grantmichaels Offline Image Upload: Off
|
You photographers are quite strange about these things ...
Does anyone watch Mad TV, SNL, listen to remixed music or have Scream-based thematic house parties ... let alone a zillion and one other ports, rips, parodies, etc that invade our everyday lives ...
It's a bit out of hand w/ the photog's though (coming from a music background in my case), because it's so vague and arbitrary ... in music, they have come up w/ "orders of change from original" that determine if a remix is legally an infringement or not ... if you change 17% or more or something, than you can consider it a reworking and call it your own to some extent ... it goes something like that anyways ..
if i take a palm tree from one guy's picture, a cabana boy from another unrelated shot ... and a coconut from the fisheye test shots on canon's website ... make a collage in photoshop, and then paint a giant purple question mark over it ... who's creation is that? ...
When you photograph a building do you give credit to the architect who designed it, i mean, after all, that info is publicly available to you downtown ... it isn't your building ... you didn't design it ... if you take a photograph and the mcdonalds arches are in the background, do you get permission from mcdonalds before you print it? ...
i'm sorry, but i for one, would love to hear from a copyright lawyer on the actuality of the law and how it is typically used in court because i hear a lot of strong opinions but can never find the resources online to substantiate them ...
i'm not trying to be argumentative w/o reason, but i hear a lot of fighting about copyright law and very little documentation ...
gm
PS - i understand that photog's livelihood is wrapped up in their images to some extent, however, at once i find it counterproductive to spend more time worrying about the pictures you've taken in the past than concentrating on taking new ones to keep getting ahead ... but that is just my opinion of course ...
Edited on Nov 30, 2007 at 11:25 AM
|