How much do you have to EDIT a Picture TO call it YOUR OWN???

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by 12991, Jul 19, 2007.

  1. 12991 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2007
    #1
    So i used a picture [​IMG]

    but i also edited it alot... so i wanted to know hypothetically how much i would have to edit it to call it my own. Here is what ive done.

    [​IMG]

    I took the shine out of the water, i edited a little something next to the boat on the left. I of course put in a person, i also changed the curves a little bit... I also smoothed out the sky, in the first pic it is much more pixelized than mine. so would i be able to sort of pass it as my own or no. I am not going to pass it as my own, because i dont need to... i was just wondering, because a friend asked me if i took it, and i explained what i did to him, and i was wondering if i could actually call it my own picture. thanks
     
  2. compuwar macrumors 601

    compuwar

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2006
    Location:
    Northern/Central VA
    #2
    As far as I know, at least in the US, derivative works are still owned by the copyright owner of the original. So, I think the answer is "You can't call it yours if it didn't start as yours."

    IANAL, YMMV.
     
  3. tdhurst macrumors 68040

    tdhurst

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2003
    Location:
    Phoenix, AZ
    #3
    Steps..

    Steps to take...

    1. Go back to where the picture was taken.
    2. Take one yourself.
    3. Claim it as your own.

    Anything else doesn't cut it.
     
  4. arogge macrumors 65816

    arogge

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2002
    Location:
    Tatooine
    #4
    You cannot use another photographer's work as your own. The copyright applies to the original image and all subsequent changes.
     
  5. Royale w/cheese macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2007
    #5
    Yeah I don't think fair use will ever cover people in the way they want it to.

    The easiest way to edit it the best to call it your own is to take it with your own camera.
     
  6. fivetoadsloth macrumors 65816

    fivetoadsloth

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    #6
    Yeah, I think you will have a hard time calling something your own if you diint take the original.

    Great work by the way, looks really really good.

    :)
     
  7. Mr.Noisy macrumors 65816

    Mr.Noisy

    Joined:
    May 5, 2007
    Location:
    UK™
    #7
    in law Copyright of an image belongs to the photographer who took the image and can be used if his/her permission is given.

    i cant see the harm editing an image does as long as you know where you stand if you claim it's your's and the photographer doesn't share the same point of view.
     
  8. GFLPraxis macrumors 604

    GFLPraxis

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2004
    #8
    Out of curiousity; if someone takes a picture, and someone else looks at that picture and paints it, can the painter claim the painting as his own?

    No tracing, just painting by sight using that picture as a reference.
     
  9. 12991 thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2007
    #9
    thanks, im not claiming it is mine in anyway... this is actually just for an imaging class im taking, I wont be considering the original as mine at all.
     
  10. Abstract macrumors Penryn

    Abstract

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Location:
    Location Location Location
    #10
    I don't know about copyrights, but it just SOUNDS wrong.
     
  11. Royale w/cheese macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2007
    #11
    My dad once did this and said it was okay, he is an artist and a professional art dealer, but I have always thought he was very eccentric and never much cared for the finer details.
     
  12. Mr.Noisy macrumors 65816

    Mr.Noisy

    Joined:
    May 5, 2007
    Location:
    UK™
    #12
    Only thing ive come across online is a bit long winded but is as follows :

    The creator of the photograph, i.e. the photographer, usually holds the copyright to the photo and, unless they've expressly given permission for its use, making a painting based on a photo would infringe the photographer's copyright. In terms of US copyright law: "Only the owner of copyright in a work has the right to prepare, or to authorize someone else to create, a new version of that work." You may be able to obtain permission to use a photo for a derivative work from the photographer, or if you're using a photo library buy the right to use it.


    You might argue that the photographer is unlikely ever to find out if you use it, but are you going to keep a record of such paintings to ensure you never put it on display or offer it for sale? Even if you're not going to make commercial use of a photo, just by creating a painting to hang in your home, you're still technically infringing copyright, and you need to be aware of the fact. (Ignorance is not bliss.)

    :rolleyes: told you it was a bit long winded, not exactly yes or no answers.
     
  13. CanadaRAM macrumors G5

    CanadaRAM

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2004
    Location:
    On the Left Coast - Victoria BC Canada
    #13
    No, the image, no matter what the rendering, remains the property of the photographer

    The Corel drawing of the Native Chief in feathered headdress that won a Corel contest and was made into the box graphics of CorelDraw was an original drawing - but completely copping the pose and conception of a commercial photograph owned by Tony Stone Images. The artist made small adjustments and then claimed it made it 'original'. The artist that made the copy lost in court bigtime.

