Editing of others images - Discussion from RPT XXXVIII

lisatiffany

milos wrote: »

Please forgive me lisatiffany. I could not resist


clamped ranger by milos5, on Flickr

I actually do mind and for two reasons (1) The Air Corps hired me out for the day after making sure I knew what I could and could not do with pictures from the day (2) all of the pictures I took with the Rangers in them had to go through the Army and Air Corps press office first so there would be no issues with me putting them online. I agreed to only publish them on my own flickr and you could get yourself in trouble taking the images and especially if you publish it to your own flickr like you did.

I'm all for jokes and have a great sense of humor but please remove the image and any copies of it you may have from both here and flickr because I was on strict orders when taking and publishing those pictures and I'm not over the moon seeing you did that in the first place especially after there were obvious mentions of copyright on the page they were published to. I don't know how other photographers on here react to that kind of thing but you really should have thought that through before doing that.

magicbastarder

lisatiffany wrote: »

you could get yourself in trouble taking the images and especially if you publish it to your own flickr like you did.

i would suspect that such use would fall under fair use or satire, and i suspect the army would not push the issue of someone doing this for a pisstake.

if they were concerned about something like this happening, they would not have allowed them to be published on the net.
i suspect most people on here have done edits to photographs they did not take, for a laugh.

lisatiffany

I'm not getting into an argument about this. I went to tremendous effort to get the permission to take those in the first place, the thought of someone stealing your work is one thing but shopping it and then pointing you to where it is online, see how funny it is when it happens to your own work. It's not satire, put simply its copyright theft and I could have said a lot more about it but I didn't. It's sitting on someone else's flickr right now when they had no right to take it in the first place, if the shoe was on the other foot it wouldn't be so funny and if its not removed I have no choice but to report it. I don't put time and effort in pictures to have that kind of thing happen, no one does. To most people [Copyright ©"name here" - Not to be used without my express permission] is blatantly obvious.

DaireQuinlan

magicbastarder wrote: »

i would suspect that such use would fall under fair use or satire, and i suspect the army would not push the issue of someone doing this for a pisstake.

You're thinking of US law more than Irish law I think. AFAIK fair use provisions in Ireland only cover educational and research use, and there isn't any exemptions in irish copyright law (or at least the 2000 act) that cover satire or parody (like there are in the states). It would have to be considered a sufficiently transformative change that it became its own seperate work. I have no idea whether this qualifies under irish law, but it IS hosted on an american server so in that case falls under US law so it's probably completely legal. Or not. IANAL.

if they were concerned about something like this happening, they would not have allowed them to be published on the net.

Yeah I agree with this, their lookout. If they consent to have them published publicly on the internet then they have to allow for the possibility of something like this happening. It's up to them to chase it up if they're concerned about it (outside of the possibility that it's simply illegal)

OTOH If I did something like this and the original photographer asked me to take it down I probably would, even if it was ok from a legal perspective. It'd depend on a few things though, including the way the original photographer approached the situation.

D.

Gregor Samsa

I'm a big fan of jovial Photoshopping, and putting the heads of colleagues into "hilarious*" situations has become a bit of a tradition where I work. That said, I don't make them publicly available (out of respect for the subjects, more than for copyright reasons).

However, I do think it was bad form in this case to take a photo from a professional photographer's work assignment, manipulate it, and put back up on a public forum with her name (and her copyright statement) left intact on the photo. Someone could easily take that out of context and think that it was her doing, which is very unfair to a photographer who relies on her work speaking for her.

Legal/ethical/commercial reasons aside, I would hope that Lisa's wishes would be respected now that she has expressed them, simply out of common decency.

On a purely administrative level, I also don't think the Random Photo Thread is the place to be doing this kind of thing at all.

As for my work, Photoshop away. But hark this: Retribution (in the form of Photoshopping one of yours) will be swift and brutal. :pac:

(* for a very low value of "hilarious")

Paulw

If it was me, I would have reported it right away, as well as sending a PM to the offender.

Not really on using someone else's image like that, without permission.

magicbastarder

Paulw wrote: »

If it was me, I would have reported it right away, as well as sending a PM to the offender.

