Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Pentax / Samsung dSLR, K Mount Mirrorless

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old May 24, 2006, 4:38 PM   #11
Senior Member
 
Monza76's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 4,095
Default

Kjell, you started this thread on a serious note, but you may have ended it with that marvelous horse image. It certainly shows the fun you can have with images, however your friend should limit his high tech doodling to images that are not covered by copyright (now there is another complex can of worms).

Ira
Monza76 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 24, 2006, 5:03 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
ejbrusselsprout's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 137
Default

ira, pretty good :lol:, although my wife didn't think it was all that funny, but then she isn't a photographer!

on the ethics thing... just want to express agreement with the views in this post so far. the nails are gett'n hit on their heads .

ethics aside, in this forum i always appreciate knowing how any posted image is made (whether it involves pp or variations in equipment) because it's just fun seeing how somebody elsedoes it.

eric
ejbrusselsprout is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 24, 2006, 5:07 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
ejbrusselsprout's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 137
Default

oops, ira you slipped in there, i was refering to your hybrid joke not your last comment as i'm sure you can tell . just wanted to be clear. eric
ejbrusselsprout is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 24, 2006, 6:47 PM   #14
Senior Member
 
bilybianca's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Hassleholm, Sweden
Posts: 3,435
Default

Monza76 wrote:
Quote:
Kjell, you started this thread on a serious note, but you may have ended it with that marvelous horse image. It certainly shows the fun you can have with images, however your friend should limit his high tech doodling to images that are not covered by copyright (now there is another complex can of worms).

Ira
Ira!

There is a thin line between comedy and tragedy. First time I saw the HorseRex pic i laughed out loud before i started to think about what it reallywas. I was stunned byhow "realistic"it looked, but I must admit I wasn't fooled, somehow I felt it was manipulated... The picture was manipulated, but I wasn't. I find it harmless and even funny.

Then the guy sent me some more, and more offensive pictures of barebreasted celebrities. They really looked realistic, it was only because I had already seen the originals that I could be sure that they were fake. We have had a few court-cases in Sweden where members of the royal family and other famous people have been intimidated by that sort of pictures in low-level magazines.

Conclusion, the same as before:It's not you howdo it, but what and why you do it that counts. And in this forum I think that everyone should do (and do believe that they do) as you did: give us infotainment! Beautiful, manipulated pictures and a lecture on how to create them.

The other can of worms is also interesting. On my kitchen wall I have a Mona Lisa poster. Not the one by Leonardo, but one by Botero (unfortunately not the original). A rather sturdy Mona Lisa, and in the background Colombian volcanoes instead of the north Italian landscape. Copyright issue? Independent piece of art? If we start with a copyrighted photo and change it in Photoshop, have we stolen the picture or created a new independent piece of art? Interesting court-cases ahead!

Kjell
bilybianca is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 24, 2006, 8:28 PM   #15
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

kjell,
what you started with was a copy righted image. changing it is not granted by the owner.. no court case here.

roy
  Reply With Quote
Old May 25, 2006, 7:13 AM   #16
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 48
Default

A couple of quick points on an interesting topic -

Art is not the only reason for photography. It is also used for medicine, law enforcement, record keeping, and keeping memories (and many other non-art uses). These other uses can't be ignored and do have differing interests and needs than the art community.

Copyrights, trademarks and intellectual property are societal constructs built for the purpose of making money, at least in the US. In general, if there isn't an issue of money involved (usually implying commercial purposes), then there is no infringement or rights. AFAIK, there is no copyright etc. for artistic purposes so those that get offended because others download and manipulate their images for fun and experience are simply angry photographers and have no legal basis for recourse or protest. Beyond that, you need to talk to a lawyer. (CAVEAT - I've read through the law as part of my jobbut am not legally trained.)

RG
Rob22315 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 25, 2006, 11:37 AM   #17
Senior Member
 
Monza76's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 4,095
Default

RG

Thanks for the clarification.

Ira
Monza76 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 2:20 PM.