    It's the copying of the original idea that is the issue. It doesn't matter what the media is or that it was rendered differently. Take this example: Disney produces a cartoon character called Mickey Mouse. I do a completely new and original sculpture of that cartoon character, use it to make molds, and produce 500,000 plastic replicas of my original sculpture and sell them. Will Disney respect the fact that it was my original rendering and talent that made the product? Not likely. The intellectual property (in the form of a recognizable character) remains theirs.
     
  14. Doylem macrumors 68040

    Doylem

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2006
    Location:
    Wherever I hang my hat...
    #14
    On three separate occasions my landscape photos have been copied by painters (one occasion was a whole exhibition!). It might seem flattering, but I wasn't best pleased. I get up at dawn, and drive many miles, to get the special light... then some lazy dauber uses them as the basis for his own pictures...

    The picture of the ship belongs to someone else.... even if you change all the colour values, transform the clipper into an oil tanker, and fill the beach with mutant turtles. Go and shoot your own pictures to work on. Then you can call them your own.
     
  15. Digital Skunk macrumors 604

    Digital Skunk

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2006
    Location:
    In my imagination
    #15
    Now we are getting somewhere.... actually... the copyright of the image belongs to the photographer no matter what you ADD to the original image. If you were to change the image dramatically, to the point where it is no longer recognizable by the original author, then the copyright has no affect.

    Like the guy above that mentioned if some guy painted a picture from a photograph, that painting isn't the property of the photographer and there is no copyright infringement. If on the other hand a photographer takes a photo of a painting, the painting is still the property of the painter and the photographer is breaking the law.

    It goes deep into the realm of "How much work you put behind the art" where a graphic artist can take a thousand photographs that she/he didn't shoot and extract pieces and put them together to make a collage. If that collage is worth millions then the photographers of those images aren't liable for any monetary compensation, they are just outta luck.

    Copyrights and Mass Media Law are very good topics that everyone in this field should learn and understand well.
     
  16. Abstract macrumors Penryn

    Abstract

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Location:
    Location Location Location
    #16
    Creating a painting of a landscape photograph would surely be easy, and yet too difficult for anyone to say, "It's obviously a copy". :confused: Change the colour of the sky to orange and pink. You could easily say you went there and painted it without having ever seen the photograph, especially if the photo was taken at a popular national park, lookout spot, etc.
     
  17. Doylem macrumors 68040

    Doylem

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2006
    Location:
    Wherever I hang my hat...
    #17
    Abstract... It's not just the places that were copied, but the whole 'feel' of my photos. If someone copies a pic - like this one - I know right away... :)
     

    Attached Files:

  18. Westside guy macrumors 601

    Westside guy

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2003
    Location:
    The soggy side of the Pacific NW
    #18
    Hey, now THAT sounds interesting... :D
     
  19. QuantumLo0p macrumors 6502a

    QuantumLo0p

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2006
    Location:
    U.S.A.
    #19
    Here is a sure fire way to do what you need:

    Import the image into Photoshop. Delete the original image. Paste in a photo you OWN. Done.
    ------------------
    Sorry but legally and ethically you cannot do what you suggested.

    To explain my position further, my photographic style is to not do graphic design in my photos. I adjust levels, crop, resize and play with effects a little. I will not ever add fog, smoke, a moon, a sun, a tree, people animals, or anything substantial that was not there to begin with, into a photo I have taken. That's my style but I recognize photographers do that to sell their images and that is part of their style. To be honest I am still trying to determine how HDR photography fits into my style. Are multiple overlayed photos still a single photo?! At this point I am swaying towards "yes" because the individual photos are not substantially altered.

    That is where I draw a definite line for myself: I consider my photos to be photos after I am through with them. I consider photos that are heavily edited to be graphically published "images".

    This works for me, maybe not other people.
     
  20. CanadaRAM macrumors G5

    CanadaRAM

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2004
    Location:
    On the Left Coast - Victoria BC Canada
    #20
    I would differ from this. The composition, subject matter, idea and vision of the photo remains, even if it were reproduced in a wall sized mural made from Froot Loops, and the photographer's copyrights and moral rights would still endure. The painting would be a derivative work, which is protected by the photographer's copyright.

    Otherwise: there would be nothing stopping someone from recreating in a different media and selling mass quantities of someone else's recognizable image.

    There is a case (can't find it online) where an artist made a rendering of people in business suits with (clocks? televisions?) for heads, with bowler hats. A magazine used the same concept in an original illustration, with something else for heads, but recognizably the same idea. (Case in point -- I cannot remember now which was the original work -- the copy has confused me as a member of the public as to who was the original artist and who was the derivative -- and that has arguably diminished the value of the original artist's work)

    The Corel Chief in Headress case is a precedent in Canadian law.
     
  21. Digital Skunk macrumors 604

    Digital Skunk

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2006
    Location:
    In my imagination
    #21
    The example you give is case in point. The fact that a landscape photographer could take picture of some river, and another guy with a camera can stand two feet from the first one is the same reason why any photo made by a photographer can be mimicked in another area of art and the copyright wouldn't stand.