Not really on using someone else's image like that, without permission.

c'mon, we've all done it. the difference this time was that it was within the bounds of the thread. no injury was intended, no profit was sought, etc. etc.
i've had a photoshop of mine used almost full page (without me being contacted, which didn't bother me; i didn't own copyright on either of the two images used) in a tabloid newspaper in a feature on political satire via the medium of changing election posters; the one used was bertie's head photoshopped onto the body of conan the barbarian.

to be honest, i'd have preferred they'd used the one of (i think) gay mitchell's poster about the HSE changed into worf making some comment about 'today is a good day to die', with a hospital patient as the background image.

anyway, i would remove the image as mentioned in the first post on request; but i don't think it's a big issue.

humberklog

This thread http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056585763 is the funniest thing on the internet (yes the whole of the Internet and that includes the WorldWideWeb and AskJeevess too) and it wouldn't exist without using other peoples images.

If it happens on here (photo forum) and the photographer takes offence then well and good: the post comes down. Hardly a big deal. Hardly big enough deal to send in the Rangers and have the guy up in a court martial.

The post was made, knickers were twisted- the post was removed.


And yes it has happened to my pics on here, I didn't mind. That's not to say my position on that should be the same as everyone else's.

I think a lot of designated photography forums cover this by the members having to pick a setting on their profile that displays publicly along with their posts (usually says something like "Image Editing Okay" or such, under their avatar).


I do think it's always only fair to ask first. Getting decent work in photography can be difficult these days, and someone editing a photo to make it 'hilarious' can kill any working relationship between a client and a photographer, if the client finds it the wrong way (even if the photographer had nothing to do with the edit).


That said, for an event where the photographer is portraying the photos as being so precious, I've no idea why the photographer put them on here in the first place. I'd say less than half of my work is online, and most of my stuff is for families/companies that'd be putting them online themselves, anyway. If I covered a job and there was any even mild hint that the client didn't want the photos shared publicly, they'd never get near the internet.


Foolish move on both sides, in my opinion (though the edit seems to have been removed, since, anyway?).

Tallon

The photo is still on Flickr fyi

A joke is a joke, and if the owner asks for it to be removed, it should.

It's just manners

AnCatDubh

For clarity, from what I can tell the OP didn't start this as a thread of its own. I'm open to correction but it appears that it has been branched from the Random Photo Thread (which given the general discourse present is the appropriate place for it). I'd guess that the intention was to prompt a general discussion on such matters but maybe the mod(s) can confirm.

magicbastarder

yep, the posts above to #5 were definitely in the random photo thread.

Tallon

AnCatDubh wrote: »

For clarity, from what I can tell the OP didn't start this as a thread of its own. I'm open to correction but it appears that it has been branched from the Random Photo Thread (which given the general discourse present is the appropriate place for it). I'd guess that the intention was to prompt a general discussion on such matters but maybe the mod(s) can confirm.

You ARE the mods

jpb1974

Drama = Activity!

"Time to change forum poll" - 67 posts

"Ideas for change" - 11 posts

Idea for change - more drama?

AnCatDubh

Tallon wrote: »

You ARE the mods

Nope :pac: I only step in if needed (as with any of the arts fora) or handle disputes in DR if OldGoat doesn't get to them before me. The Mods of each forum are best left to their own devices.

(I happen to spend a little more time in this forum than elsewhere - shhhhhhhh)

CabanSail

Yes - I split this out from the Random Thread post and thought the title "Editing of others images - Discussion from RPT XXXVIII"

This was because the posts appeared in the Random Thread and it felt like it was going to take off into a discussion on the issues raised. That was not the place for it, so easiest all round was to make it stand on it's own.

lisatiffany

Well I've lodged a complaint with Yahoo and many messages have been sent to him to take it offline. I was nice about it and stated why I minded etc but its still there and he didn't listen. If I'd known people on here actually do that kind of thing then I'd never post here. I stupidly thought that this being a forum for photographers would mean someones work would be respected and that having something taken and shopped would be the last thing that would happen. Either way its not the first time I've had images stolen and my solicitor is well versed in copyright so if he refuses to take it offline I'll have no choice but to do something serious about it.

