Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Post Your Photos > Photo Critiques

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Mar 12, 2009, 10:27 AM   #11
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

Interesting discussion.

Tjsnaps - I think the "photo of a statue" is quite a bit different. Let's say I grabbed your photos out of your online gallery and edited them to produce some not-so-flattering images of your family members and posted them on the internet. Is that OK?

Fair use covers the use of copyrighted material (in this case the Obama photos) for educational purposes. The manipulation of the images and posting on the internet, as shadokacher said, is another matter.

For reference, a professional photographer / instructor recently resigned from sportsshooter - he took the offical Michelle Obama photo and did some edits to improve and had a very god write-up on what could have been done to make the photo better. However, the sportsshooter site forbids the display of any work over which you don't have the copyright - for exactly this reason. The photographer in question resigned his membership over it. His intentions in the post were top notch - and educational. And yet the area is grey enough regarding the legality he was not allowed to keep the photo posted.

So in retrospect I would revise my previous statements - I would agree the class project is covered by fair use but the posting of the image on the internet is a bit murkier.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 12, 2009, 10:55 AM   #12
Senior Member
 
tjsnaps's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Sacramento, Ca
Posts: 652
Default

Quote:
Tjsnaps - I think the "photo of a statue" is quite a bit different.
Why? Is photography some how more of an art form or more special than sculpture?


Quote:
Let's say I grabbed your photos out of your online gallery and edited them to produce some not-so-flattering images of your family members and posted them on the internet. Is that OK?
Now your getting into a different issue. Changing someone's appearance could be considered slander. On the other hand. If you change a photo enough as not to be recognizable. As I understand it, that's not a copyright issue.

tjsnaps is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 12, 2009, 9:59 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Dickson, Tennessee
Posts: 461
Default

tjsnaps wrote:
Quote:
Quote:
Tjsnaps - I think the "photo of a statue" is quite a bit different.
Why? Is photography some how more of an art form or more special than sculpture?


Quote:
Let's say I grabbed your photos out of your online gallery and edited them to produce some not-so-flattering images of your family members and posted them on the internet. Is that OK?
Now your getting into a different issue. Changing someone's appearance could be considered slander. On the other hand. If you change a photo enough as not to be recognizable. As I understand it, that's not a copyright issue.
A statue in public view is not normally subject to copyright restrictions as it relates to photography. If I can see it from a public street, I can shoot it. Within reason, of course. I can't use a 400mm lens and shoot through someones window and get away with it.
Changing a photo in any way and using it for a commercial enterprise, is still a copyright violation.
shadokachr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 12, 2009, 10:23 PM   #14
Member
 
slinkydog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 48
Default

the words "yes we can" are off center....and tone down the flag to about 10%, and i'll give you an A!!!! besides the fact that you maybe breaking copyright rules
slinkydog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 13, 2009, 10:08 AM   #15
Senior Member
 
tjsnaps's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Sacramento, Ca
Posts: 652
Default

Quote:
A statue in public view is not normally subject to copyright restrictions as it relates to photography.
I was not referring to copyright restrictions. I was referring to ethics. You are still incorporating someone else's art into your own. And that is no different than the collage above.

Quote:
If I can see it from a public street, I can shoot it. Within reason, of course. I can't use a 400mm lens and shoot through someones window and get away with it.
Yes you can shoot it but you still might not be able to use it for financial gain. Buildings, statues etc are often private property and subject to the same restrictions as a persons likeness. Again it all boils down to usage.

Unfortunately copyright laws can be confusing and the courts seem to go back and forth on the issue. So its hard to say anything as definite. But for the most part if you not selling it or using as advertisement (even self promotion) you should be OK.

I belong to a couple of Photoshop contest sites. ( you now those place where they give squirrels machine guns etc.) This subject comes up a lot. Those site are a commercial enterprise so they do ask that copyrighted material not be used. And they will pull an image if someone claims the right to the source photo. But I've never known them to have a legal issue.

tjsnaps is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 13, 2009, 10:19 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Dickson, Tennessee
Posts: 461
Default

tjsnaps wrote:
Quote:
Quote:
A statue in public view is not normally subject to copyright restrictions as it relates to photography.
I was not referring to copyright restrictions. I was referring to ethics. You are still incorporating someone else's art into your own. And that is no different than the collage above.

Quote:
If I can see it from a public street, I can shoot it. Within reason, of course. I can't use a 400mm lens and shoot through someones window and get away with it.
Yes you can shoot it but you still might not be able to use it for financial gain. Buildings, statues etc are often private property and subject to the same restrictions as a persons likeness. Again it all boils down to usage.

Unfortunately copyright laws can be confusing and the courts seem to go back and forth on the issue. So its hard to say anything as definite. But for the most part if you not selling it or using as advertisement (even self promotion) you should be OK.
I deal with private property and those types of issues every day. Most buildings are fair game, unless they facade is copyrighted. One that comes to mind that most might remember, is the Rock and Roll HOF. The building and its image are copyrighted.

shadokachr 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 12:15 PM.