    The photographer is not a painter, therefore if I were to paint someone else's photograph it would not infringe on their copyright, even if I sat there and painted it in front of the original photographer.

    If the photo Nick Vedros (http://www.vedros.com/) took of the dog with the post-its was redone with a dog dotted with "support our troops" ribbons there would be no copyright infringement. That suck for Nick who might have been the original creator, but he can only copyright his photo and his photo alone. If I were to paint the exact image on canvas, then Nick couldn't sue, I put too much "creative effort" into making my painting.

    So... as for the landscape photogs that are only two feet away from each other, which one owns the copyright to the image? They each own their own perspective copyright. They can both sell the images as long as they can prove they have/provide the negatives or original digital file.

    Photogs get the crap end of the stick when it comes to creative license.

    p.s. Forgot to mention that any graphic designer can come along and hack through an image enough to make it their own once it goes far beyond what the original intent of the image was.

    Any photo/image that is drastically altered (anything that wasn't there to begin with but is added later on or any element of the photo/image that is changed beyond what was originally captured) is considered a photo-illustration. It is no longer a photograph... but it is still an image/photo-illustration and must be noted as such when in the public eye. (at least for photojournalists and news agencies)
     
  22. jeffzoom91 macrumors regular

    jeffzoom91

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2005
    Location:
    Florida
    #22
    Simple answer: Your trigger finger didn't create it, someone else's did. NOT YOURS....no matter what.:eek: Always give credit.:D:apple:
     
  23. Abraxsis macrumors 6502

    Abraxsis

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2003
    Location:
    Kentucky
    #23
    hmmm ... so what about if he takes a picture of the picture? If the original person put the image out there into the public, and you snapped a picture of it, it MAY be covered. If i snap a picture of another picture, by all measures of copyright law I own that image.

    Now here is where it gets sticky. If the person who took the image stated "no use" then youre up a creek, if they put it out there with no explicit limitations then you may has a leg to stand on given the composition of the picture and its specific lack of "protected" (ie. likenesses) imagery (but even that is shakey given other instances such as paris Hilton's sex tape). As purposely displaying an item in a public arena automatically diminishes some of the legal recourse you have available to you.

    But, as a photographer, I CAN say that even the details I have explained are unethical at best.
     
  24. CanadaRAM macrumors G5

    CanadaRAM

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2004
    Location:
    On the Left Coast - Victoria BC Canada
    #24
    No, on the contrary, I think you just made my point.

    The reason that another photographer can take a picture of the same landscape is that 1) the landscape itself is not copyright, and 2) the second photographer would have to make the effort to create an original composition -- i.e. hike up the hillside, frame the shot, wait for the right light, get the right exposure, film, and all. This makes it an original composition, NOT a derivative work.

    If you went up the hillside and painted the landscape from nature, it would be an original work.

    If you paint, or photograph, or reproduce in corn husk weavings, the image as it was conceived, composed and originally executed by the photographer, then yours IS a derivative and is subject to copyright.

    Um, no, that's about completely backwards. It's like saying if I make a copy of a CD I now own the rights to that song.

    Just because you reproduce an image of something does not confer copyright of the original image to you. You don't have copyright on your snapshot because it is a derivative work.

    Again: You could not sell prints and posters of a painting just because you took a photo of it in a gallery, or even if it were on display in public. The artist retains both copyright and moral rights to the portion of the image in your camera that was their original work.

    One interesting case was a museum which took photos of historical images it housed but that were in the public domain (that is, the copyright period had expired). The court said that simply accurately reproducing something did not confer a new copyright to the museum. Those images remained in the public domain (as they would have remained the copyright of the original artist if they were still within copyright).

    If you painted exactly the same dog and post-its, you'd lose. Although it was a lot of work, it was not creative or original.

    If you painted or photographed a similar dog with things attached, then that's arguable. There have been a number of cases where the same 'idea' has been used with different details and entirely new production, and have been successfully sued by the original artist. If the idea is recognizably the same, the artist has a case they can argue that the work infringed on them, even though not a bit of the original was reproduced. Nash the Slash is a performance artist and musician who only appears in public with his head wrapped in bandages like a mummy, wearing sunglasses and in formal wear. Pepsi used actors wrapped like mummies and wearing formal wear and sunglasses in a commercial, and settled the copyright infringement lawsuit out of court with Nash.

    Again, if I make and sell Mickey Mouse dolls with red suspenders instead of black, or with a elephant nose, Disney still will sue me.
     
  25. Lebowski macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2005
    Location:
    Phoenix, AZ
    #25
    adding a silhouette, cloning the water and bending the curves doesnt really seam like "alot of editing" to me.....

    and no, you cant EVER call it your own. end of story. You did not take it.
     

Share This Page