I understand its happened before to people but the difference is I had to go through a lot of official channels to get that image and now his neck is not the only one on the line. If someone takes a picture from here and does a shop then is stupid enough to host it themselves and people think that's okay then there is something seriously wrong. And no I didn't start the thread I respectfully asked him to remove the image in the random thread and explained why, I didn't blow up in a public forum which I had every right to do. If he really did it for a joke he wouldn't be hosting it on flickr he would have just uploaded it to boards then removed it when he saw my reaction but its sitting there on his page blatantly obvious that he had no right to do it in the first place.

magicbastarder

lisatiffany wrote: »

Either way its not the first time I've had images stolen and my solicitor is well versed in copyright so if he refuses to take it offline I'll have no choice but to do something serious about it.

do you know if he's seen your post yet?
is threatening legal action over what was intended as light humour really the way to proceed on this? he even posted it in the thread and said he he hoped you wouldn't mind; this is not a case of you seeing the image used to sell a product without notification; no profit was going to be made from it.

if you are going to be this precious about the sanctity of a shot like this, you should put a disclaimer on every post, or not post it at all.

just ask a mod to remove it and leave it at that.

Gregor Samsa

Maybe it's just me, but there's a small bit of irony in threatening to call out the big legal guns in this (fairly insignificant) instance, while at the same time having the copyrighted material of Joss Whedon displayed (and technically misattributed) in every comment posted here (I assume without permission). If Joss was to threaten you with legal action like this, we'd all say he was overreacting.

Give the culprit a chance to see the messages you've left him first. Not everyone checks email/boards as much as I do.

magicbastarder

also, a bit more irony in that that the latest post in her blog is essentially warning of the dangers of an act which would be an overreation to copyright theft.

http://lisa-tiffany.blogspot.ie/

pete4130

I think it's been blown out of all proportion for what its worth. From the original posts/thread and this one I've read numerous times you mentioned had to earn/struggle for the right to shoot the images. Thats great!

You know its a sensitive shoot and were given permission to post some images on your own sites. Thats great!

You then post it on the internet for a 2nd time at least (your host and an internet forum of all places!) putting it into the public eye, linking to your full set on Flickr/pix.ie etc as you always do (which is obviously hoping to increase your hits/exposure and get the images out there?), right?

If it wasn't posted by you on a public internet forum, where some people aren't clued up about the way things are done, copyright law or whatever. Then you wouldn't have had to send messages to Yahoo, taken the high ground or gotten yourself into this situation in the first place.

If the Defence Forces had an issue with it, their first port of call will be you for posting it on the internet. You can hardly blame anyone else for it appearing online in the first place if you didn't want it to be misused than yourself.

Put it down as a lesson learned about self promotion on a public forum gone wrong, get the mods to remove it, wait for the other user to respond and it should be taken down from his Flickr/host feed.

Hopefully that will be a National photographic security crisis averted before the bad guys even knew what was going on! PHEW!

I'm sure your Flickr hits are up because of the whole debacle so take the good from the bad!

magicbastarder

i don't think i've ever once posted a portrait shot to boards. not that i don't take them, i take plenty of informal shots of friends and family, some of which i think are the best shots i've taken.
the reason i don't post them is that when i'm taking the shot, the subject is not likely to be thinking they may stumble across photos of themselves online, which were posted without their knowledge. and if they did know that, they might be less happy for me to roam around with a camera taking those shots and i simply wouldn't have gotten them in the first place.

the same situation seems to apply with these shots; if there's any concern that the subject might object, a public discussion forum is not the best place to share them.

lisatiffany

No one should have to put a disclaimer on every image they post here and if that's the case then from now on its what I will do. If anything at the start of the Random Thread it should state some kind of disclaimer so that when someone posts an image they wouldn't have to mention a disclaimer every time they posts an image or worry what would happen if something did get taken.

You don't go and do something like that assuming at the end the original author will see the funny side, you ask first which he didn't do. I can guarantee you if it happened to half the people in the same thread they might publicly say very little but in private be very clear about wanting it removed. Yes an Op removed the post after I asked them to but Boards.ie is one thing and flickr is a whole other story. How often does someone take an image from a thread here and then shop it for a laugh all the time hosting it on a site like pix.ie?.

