Please read my post 'Wahawk'.
.

Read my post 'Wahawk'

Please read my complete post 'wahawk'. I read yours. In my contribution to the thread I courteously credited you with your reference.

Nice, easy  responses.

Or are they...? This is a compex issue. Even if - or because - there are some UHH members so cynical they don't take their photography,  and thereby their photographs
in any  way seriously.

'Wahawk' is right of course. UHH site rules are clear. All else is plagiarism. Members who do not bother to read the site regulations or who respond without properly reading other members' contributions cannot blame UHH or fellow contributors.

But what about ethical issues behind the thread question...? This had become 
a problem since the mass acceptance of digital photography and the slick
 unaccountability of the Interweb.

Physically engaging with an  image to the point of altering or modifying it is always a subjective  action, even if done with 'good intention'; or on request, by a misunderstanding of implied acquiesence in a forums like UHH.

It is also unquestionably subjective with professionals in a proper print publication submission where photographs are sub-edited by a design journalist in an environment where genuine digital image file sizes are mandatory to allow cropping to publication style,  story relevance and page space. That said, art department embellishment and, or, alteration is expected to be inherently minimal. The photographer must keep IQ in mind at all times as well as envisage, take, and submit as expressively good an image as quickly as possible, often within minutes of taking a sequence. 

Blogs, Vanity Publishing and so much of Interweb imagery can be mostly cathartic hobby   indulgence.  Digital technology  and 'politically correct ' cultural shifts have changed the economics of photography. This has challenged the values and validity of professionals and re-badged amateur photography. But there are delineations: Would you be so crass as to take a marker pen to a salon or photo club print exhibition to demonstrate how 'better' you would have presented  a mounted image..?

How would tempered media artists respond if you took a scalpel and thinners brush to their framed oil triptych, or 'altered a watercolour wash'...?

Needless to point out too that an artist, professional or amateur, might not enjoy you removing, copying, using or modfying an image.

Viewng, analysing, appreciating and  commenting on images - be they tempered, photographic or any graphic art form is splendid and commendable interaction.  Many artists, critics, reviewers and interested experts have written about this. In words. But  not usually by changing the structure of a Van Gogh or Norman Lindsay painting, or by manipulating a Man Ray or Cartier  Breson photograph with potassium ferricyanide, or by removing or adding detail to a published or exhibited print collection. That would be an arrogance beyond the dictum that "Those who can, do; and those who cannot, either preach or attempt to teach." 

Surely a good art commentator and teacher  - or any other tutor  must so understand what they are doing, saying, that they can explain it objectively in Plain English....?

But  uness we are students at university,  or art school, technical college - or below - surely an image has the right to  live as it was  envisaged, expressed, presented by the person who made it...?

Unless a painter or photographer has surrendered an image, is not the point at issue in this thread a question of morality...? It might take more thought and effort, but isn't it more valuable that we comment, remark, argue our responses using articulate language in conversation or on record in a public forum like this...?

Can it be that image appropriation by UHH members, complacently or otherwise, is a default position?

We do not enjoy universally accepted IP standards. There seems to be only lip service given to the relevant UHH rules, with no due democratic process on this site. Any didactic, righteous response is meaningless. If some UHH members are happy to let their images be used, exploited or abused unconditionally, freely, by whomever, then so be it.  

But at the very least, common courtesy and social ethics demand acknowledgement of both the photographer and the Ugly Hedgehog source site itself..?
.

Nice, easy  responses.

Or are they...? This is a compex issue. Even if - or because - there are some UHH members so cynical they don't take their photography,  and thereby their photographs
in any  way seriously.

'Wahawk' is right of course. UHH site rules are clear. All else is plagiarism

But what about the ethical issue behind the thread question...? It has become 
a problem since the mass acceptance of digital photography and the slick
 unaccountability of the Interweb.

Physically engaging with an  image to the point of altering or modifying it is always a subjective  action, even if done with 'good intention'; or on request, by a misunderstanding of implied acquiesence in a forum such as  this - or with jusifiable profesionals, in a proper print publication submission and sub-edited by a design journalist in an environment where genuine digital image file sizes are mandatory to allow cropping to publication style,  story relevance and page space. That said, art department embellishment and, or alteration is expected to be at a minimum. The photographer must keep IQ in mind at all times as well as envisage, take, and submit as expressively good an image as quickly as possible, often within minutes of taking a sequence. 

