior with what I'm about to say.

However, not only do I understand what Peano is saying, but I also agree with him in some aspects. Just because the law says something, and even has a listed penalty for breaking it, does not mean that it will ever be actively enforced.

I would never alter someone else's work, but ONLY because I respect the wants of you all. To be honest, that is literally the only reason. However, let's say I did, and you wanted to do something judicially over it, finding a judge that would even hear the case out would be a job in itself. Even finding a lawyer that would want to take the time out for such a thing would be pretty difficult.

It would be one thing if someone took your entire gallery and posted it and claimed it as their own, but one picture, or even "illegal alterations" to several pictures would be laughed at in mockery before someone in law would take it serious enough to present it in a courtroom with you. You're almost always going to get a "I'll write him a letter and let's hope he stops" type of response.

 

[Peano]

Apparently none of the legal scholars here have ever heard of the principle, long recognized in the law, called "de minimis non curat lex."

a principle of law, that even if a technical violation of a law appears to exist according to the letter of the law, if the effect is too small to be of consequence, the violation of the law will not be considered as a sufficient cause of action, whether in civil or criminal proceedings.