Is this an infringement or not?
Apr 2, 2014 16:24:32 #
amehta
Loc: Boston
St3v3M wrote:
I have a lot of trouble with how "fair use" is being interpreted in both these cases. Both of these seem to qualify as "stealing intellectual property". And in the Prince/Cariou case, it's especially absurd for one artist to steal another artist's work use as part of his own art which he sells.
Apr 2, 2014 16:42:06 #
Thanks for that link, St3vM. I think I've got a grasp on this "transformative" thing now.
It's like if someone rephotographed Eddie Adams' iconic (and 1969 Pulitzer Prize winning) photo of the Vietnamese General shooting the Viet Cong prisoner in the head and photo-shopped another person's head (maybe Richard Prince's head) on the body of the about to be executed VC.
Sounds "transformative" to me. I wonder if Mr. Prince would agree.
It's like if someone rephotographed Eddie Adams' iconic (and 1969 Pulitzer Prize winning) photo of the Vietnamese General shooting the Viet Cong prisoner in the head and photo-shopped another person's head (maybe Richard Prince's head) on the body of the about to be executed VC.
Sounds "transformative" to me. I wonder if Mr. Prince would agree.
Apr 2, 2014 18:06:18 #
St3v3M wrote:
That was the other one I was looking for.. the guy makes paintings of other's photos and makes subtle or not so subtle changes and sells for millions with out paying copyright fees.
Apr 3, 2014 09:03:05 #
Ansel Adams did a lot of manipulation on his photos and they are still copyrighted
Apr 3, 2014 09:08:08 #
amehta wrote:
BTW, I see this has moved to the "Links" category, but I think it really belongs in the main discussion category.
I don't really understand that either. Maybe it was because I put a link in the first topic message.
Apr 3, 2014 09:25:33 #
amehta
Loc: Boston
mjmjam wrote:
Ansel Adams did a lot of manipulation on his photos and they are still copyrighted
I'm not sure it that matters. The issue is when manipulating somebody else's pictures without permission.
Apr 3, 2014 09:26:04 #
amehta
Loc: Boston
dsmeltz wrote:
I don't really understand that either. Maybe it was because I put a link in the first topic message.
Yes, I believe that is the trigger.
Apr 3, 2014 10:30:41 #
jerryc41 wrote:
When something goes to court, be ready for anything to happen. Since the picture was taken in a public place, do they have any rights? The picture was taken from his blog. What's the legality there?
If you don't want anyone to use your picture, don't let anyone see your picture. Relying on the kindness of strangers is not a good idea. Given the chance, people will do the wrong thing.
If you don't want anyone to use your picture, don't let anyone see your picture. Relying on the kindness of strangers is not a good idea. Given the chance, people will do the wrong thing.
:thumbup: :thumbup:
Apr 3, 2014 18:21:37 #
Maybe I oughter take some photos of Mr. Prince's paintings, alter them a tad and re-sell them online...
As to the pic that started this thread, were that a stock image, there's be no problem using it in the manner it was used, but it seems to me that the original was a wedding photo, taken by a hired photographer and therefrom owned by the subjects of the photo, so I am not certain that is a proper use.
As to the pic that started this thread, were that a stock image, there's be no problem using it in the manner it was used, but it seems to me that the original was a wedding photo, taken by a hired photographer and therefrom owned by the subjects of the photo, so I am not certain that is a proper use.
Apr 3, 2014 20:22:58 #
The photographer is the person that is housed under the Copyright laws.
I would be fuming if I had that picture used without my permission.
I would be fuming if I had that picture used without my permission.
Apr 4, 2014 07:30:25 #
JaiGieEse wrote:
Maybe I oughter take some photos of Mr. Prince's paintings, alter them a tad and re-sell them online...
As to the pic that started this thread, were that a stock image, there's be no problem using it in the manner it was used, but it seems to me that the original was a wedding photo, taken by a hired photographer and therefrom owned by the subjects of the photo, so I am not certain that is a proper use.
As to the pic that started this thread, were that a stock image, there's be no problem using it in the manner it was used, but it seems to me that the original was a wedding photo, taken by a hired photographer and therefrom owned by the subjects of the photo, so I am not certain that is a proper use.
Yeah, you could alter them to ...ahh.... look like photographs!
Apr 4, 2014 09:55:59 #
I do hope everyone of you have added your copyright info
Into your camera settings. I have a Canon 60D. If you put it in the manual mode next to last tab I believe states copyright info. Put your name and doing business as info in there and dates you filmed.
It's embedded in every picture you take.
Into your camera settings. I have a Canon 60D. If you put it in the manual mode next to last tab I believe states copyright info. Put your name and doing business as info in there and dates you filmed.
It's embedded in every picture you take.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.