Blogs, Vanity Publishing and so much of Interweb imagery can be mostly cathartic hobby   indulgence.  Digital technology  and 'politically correct ' cultural shifts have changed the economics of amateur photography. But there are delineations: Would you be so crass as to take a marker pen to a salon or photo club print exhibition to demonstrate how 'better' you would have presented  a mounted iage..?

How would tempered media artists respond if you took a scalpel and thinners brush to their framed oil triptych, or 'altered the wash' on a watercolour..?

Needless to point out too that an artist might not enjoy you removing, copying, using or modfying an image.

Viewng, analysing, appreciating and  commenting on images - be they tempered, photographic or any graphic art form is splendid and commendable interaction.  Many artists, critics, reviewers and interested experts have written about this. In words. But  not usually by changing a Van Gogh or Norman Lindsay painting, or manipulating a Man Ray or Cartier  Breson photograph with potassium ferricyanide, or by removing or adding detail to a published or exhibited print collection. That would be an arrogance beyond the dictum that "Those who can, do; and those who cannot, either preach or attempt to teach." 

Surely a good art commentator and teacher  - or any other tutor  must so understand what they are doing, saying, that they can explain it objectively in Plain English....?

But  uness we are students at university,  or art school, technical college - or below - surely an image has the right to  live as it was  envisaged, expressed, presented by the person who made it...?

Is it not more valuable that we comment, remark, argue responses using articulate language....?

If it is implicit on this site that members' images are to be used unconditionally, freely, by whomever, then so be it.  But at the very least, common courtesy and social ethics demand acknowledgement of both the photographer and the Ugly Hedgehog source site itself..?

Nice, easy  responses.

Or are they...? This is a compex issue. Even if - or because - there are some UHH members so cynical they don't take their photography,  and thereby their photographs
in any  way seriously.

'Wahawk' is right of course. UHH site rules are clear. All else is plagiarism

But what about the ethical issue behind the thread question...? It has become 
a problem since the mass acceptance of digital photography and the slick
 unaccountability of the Interweb.

Physically engaging with an  image to the point of altering or modifying it is always a subjective  action, even if done with 'good intention'; or on request, by a misunderstanding of implied acquiesence in a forum such as  this - or with jusifiable profesionals, in a proper print publication submission and sub-edited by a design journalist in an environment where genuine digital image file sizes are mandatory to allow cropping to publication style,  story relevance and page space. That said, art department embellishment and, or alteration is expected to be at a minimum. The photographer must keep IQ in mind at all times as well as envisage, take, and submit as expressively good an image as quickly as possible, often within minutes of taking a sequence. 

Blogs, Vanity Publishing and so much of Interweb imagery can be mostly cathartic hobby   indulgence.  Digital technology  and 'politically correct ' cultural shifts have changed the economics of amateur photography. But there are delineations: Would you be so crass as to take a marker pen to a salon or photo club print exhibition to demonstrate how 'better' you would have presented  a mounted iage..?

How would tempered media artists respond if you took a scalpel and thinners brush to their framed oil triptych, or 'altered the wash' on a watercolour..?

Needless to point out too that an artist might not enjoy you removing, copying, using or modfying an image.

Viewng, analysing, appreciating and  commenting on images - be they tempered, photographic or any graphic art form is splendid and commendable interaction.  Many artists, critics, reviewers and interested experts have written about this. In words. But  not usually by changing a Van Gogh or Norman Lindsay painting, or manipulating a Man Ray or Cartier  Breson photograph with potassium ferricyanide, or by removing or adding detail to a published or exhibited print collection. That would be an arrogance beyond the dictum that "Those who can, do; and those who cannot, either preach or attempt to teach." 

Surely a good art commentator and teacher  - or any other tutor  must so understand what they are doing, saying, that they can explain it objectively in Plain English....?

But  uness we are students at university,  or art school, technical college - or below - surely an image has the right to  live as it was  envisaged, expressed, presented by the person who made it...?

Is it not more valuable that we comment, remark, argue responses using articulate language....?

If it is implicit on this site that members' images are to be used unconditionally, freely, by whomever, then so be it.  But at the very least, common courtesy and social ethics demand acknowledgement of both the photographer and the Ugly Hedgehog source site itself..?

