Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Apr 2, 2013, 4:52 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,396
Default At What point does modifying an image create an original work?

The thread on " Photographer wins a lawsuit-is he right? " has created lots of discussion.

How about this topic, someone appropriates an image, without original photographers approval modifies it in photoshop
and submits it as an "original" work. And wins a contest.

copyright controversy after appropriated photo used to win art contest


Even after receiving complaints the contest holder are allowing the image to stand as an original work.

Is not the photography world full of nice ethical dilemmas lately?
That have probably been going on for centuries in the art world.
__________________
A smartphone is all the "camera" you really need.

Last edited by PeterP; Apr 2, 2013 at 5:04 PM. Reason: fixing bad links
PeterP is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Apr 2, 2013, 5:20 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
VTphotog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Extreme Northeastern Vermont, USA
Posts: 4,229
Default

Since the contest holders specified 100% original, they are violating their own rules by allowing the work, all other questions aside. That being the case, all of the contributors could (under U.S. law, which I realize this isn't) reasonably claim they were harmed. I would hold out for a new car.

brian
VTphotog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 2, 2013, 5:35 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,571
Default

Kevin Collins could certainly sue Romain Sarkal Eloy for copyright infringement, and possibly BMW if it ever published the photo without giving him credit.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is online now   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 2, 2013, 6:56 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Bangor,North Wales
Posts: 3,741
Default

Clearly R.E.S is a fraud....
SIMON40 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 3, 2013, 7:11 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
kazuya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,007
Default

id be pretty angry if it was my photo someone had used, so im going to say i think its wrong and the prize should be taken off him.
kazuya is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 3, 2013, 9:27 AM   #6
Senior Member
 
Calicajun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Quartz Hill, CA
Posts: 3,455
Default

To me, what he did was just wrong and wrong in a big way.
__________________
Comments always welcome.
Calicajun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 3, 2013, 2:41 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
VTphotog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Extreme Northeastern Vermont, USA
Posts: 4,229
Default

In answer to the original question, I would have to say there are two conditions I would say qualified a work as 'original', if derived from a photograph.
1. It is not photo-realistic. example: done with a paintbrush texture.
AND
2. It is not recognizable as made from the original. example: Ansel Adams' moon over Yosemite in color, with the moon in a different position, and lighting direction.

brian
VTphotog is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 8:18 PM.