Editing someone else's image without at least asking....
Dec 11, 2019 12:28:09 #
JoeJoe wrote:
.....I'm more concerned with the small minority of individuals who feel they have an ordained right to edit or critique without any prompt from the OP....
....or those that don't show much in the way of concern for the OP's preferences (to my mind an equally worrying scenario).
Dec 11, 2019 12:32:41 #
R.G. wrote:
That preference may or may not be expressed in the signature area or in a thread's original post, but in any case the hope is that the image owner's wishes would be respected. The fact that those wishes may in some cases not be expressed specifically anywhere is the reason why permission should be sought first - unless the editor of the image has clear prior knowledge of the fact that the image owner does allow edits.
The general rule online in most forums and here if people bother to read the rules is ask for permission first as it shows a basic respect to the OP... What is the worst someone can say..."No" … I've been refused before and it didn't kill me or harm me in any way....
The trouble we have in here is self appointed experts with there own ego to boost …. I've unfortunately had to deal with 2 such incidents in a month... Hopefully that will be the last time … Until the next … ;-)
Post an image then start your stopwatch to see how long before the experts jump out of the woodwork...
Regards
Joe
Dec 11, 2019 12:35:28 #
R.G. wrote:
....or those that don't show much in the way of concern for the OP's preferences (to my mind an equally worrying scenario).
Very well put....
Regards
Joe
Dec 11, 2019 12:44:03 #
Amateurs, and dictatorial, not to mention mentally slow. My hope is that those who are not experienced on UHH will not take either of you very seriously, as you have neither proof nor professional experience in critiquing.
Also somewhat humorous, and confirmed in my experience, those in a discussion who have no resources to prove you wrong, then PROJECT their narrowness and and infallibility onto the leader of the crit.
I hope any open-minded, independent thinker following this thread considers what I have written, then verifies or disproves it for themselves by reviewing or recalling this discussion. The "discussion" seems to be more a series of pronouncements than a true searching for truth based on facts and reasoning.
Also somewhat humorous, and confirmed in my experience, those in a discussion who have no resources to prove you wrong, then PROJECT their narrowness and and infallibility onto the leader of the crit.
I hope any open-minded, independent thinker following this thread considers what I have written, then verifies or disproves it for themselves by reviewing or recalling this discussion. The "discussion" seems to be more a series of pronouncements than a true searching for truth based on facts and reasoning.
Dec 11, 2019 13:57:52 #
https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-618133-1.html
I see why he keeps harping/whinging on now so have changed my signature to prevent any further issues ….
I might even restart the thread in "For Your Consideration" and then ignore this one so as not to add any more air time.....
Everyones welcome to come and join in …. All us SLOW ones anyway... ;-)
Regards
Joe ...
I see why he keeps harping/whinging on now so have changed my signature to prevent any further issues ….
I might even restart the thread in "For Your Consideration" and then ignore this one so as not to add any more air time.....
Everyones welcome to come and join in …. All us SLOW ones anyway... ;-)
Regards
Joe ...
Dec 11, 2019 15:47:57 #
Hamltnblue
Loc: Springfield PA
JoeJoe wrote:
As the forum has a nude section why would it worry you??
Regards
Joe
Regards
Joe
It doesn’t, however is there any proof of copyright or ownership of any pic without a sig or watermark on it?
There is always a possibility that personal pics of an individual are their property.
They may not approve of the posting on a public domain.
In the end the person who should be complaining of their picture being improved is the subject in the pic.
Dec 11, 2019 16:20:47 #
Hamltnblue wrote:
It doesn’t, however is there any proof of copyright or ownership of any pic without a sig or watermark on it?
There is always a possibility that personal pics of an individual are their property.
They may not approve of the posting on a public domain.
In the end the person who should be complaining of their picture being improved is the subject in the pic.
There is always a possibility that personal pics of an individual are their property.
They may not approve of the posting on a public domain.
In the end the person who should be complaining of their picture being improved is the subject in the pic.
Hamltnblue,
Its simple to add a watermark to any image and that does not prove one way or another that the image is actually your own image... Most photographers posting nude images would normally be attending model days or hiring models for a specific shoot ( I have personally done both) from what I have seen on the forum... I must admit to seeing one that I would class as a personal photo and it came over that way too... Personally wouldn't like to face my missus if I'd posted it...
Regards
Joe
Dec 11, 2019 16:37:45 #
Definitely a no-no. Each work good or bad is the sole property of the photographer unless he gives permission.
Dec 11, 2019 17:32:13 #
rwoodvira wrote:
Definitely a no-no. Each work good or bad is the sole property of the photographer unless he gives permission.
That is only partially true. I certainly cannot copy your photo and present/sell it as mine. However, I can USE your photo, in whole or in part, according to copyright law, if I significantly alter it for my expression. (Yes, there are court cases over the interpretation of this). I can also use your your photo for educational purposes to some extent, what is called "Fair Use" in copyright law.
When I have used photos posted here to explain an idea or as part of my own work, I have broken no law. The RULES here, however, are a different matter.
The concept of copyright is to protect a creator, without stifling creativity. There is much grayness in that, no?
Dec 12, 2019 00:24:52 #
rwoodvira wrote:
Definitely a no-no. Each work good or bad is the sole property of the photographer unless he gives permission.
Very true … some individuals/experts have even been kicked out of groups for crossing that line... ;-) …
Dec 12, 2019 01:38:08 #
JoeJoe wrote:
Very true … some individuals/experts have even been kicked out of groups for crossing that line... ;-) …
In the case of artBob, he was excluded from FYC because he did nothing to assuage our concerns. He didn't give a clear apology for the annoyance that he'd caused and he didn't acknowledge that his additions to people's images had the potential to carry on causing annoyance in the future. He was given several opportunities to do both of those things, but instead he showed that all he was interested in was self-justification. That reinforced the concern that he would continue to be a liability in the future, and every time he persists in his attempts at self-justification it confirms in my mind that excluding him was the right course of action.
In addition to the above, artBob has continued to insult and attack several UHH members both on the forum and via PM. Every time he does these things it's more confirmation that excluding him was the right course of action. To say that he continues to be a liability is an understatement.
Dec 12, 2019 08:25:41 #
R.G. wrote:
In the case of artBob, he was excluded from FYC be... (show quote)
Of course that's your side.
I suggest people decide for themselves. Here's the end of the thread: https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-618133-6.html
Dec 12, 2019 08:29:37 #
artBob wrote:
Of course that's your side.
I suggest people decide for themselves. Here's the end of the thread: https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-618133-6.html
I suggest people decide for themselves. Here's the end of the thread: https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-618133-6.html
For "The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth" post copies of the mentioned PMs also.
Dec 12, 2019 08:33:40 #
Rich1939 wrote:
For "The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth" post copies of the mentioned PMs also.
He's there. You can also backtrack. It's right before I sent a post explaining why he had failed as a moderator which caused him to ban me and the post disappear.
Some do find me a "liability."
Dec 12, 2019 08:44:13 #
artBob wrote:
He's there. You can also backtrack. It's right before I sent a post explaining why he had failed as a moderator which caused him to ban me and the post disappear.
Some do find me a "liability."
Some do find me a "liability."
Evasion and obfuscation.
You should seek help.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.