One of the sister papers of ours (little local rag) has a photo today by a photog I know and have worked with of cars of a highway and what looks like an effect that can be done by zooming in with a slow shutter speed.
But unless he can stop cars doing 110km/h+ with 1/60th then he has used a PS filter to get the job done.
The other shooter for this paper is on his last warning for his behaviour in not working (buggers off for hours and isnt contactable) and for photoshopping in a cricket ball into a shot and getting caught.
So, do you consider using a PS filter to blur a photo not photography? Should this be a digital image?
Under our FairFax guidelines we arent allowed to use filters. Only crop, burn, dodge, levels, curves and colour balance. Being a daily paper we often dont have time to muck around with things like several layers and masks etc.
people counting it as a photograph is far less important then weather or not it break editorial ethics. He's obviously manipulated photos before far beyond what's considered ethical, and this sounds like he's done it again. I know that I'm not even allowed to clone out dust spots, something I could do in prints, so bluring a photo with a filter rather then in photoshop would be a definite no-no. I would probably be fired on the spot.
I think it depends on how the image was used. What was the purpose of the image? Does the filter's effect somehow impact the story that is being presented?
I can think of a way that the picture as described could be made in camera without any photoshop tricks. But without seeing the picture, it is almost useless to speculate. Also, much depends on the context. If the image is used generically and artisticly as an illustration and not as news, then the strict guidelines for news photos surely should not be applied.
You can legally, without violating copyright, scan and publish a small version of the picture here provided that it is for educational or scientific purposes. I suggest about 600 x 400. The context contained in your original post makes it clear that such a use here would clearly be for educational purposes.
Regarding fair use, the act provides factors to be considered: "1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such is of a commercial nature or is for non-profit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work."
Australian copyright law is undoubtedly very similar. Usage here would be non-commercial, non-profit, educational, low-res (equals low amount), and would not adversely affect the market or value of the image in any way.