I'm entirely well within my rights requesting it be removed and I'm sorry but I'm not going to give anyone the benefit of the doubt after they did something like that without having the decency to ask first. Many people who post on here take their work seriously and I commend them for it, the internet doesn't give anyone carte blanche to act like that and of all the places it would happen I thought this would be the last. No one seems to understand that a joke is one thing but hosting the image on another site all the while making others think I'm in on it is not okay. I was not in on that and had to sign off on being able to capture those on the day, it might look funny to someone else but the Captain who signed off on me being there would not see it as a joke.

I respect the people who gave me the opportunity to take those photos and if they saw that they would think I was in on it too. The whole day I was told what I could or could not photograph and what would happen if certain images I took went online, I really thought people here had enough common sense to respect each others work especially in the Random Thread where I actually enjoy looking at and rating photos. Now I have to worry who is going to take something I post and do a half a#sed photoshop job on it for their own amusement? while being told at the same time to post a disclaimer with every picture? there was a link to the original image which clearly stated the copyright. What was stopping him from even sending a message afterwards and asking was it okay because for all he knew I may not have seen it? nothing. The same way nothing is stopping me from backing up my case as the author of the image. I've sent messages here and on flickr, I have a gig to shoot tonight and if I haven't heard anything back by the end of the night I have no choice but to involve someone else. Again say what you want about jokes/etc but it was not on doing it in the first place I won't apologize for someone else who didn't have the decency to ask for permission first.

magicbastarder

lisatiffany wrote: »

Yes an Op removed the post after I asked them to but Boards.ie is one thing and flickr is a whole other story. How often does someone take an image from a thread here and then shop it for a laugh all the time hosting it on a site like pix.ie?.

to be fair, i'd be fairly certain it was put on flickr simply so it could be embedded into his post on boards; the 'embed image directly into a post' option does not actually show the image (unless that's functionality added in the new site layout).

Tallon

lisatiffany wrote: »

How often does someone take an image from a thread here and then shop it for a laugh all the time hosting it on a site like pix.ie?.

This used to happen quite a lot actually!

I remember, people would put up a photo, and ask people to tweak it in their own way, and then discuss the PP etc... in fact, it was a great addition to the forum and was a lot of fun

I have also seen people PP photos in a comedy aspect from the random thread. If someone had an issue with that, they could report it (And as I said previously, manners should have prevailed and it been removed)

Also, just to add, the Random thread does have a disclaimer at the start stating that photos have to be your own!



I'm off to start a thread on Photoshopping

pete4130

You posted images you were told could be sensitive online and somebody edited them. It's a public internet forum filled with Joe Soap, Billy Idiot and Stan Stupid. Tkae it as a lesson learned and don't make out to be so hard done by. You posted it, knowing it could happen, albeit in a photography forum where you might expect people to know better. Obviously not.

Professional etiquette would dictate to me in your circumstance to just not post anything. You've been paid, fulfilled your brief, job finished and out the door. What more is there to be gained by posting on an internet forum other than bragging rights and knowing this could happened?

On a side note...I thought it was over processed anyway and chuckled at the clamp.

magicbastarder

there ya go, problem solved.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=79793908&postcount=679

Tallon

magicbastarder wrote: »

there ya go, problem solved.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=79793908&postcount=679

Moral of the story, give someone more than ~24 hours to reply...

Paulw

Tallon wrote: »

Moral of the story, give someone more than ~24 hours to reply...

I would have thought the moral of the story is not to use someone's image without their expressed permission in the first place?? :rolleyes:

trooney

pete4130 wrote: »

...I thought it was over processed anyway and chuckled at the clamp.

Whats the big deal anyhoo. Helicopters can still fly with a clamp!

lisatiffany

@OP - Thanks for the help, I've gotten through to the person and the image has been removed. Can you close the thread?