Quite right too.. :thumbup: :!:

I agree. :)

Nice, easy  responses.

Or are they...? This is a compex issue. 'Wahawk's point is valid. This site's caveat is important

Physically engaging with an  image to the point of altering or modifying it is always a subjective  action, even if done with 'good intention'; or on request, by implied acquiesence in a forum such as  this - or with jusifiable profesionals, in a proper print publication submission and sub-edited by a design journalist in an environment where genuine digital image file sizes are mandatory to allow cropping to publication style,  story relevance and page space. That said, art department embellishment and, or alteration is expected to be at a minimum. The photographer must keep IQ in mind at all times as well as envisage, take, and submit as expressively good an image as quickly as possible, often within minutes of taking a sequence. 

Blogs, Vanity Publishing and so much of Interweb imagery can be mostly cathartic hobby   indulgence.  Digital technology  and 'politically correct ' cultural shifts have changed the economics of amateur photography. But there are delineations: Would you be so crass as to take a marker pen to a salon or photo club print exhibition to demonstrate how 'better' you would have presented  a mounted iage..?

How would tempered media artists respond if you took a scalpel and thinners brush to their framed oil triptych, or 'altered the wash' on a watercolour..?

Needless to point out too that an artist might not enjoy you removing, copying, using or modfying an image.

Viewng, analysing, appreciating and  commenting on images - be they tempered, photographic or any graphic art form is splendid and commendable interaction.  Many artists, critics, reviewers and interested experts have written about this. In words. But  not usually by changing a Van Gogh or Norman Lindsay painting, or manipulating a Man Ray or Cartier  Breson photograph with potassium ferricyanide, or by removing or adding detail. That would be an arrogance beyond the dictum that "Those who can, do; and those who cannot, preach or attempt to teach." 

Surly a good art commentator and teacher  - or any other teacher must so understand what they are doing, saying, that they can explain it objectively in Plain English....?

But  uness we are students at university,  or art school, technical college - or below - surely an image has the right to  live as it was  envisaged, expressed, presented by the person who made it...?

Is it not more valuable that we comment, remark, argue responses using articulate language....?

It is neither stated nor implicit on this site that members' images are to be used unconditionally, freely, by whomever.  At the very least, common courtesy and social ethics demand acknowledgement of both the photographer and the Ugly Hedgehog source site itself.
.

Nice, easy  responses.

Or are they...?

This is a compex issue.

Physically engaging with an  image to the point of altering or modifying it is always a subjective  action, even if done with 'good intention'; or on request, by implied acquiesence in a forum such as  this - or with jusifiable profesionals, in a proper print publication submission and sub-edited by a design journalist in an environment where genuine digital image file sizes are mandatory to allow cropping to publication style,  story relevance and page space. That said, art department embellishment and, or alteration is expected to be at a minimum. The photographer must keep IQ in mind at all times as well as envisage, take, and submit as expressively good an image as quickly as possible, often within minutes of taking a sequence. 

Blogs, Vanity Publishing and so much of Interweb imagery can be mostly cathartic hobby   indulgence.  Digital technology  and 'politically correct ' cultural shifts have changed the economics of amateur photography. But there are delineations: Would you be so crass as to take a marker pen to a salon or photo club print exhibition to demonstrate how 'better' you would have presented  a mounted iage..?

How would tempered media artists respond if you took a scalpel and thinners brush to their framed oil triptych, or 'altered the wash' on a watercolour..?

Needless to point out too that an artist might not enjoy you removing, copying, using or modfying an image.

Viewng, analysing, appreciating and  commenting on images - be they tempered, photographic or any graphic art form is splendid and commendable interaction.  Many artists, critics, reviewers and interested experts have written about this. In words. But  not usually by changing a Van Gogh or Norman Lindsay painting, or manipulating a Man Ray or Cartier  Breson photograph with potassium ferricyanide, or by removing or adding detail. That would be an arrogance beyond the dictum that "Those who can, do; and those who cannot, preach or attempt to teach." 

Surly a good art commentator and teacher  - or any other teacher must so understand what they are doing, saying, that they can explain it objectively in Plain English....?

But  uness we are students at university,  or art school, technical college - or below - surely an image has the right to  live as it was  envisaged, expressed, presented by the person who made it...?

Is it not more valuable that we comment, remark, argue responses using articulate language....?

