Photographers Photographers /

Acceptable or Not? A question of ethics.

 Page:  1  2  »» 

PixU Photography

MB#846
Posts: 1395
PHOTOGRAPHER
#1 | Posted: 3 Jan 2012 09:36
Reply 
I've noticed a growing tendancy amongst photographers here on MB to create composite images that combine the shot they (presumably) took of the model, with backgrounds and other elements aquired from the internet from wall paper and other sites.

I never see any reference made to the fact that these other elements are not their own work.

Interested to hear your thoughts on this.

Gerry

MB#7906
Posts: 6255
PHOTOGRAPHER
#2 | Posted: 3 Jan 2012 10:30
Reply 
I am unsure about ethics, I think if you are a PROFESSIONAL - ie, someone who makes money through photography, sells images to clients, then this is a no-no - all work must be 100% original, or legally bought.

However, if you are a part-times and do this for fun and not for profit, I have no problem with it, as long as the sources are credited.

Morgaen

MB#
Posts:
PHOTOGRAPHER
#3 | Posted: 3 Jan 2012 14:40
Reply 
What? Those damn cheats lol I try as far as possible to use my own work but when I have no other choice I get permission. I went so far as to phone a tog in Paris to get permission to use one of his pics on one of my pieces.

However, I agree with Gerry. If it is commercial, all the usual professional rules apply.

Derek Antonio Serra

MB#4307
Posts: 1769
PHOTOGRAPHER
#4 | Posted: 3 Jan 2012 15:37
Reply 
I used a graphic artist to add backgrounds to a series of non-commercial shots I did recently which we shot for fun entitled OUTRAGEOUS! I paid her for the work, and I presume she sourced either backgrounds available license-free or created her own...On most commercial work I see by famous photographers little or no credit is given per photo to retouchers or graphic artists who have contributed to the final image when the photographer exhibits the shot...

I suppose it depends on what these additional elements are. Easily generated PS elements are not going to easily be credited...But with commercial work where money changes hands everybody should get paid their due and receive credit.

Lilje

MB#14688
Posts: 319
PHOTOGRAPHER
#5 | Posted: 10 Jan 2012 11:32
Reply 
You did check the licensing agreement from the clothing designer before photographing their clothing and prints, didn't you?

Also, using any kind of wardrobe, jewelry, props, or furniture is definitely wrong... you must make all your own stuff or get permission from everyone who collaborated on every part of your image.

See more at WIPO:
http://www.wipo.int/sme/en/documents/ip_photography.htm

That's why, as a purist tog, I only shoot nudes on carpet lit naturally from my lounge window (artificial light is so obviously cheating)

Morgaen

MB#
Posts:
PHOTOGRAPHER
#6 | Posted: 10 Jan 2012 11:41
Reply 
You made the carpet yourself did you?

PixU Photography

MB#846
Posts: 1395
PHOTOGRAPHER
#7 | Posted: 10 Jan 2012 12:04
Reply 
Cool link Karl. Thanks.

You seem to advocate a more cavalier approach to the issue - I'd be interested in hearing more since you are a case in point in this discussion.

Compare the background in this image of yours
to this image

My questions are:
- Was this background image, that forms a major part of your pictures efficacy, shot by you?
- If not, do you have permission from the copyright holder to use it?
- If no permission was received, then is it ethical to make the statement 'Copyright: Karl Lilje' in the text for that image?
- Would you be upset if I used your image in a composite image of my own making without clearing it with you first?

Please don't see this as a personal attack. I am genuinely interested in exploring the mindset of people with regards to this issue.

Gerry

MB#7906
Posts: 6255
PHOTOGRAPHER
#8 | Posted: 10 Jan 2012 14:08
Reply 
Iuan - what I want to know is HOW THE HELL DID YOU TACK DOWN THAT IMAGE???

Is your super-hero power that you can source images in an instant?

Lilje

MB#14688
Posts: 319
PHOTOGRAPHER
#9 | Posted: 10 Jan 2012 14:49 | Edited by: Lilje
Reply 
@Gerry - It's a popular stock image. Google Image Search allows you to search using a source image.

@Morgaen - The RUG! I knew I forgot something. Ok, from now on it's NUDES on WHITE. Does anyone own the copyright to white?

@Pix
No offense taken, I've been an artist for 30 years, heard all the debates before. To answer:

1. Nope, the forest is a stock image from a stock image provider "Corbis". If the author required their name credited it is in my port's credits section. It's not necessary to credit on the image and Corbis does not require you credit them ever.

2. Yes, I buy blocks of stock and get great rates. Usually I just use free stock, or shoot my own as a last resort. A lot of togs here shoot stock for others to use, might want to ask them how it works, or check out DeviantArt stock accounts.

3. Yup, derivative artwork belongs to the artist,regardless of content, licensing, or whatever. (assuming it is a new artwork and not a direct copy of the old one(s))
See "The Berne Convention"

4. Nope, I'd be flattered. Go wild and create whatever you want with whatever you want of mine. Just don't try sell it without letting me know - there may be royalties payable to any clothing designer or background creator in my images. You will need the written permission of the model in an image though.

p.s. you've hotlinked the forest image from the American Pain Foundation, who are licensing the image in their own way. May want to check with both Corbis and APF if you're allowed to do that.

PixU Photography

MB#846
Posts: 1395
PHOTOGRAPHER
#10 | Posted: 10 Jan 2012 15:07
Reply 
Cool, thanks for the explanation Karl.

Morgaen

MB#
Posts:
PHOTOGRAPHER
#11 | Posted: 10 Jan 2012 15:12 | Edited by: Morgaen
Reply 
@Morgaen - The RUG! I knew I forgot something. Ok, from now on it's NUDES on WHITE. Does anyone own the copyright to white?

Nope but I bet someone has to make whatever the white is on or are you going to levitate your models?

Ajay

MB#645
Posts: 787
PHOTOGRAPHER
#12 | Posted: 10 Jan 2012 16:22
Reply 
The RUG! I knew I forgot something. Ok, from now on it's NUDES on WHITE. Does anyone own the copyright to white?

I do...all I ask is that you put my name on the white portion of the image closest to the models naughty bits...everyone knows that most people will only look at that and then there's no way they can miss my copyright notice....:)

Morgaen

MB#
Posts:
PHOTOGRAPHER
#13 | Posted: 11 Jan 2012 15:33
Reply 
bwaahahahaaaaa @ Ajay.

Kreation

MB#6801
Posts: 1014
PHOTOGRAPHER
#14 | Posted: 17 Jan 2012 23:56
Reply 
To be honest, It does not matter really.

Does that fact make a visible difference in the image ?
If you're talking about copyright issues , then yes, I agree, another's images for your own BG's, not cool, but only if you are making money from it.

Theres tonnes of free-resources, especially on DeviantART.

If somebody ever told me off , that I used a free-stock background image in one of my photo's , Id totally take them up on their offer to drive me to that location, at that time, with that equipment and shoot it myself.

I credit the people who'se backgrounds I use, or follow their terms and agreements.

Gerry

MB#7906
Posts: 6255
PHOTOGRAPHER
#15 | Posted: 18 Jan 2012 06:35
Reply 
I've thought about this - and truth be tld, I sit uneasy using other people's stuff in my work - be it brushes, backgrounds, whatever - someone else's creative work I am unable to duplicate. it says to me that "this is not my work" and therefore I'm not 100% comforable with my end result.
Does not mean I have not done it though...
 Page:  1  2  »» 
Your reply
Bold Style  Italic Style  Image Link  URL Link