Thanks / all for the comments/feedback, it was interesting to say the least and has opened my eyes to certain aspects of the forum that I didn't think needed to be addressed. Ridiculous as it sounds I'll be using a disclaimer from now on regardless of a thread mentioning one or not.

jpb1974

Paulw wrote: »

I would have thought the moral of the story is not to use someone's image without their expressed permission in the first place?? :rolleyes:

Mine would have been - "shít happens"

Tallon

lisatiffany wrote: »

@OP - Thanks for the help, I've gotten through to the person and the image has been removed. Can you close the thread?

Thanks / all for the comments/feedback, it was interesting to say the least and has opened my eyes to certain aspects of the forum that I didn't think needed to be addressed. Ridiculous as it sounds I'll be using a disclaimer from now on regardless of a thread mentioning one or not.

I have to say, it is a bit childish to go looking for the other persons threads and post accusations on them!

magicbastarder

i don't think the thread should be closed; it's raised an interesting point about when it is OK (from a common sense rather than legal viewpoint) to mess with a photo.

it's been mentioned before that it's a practical impossibility that everyone who complains about copyright theft has never downloaded/listened to/stored an MP3 of a track they do not own, or of a film or TV show they did not buy, or (given the context) never messed around with a downloaded image in photoshop.

DaireQuinlan

magicbastarder wrote: »

it's been mentioned before that it's a practical impossibility that everyone except for PCPhoto who complains about copyright theft has never downloaded/listened to/stored an MP3 of a track they do not own, or of a film or TV show they did not buy, or (given the context) never messed around with a downloaded image in photoshop.

FYP

Paulw

Paulw wrote: »

I would have thought the moral of the story is not to use someone's image without their expressed permission in the first place?? :rolleyes:

The lesson I took from it is that if you have 'sensitive' photos, they're best off not being posted on popular public forums on the internet.

Lisatiffany wrote:

I respect the people who gave me the opportunity to take those photos

I agreed to only publish them on my own flickr

But then you put them on Boards (and possibly other sites, too). You have to have reasonable expectations. If you have sensitive images, you don't put them online on a massively popular forum.

Personally, I think you're massively over-reacting and being a tad childish about this. If you plan to report to Yahoo/Flickr, then do it. You don't need to announce it, first, or go taking digs at people in different threads and such.


As someone previously said, take it as a lesson and move on. If a helicopter getting clamped (which I'll admit I did find funny, though I don't condone it, as I know personally how much of a nuisance copyright theft can be) is the worst thing that ever happens, you'll be okay.

magicbastarder

Deleted User wrote: »

You don't need to announce it, first, or go taking digs at people in different threads and such.

especially after announcing last night that she was 'not going to get into an argument about it'.

lisatiffany

magicbastarder wrote: »

especially after announcing last night that she was 'not going to get into an argument about it'.

I wasn't but then people started to act like it was nothing and I should leave it be and not care about him hosting it on another site even though I was the original owner. I was provoked in private too and I just stuck to staying calm about it but some people just don't know when to leave something that is none of their business alone.

I didn't ask for anything to go into a separate thread instead I originally posted back in the same thread the image was in and stated clearly and non violently why I wanted it removed. Then it was moved to its own thread "this one" and everyone else jumped aboard - I never asked for this thread and I was nice about it in the original thread so unless you know all the facts don't bother trying to twist my words. I posted in that photoshop thread today because I assumed it would come up in his threads as recent and if he wasn't getting my messages he would see that.

I couldn't care less what OTHER PEOPLE do with their own work that's their own business and none of my concern. Commenting on a thread does not make something that was wrong in the first place - perfectly right. You can twist a million words from someone but at the end of the day everyone has the right to protect their work and nothing anyone says is going to change that. It's ridiculous having to defend your own work because someone else decided to warp it for their own amusement.

I contacted an Op right away when I noticed the image in the thread and we clearly discussed what should be done. Had I known a thread the likes of this would be created I'd have said nothing to an Op and waited for the person to realize I did post feedback about it and wanted it removed. I wasn't in the wrong nor was the Op who helped me but a lot of people are posting without knowing the full facts and its doing no one any favors. Go right ahead any have your similar themed thread but I want nothing to do with it if all you are going to do is pick holes and insult the person who was never in the wrong to begin with.

Tallon

When you say provoked in private, do you mean through PM by the user that Photoshoped the photo?

