A question of ETHICS
Nov 10, 2011 12:18:09 #
Recently, I was "fiddling" with my new camera. The TV was running--an animal program. Up came a segment on Harpy Eagles. I pushed the "pause" button and had a dandy pic of a young Harpy Eagle. I took a picture of that picture.
(QUESTIONS) Is that now my picture ? It could have been taken anywhere. If I use it anywhere, should (must) I give credit or explain how I got it ? (Very few Harpy Eagles in Indiana.) Maybe I should just wipe it out ! What do you experts think ?
ALYN
(QUESTIONS) Is that now my picture ? It could have been taken anywhere. If I use it anywhere, should (must) I give credit or explain how I got it ? (Very few Harpy Eagles in Indiana.) Maybe I should just wipe it out ! What do you experts think ?
ALYN
Nov 10, 2011 12:26:05 #
I personally think that it is still the guy who shot the original videos picture. Now if you include the TV in your shot then it is your shot of his shot. Other wise I see no difference between taking this shot off the TV and scanning a photo that someone else took and calling it yours.
Nov 10, 2011 12:27:19 #
Nov 10, 2011 12:27:43 #
Nov 10, 2011 13:25:46 #
I would think the copywright is with the original photographer and credit Must be given to them.
Nov 10, 2011 13:30:06 #
if you have to ask yoouve already lost the ethical battle. In your heart you know whats right. it is no more ethical than to go to the movies with a camcorder and record whatever movie you saw. there are plenty of interesting birds in Indiana for you to go out and get a photo of.
Nov 10, 2011 14:15:49 #
photophly wrote:
I would think the copywright is with the original photographer and credit Must be given to them.
I agree - run the dvr in slow motion at the end of the program and read the little printing. It will say something like "reproduction and rebroadcasting is prohibited without the expressed written consent . . ."
Nov 10, 2011 14:19:16 #
I could go to a museum and take a picture of a Rembrandt and post it, claiming it was mine. Would I do that? Of course not. I don't see the difference...except that I would have my sanity questioned.
Nov 10, 2011 14:23:42 #
Last time I checked, museums wont let you photograph works of art. The same goes at art shows, and that sort of thing. I see people taking pictures of other peoples work all the time. To me it's stealing. Either pony up and buy the work, or sit back and soak it in like everyone else.
Nov 10, 2011 14:39:36 #
There are lots of museums that allow you to take pictures. What they won't allow is flash and tripods. Try taking good pictures in a museum without at least one of those two. I take pictures at art shows all the time - not of an individual work but of the art show. They are often on public property and thus it is permissible.
Art Critics
The Blue Room
Nov 10, 2011 15:00:20 #
forbescat wrote:
There are lots of museums that allow you to take pictures. What they won't allow is flash and tripods. Try taking good pictures in a museum without at least one of those two. I take pictures at art shows all the time - not of an individual work but of the art show. They are often on public property and thus it is permissible.
I agree with you totally. However the way in which you are doing this is not what I am talking about. I see people all the time taking a photo of someone's work specifically. In my shop we have prints made by the owner. They are large black and white images that are stunning. Almost every day we have people come in and take photos of them. I personally think that it's wrong to do so. But if they wanted to take a few snap shots of the inside of the shop which includes the prints, that is different than framing the photo to just include the print on the wall. If you want an image like that, go out and take them yourself, or purchase the art and hang it on your wall at home.
Nov 10, 2011 15:10:51 #
Of course! I really am shocked that people would be so devoid of the sense of right and wrong.
Nov 10, 2011 15:14:14 #
I have asked at art shows if I may photograph work "up close and personal" for the purpose of creating my own art. They are usually so shocked that I asked, they give immediate permission. I then send them a copy of my picture of their work.
Nov 10, 2011 19:37:13 #
Plain and simple it's a copyright violation. It's an exact copy at worst and a deritive at best. Don't use it or you may be sued and successfully so.
Nov 10, 2011 19:51:59 #
I took this picture many years ago in Italy. I had it on my work computer as a screen saver. A friend liked it and asked for a copy. I gave her a print. Not too long after that she asked me if I wanted to buy a painting of the very same picture...turns out she told her mom she would love it painted and her mom who was taking a painting class had one of the people in the group paint it for her. The painter wanted $400, a price my friend could hardly afford. So she thought of me. I almost threw a fit when she asked me if I wanted to pay 400 for a painting of one of my pictures. ok, I did have a very small tantrum. I dont know what the rules/ethics/laws are on this type of thing but it sure felt rotten which makes me suspect it was wrong.
In the end I told her to offer the lady $200 and get the dang painting...What I learned later was she paid 200 and her mom kicked in another 100 and she has the painting hanging in her living room. I got 0, not even a glass of wine in thanks. zilcho...gotta be wrong.
In the end I told her to offer the lady $200 and get the dang painting...What I learned later was she paid 200 and her mom kicked in another 100 and she has the painting hanging in her living room. I got 0, not even a glass of wine in thanks. zilcho...gotta be wrong.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.