If it is implicit on this site that members' images are to be used unconditionally, freely, by whomever, then so be it.  But at the very least, common courtesy and social ethics demand acknowledgement of both the photographer and the Ugly Hedgehog source site itself..?
.

You'll invite a mess of different and disparate answers and advice with a generalised question like this. Copyright, Intellectual Property and Media Law can be exceptionally complex. Digital photographic mediums and the shallow morality of the Internet complicate things further.

Unless it is a commission contract under Law any 'fine print' first use guarantees are useless if your image is given subsequent currency over which you have no control.

At the very least try always to have the first-use purchaser accept in writing
responsibility for what is quintessentially your property. Unless you have accepted a Peppercorn Dollar fee and signed away all rights.

The Concepts and Elements of Intellectual Copyright Law are mostly synonymous in Western democracies, especially those that have inherited the Roman-Norman-Westminister Rule of Common Law.

Embedding marks and micro data in pixel structure digital images is a small deterrent against people who are otherwise ethical and honest, but not against the dishonest. "Watermarks" and codes can be removed and proprietary ownership stolen through cropping and that Adobe devil-demon-angel Photoshop.

Nor are large pixel count proof files the answer. Don't be misled and opt to use cheap, sub-standard sensor sizes in favour of facile "high teens" pixel count images. Sensor size remains paramount for most pro print photography such as photojournalism and fine detail signature embedding.

Adding a plagiarism-proof signature to an image is now more of a pain than ever. Digital imagery is still relatively primitive in terms of fine detail.

Film is aways a smoother option, but there are limits. A wet-plate Collodion process might be the ultimate; but hopelessly this is an impractical answer :)

And then there's the near impossible task of monitoring all publications around the Globe to check whether your image has been used.

Professional freelance journalists most often work through a reputable agency that will fight to uphold copyright, chase multiple use fees and serve you well. Agencies like Alamy are exacting, but that's what professionalism is all about. Believe me, the commission per centage fee is well worth it.

Journalists and photojournalists who have studied at tertiary level and qualified through indentured training are accredited by professioal associations, guilds and unions that work to represent members on copyright issues.

Winning a salon or club competition is commendable, but the prize has little merit in the continuum of professional photography and photojournalism.

Of course, you can go it alone and try your luck. But know that things won't be getting easier.

The Internet is a bedchamber of horrors when it comes to copyright. Every day there are new challenges. For example:

http://petapixel.com/2014/01/12/plagiarized-art-portfolios-now-just-one-click-away/

You'd be best advised to research your options. To begin with you might seriously consider applying to a good agency.

Choose from a list approved by a Press Association or a journalist-photojournalist union.

Your local newspaper could be a good place to inquire. Ask to talk with a staff photographer.
.

http://player.vimeo.com/video/31549908?autoplay=1
 

You'll have a great time Downunder. We have a lot of affection here for our Kiwi cousins across TheTasman.
Lonely Planet had a great, back-packable guide to NZ, incidentally.
It's arguably one of the most breathtakingly beautiful countries on Earth.
Buy a Hayley Westernra CD with 'Pokare Kare ana' included on the tracks before you leave. Learn the words and music. You'll be inspired by the sheer beauty of the countryside and the welcome of the people to want to sing it within three days of arriving. I single out Westernra because not only is she a talented soprano who effortlessly bridges the gaps between Classical music, folk, popular and cultural ballads, but she is a splendid cultural ambassadress and national icon. She was among the frst to arrive and lend a hand in Chrstchurch after the devastating February 2011 earthquake.
Not to stretch too fine a point, we Australians regard New Zelanders fondly in and similar a bit to the way I noticed friends Stateside talking about Canadians when I was there: We take the piss out of (rib) each other mercilessly, but defend each other hotly if 'foreigners' dare criticise.
Frankly, as far as many Aussies are concened, New Zealanders are really "too nice"...!
That's something else you have to be in Taupo and elsewhere, just about anywhere on both islands, to appreciate.
Have a bonzer time.

From the ocean...? Even worse. You know what they say about leading whores to water...!

Always best to have the whores in front. Unless......
Then again, at Christmastime it woud be discourteous to reject a whore as a present no matter what your position.
Unless you once lived in Melbourne - or in Texas USA- because as we all know you shoud never for-sook a gift whores in the south.