If this is the case, then you can report the PM using the report button and it will be dealt with by the Admins

AnCatDubh

magicbastarder wrote: »

is threatening legal action over what was intended as light humour really the way to proceed on this?

In fairness, take the legal route is often cited when people post a "someone's taken my image, what to do" thread. Nothing unusual here.

AnCatDubh

magicbastarder wrote: »

also, a bit more irony in that that the latest post in her blog is essentially warning of the dangers of an act which would be an overreation to copyright theft.

http://lisa-tiffany.blogspot.ie/

I think you are way off topic. seriously, witch hunt springs to mind.

AnCatDubh

pete4130 wrote: »

If it wasn't posted by you on a public internet forum, where some people aren't clued up about the way things are done, copyright law or whatever. Then you wouldn't have had to send messages to Yahoo, taken the high ground or gotten yourself into this situation in the first place.

Surely someone should be able to post their image with their copyright in tact and have reasonable expectation that it won't be lifted?

AnCatDubh

magicbastarder wrote: »

if there's any concern that the subject might object, a public discussion forum is not the best place to share them.

I agree, however still doesn't avoid the point that their was no right of anyone to lift the image from here or anywhere else.

AnCatDubh

magicbastarder wrote: »

the 'embed image directly into a post' option does not actually show the image (unless that's functionality added in the new site layout).

No, but you can upload to boards and then before you post your reply, copy the link of the image, and paste it within the image tags. This functionality has always been there.

AnCatDubh

Tallon wrote: »

I remember, people would put up a photo, and ask people to tweak it in their own way, and then discuss the PP etc... in fact, it was a great addition to the forum and was a lot of fun

In bold above is the difference in this case as far as I understand it. It is a question of consent. Not requested and not given.

AnCatDubh

pete4130 wrote: »

Professional etiquette would dictate to me in your circumstance to just not post anything. You've been paid, fulfilled your brief, job finished and out the door. What more is there to be gained by posting on an internet forum other than bragging rights and knowing this could happened?

Well, if not precluded from posting, it should be at the photographers discretion with the expectation that someone won't lift the image and do stuff with it.

AnCatDubh

Paulw wrote: »

I would have thought the moral of the story is not to use someone's image without their expressed permission in the first place?? :rolleyes:

This.

+1

AnCatDubh

Deleted User wrote: »

The lesson I took from it is that if you have 'sensitive' photos, they're best off not being posted on popular public forums on the internet.

However, why then post anything if by that you are agreeing that you only post things that people can take and use themselves (satirical, publishing, where do you stop).

I think the sensitive nature of the post is irrelevant. Its been taken, processed (overdone according to Pete ), and re-posted. I've no doubt there was no harm intended by the individual lifting the image, but none the less, there wasn't permission and its the right of the photographer to be upset over it.

True, its happened before with no action necessary where the photographer didn't give a toss. This case is different.

But then you put them on Boards (and possibly other sites, too). You have to have reasonable expectations. If you have sensitive images, you don't put them online on a massively popular forum.

I'm not getting why the photographer shouldn't have put them online. massively popular forum is one possible reason that we're all guilty of why we put an image online. No one publishes photos here because the simply want to see them on a web page.

Reasonable expectations? I think the reasonable expectations are the opposite of what you are implying.

AnCatDubh

Tallon wrote: »

If this is the case, then you can report the PM using the report button and it will be dealt with by the Admins

+1. (or worse, it will get dealt with by the Cmod )

magicbastarder

AnCatDubh wrote: »

In fairness, take the legal route is often cited when people post a "someone's taken my image, what to do" thread. Nothing unusual here.

usually, the advice given is along the lines of 'send an invoice and if you don't have any luck, send in the legal eagles'.
however, this is a very different situation from the ones along these lines which usually crop up. to threaten legal action over this (especially having waited so short a time for the other party to respond) was extreme.

magicbastarder

AnCatDubh wrote: »

No, but you can upload to boards and then before you post your reply, copy the link of the image, and paste it within the image tags. This functionality has always been there.

fair enough, but the usual advice about posting images involves hosting elsewhere from what i've seen; i did not know of the method above. handy to know.