Shasoc wrote:
The etymology of the word Photography actually comes from the Greek;
"phōs", φῶς , meaning "light" and "graphē" ,γραφή, meaning "writing,"
The light is your brush and the sensor is your canvas.
Socrate
Not exactly correct. There was no word for “photography” in the antecedent Greek. A English speaker combined two independent Greek-rooted terms “photo” and “graph: and fused them to invent a new word.
If the other contemporary proposals for terms including ”heliograph” and “sun print“ had caught on, I imagine that we’d be arguing about whether the use of enlargers with electric bulbs created something that was not “photography.” ;-)
the OP wrote:
Call this whatever you want. Who the hell cares?
You, apparently, given that you started the thread. ;-)
The term “derivative work” exists in copyright law, and is likely one good starting point for thinking about your original question and about some of the IP issues raised by AI use.
ruthenium wrote:
Dan, I fail to understand your argument.
Some words have changed meaning - this is correct.
Have ALL words changed their meaning - no.
If some words changed meaning, shall we expect that other words must be expected to change their meaning - not necessarily.
Are you arguing that the meaning of the word "photograph" has ALREADY changed its original meaning?
Are you arguing that the meaning of the word "photograph" is changing PRESENTLY?
Or maybe you propose that we should consider redefining the meaning of the word "photography" for future use (that I should disagree with)?
Basically, the fact (of changed meaning of some words) that you correctly acknowledged has no bearing on whether the meaning of the word "photograph" should be understood differently from the original meaning....Show more →
My point is that arguing that “photography” is limited in some way in 2026 because Herschel’s term, a then-convenient portmanteau of two Greek roots referring to light and writing (or drawing), won out over other alternatives that were in use two centuries ago to describe the medium serves no purpose. It is absurd to claim, essentially, that “Since Herschel combined greek roots meaning light and [something written/drawn], photography will now be required to use light to draw or write.”
I thought this might be clear from the other examples I provided of words whose meaning has radically diverged from their roots. (There are _tons_ of them. For example, “computers” were originally people who calculated things. “”batteries were units of artillery, a “plane” was a flat surface, “ship” was a noun rather than a verb, and so on.)
In the end, “photography” is what photographers do and photographs are what photographers create. The tools and concepts used by photographers to create their photographs has and will continue to evolve.
- - -
Rather than obsessing over what is and is not a “photography,” a much more interesting and meaningful discussion has to do with the legal and ethical issues around what some have called the “sampling’ society where, more than in the past, new “work” can simply be the reorganization of old work… or considering the actual merit of some of the work created in this way, including some posted in this thread.
gdanmitchell wrote:
You, apparently, given that you started the thread. ;-)
Not enough to read your multiple verbose replies.
The term “derivative work” exists in copyright law, and is likely one good starting point for thinking about your original question and about some of the IP issues raised by AI use.
Think about it all you like. Too boring and unimportant for me.
Maybe discuss something more important like the difference between an emoticon and an emoji?
No, just because I posted that last line does not mean I care about it.
grandmas wrote:
I agree that it doesn't matter what we call a photograph or image, but those putting a c for copyright on their images might care when the copyright no longer means anything. I think this is the future and something to think about, but no one here seems to care,...is interesting.
I only put it on there as a habit. Nowadays it is absurd trying to enforce copyright infringement. What do you think you could do about some person in China or Russia copying your work? Do you think you could actually sue them by paying a lawyer thousands of dollars and then expect the infringer to actually pay you? Ridiculous.
I see no problem with cosmetic minor changes limited to removal and replacement of something "foreign" to a photographed scene, e.g. dust spot removal.
I am worried whether this is moral to "borrow" an image from elsewhere to add to your work and present as yours?
If the "borrowed" image originated from another human being, that would be called theft.
When the "borrowed" image comes from a machine, how this becomes morally acceptable to present as work produced by you?
Please, don't interpret my questions as a personal attack - I am genuingly interested in whether there is some moral ambiguity here....Show more →
Geez, give it a rest. It is my original photo with Photoshop & Topaz filters applied. No infringement that I know of.
Hope the morality police don't come after me. Can I put my copyright on it? Show me where it is illegal or immoral to do so.
ruthenium wrote:
Regarding the definition of a photograph as "the most reliably accurate representation of physical reality" - what color is the famous dress? https://share.google/SYBl4ru6vb5a7Mqbp
A photographic image is an illusion of reality (similar to painted art). What we see in a photo can be significantly the product of our imagination, or a play of light.
I believe that those who mastered the art of digital photography are capable of enhancing some of the illusionary aspects of photographic images through post-processing, to create impressive visual results without resorting to content replacement.
If the famous dress photograph was created using AI (it wasn't) there would be no dress, and no physical reality. People would still disagree about the color without any physical reference. In this case there would be no physical dress, that according to the Wikipedia article was "obviously blue and black" in reality, and people would be debating the color of something that never existed. Does it matter? Would there be any debate if everyone knew the dress does not exist? What would people think of a great "photograph" if they knew that some, most, or all of it has no connection to any real thing? If light reflected by a physical thing was not used to create the image, is the image really a "photograph" at all?
I agree with what you say about "enhancing some of the illusionary aspects of photographic images through post-processing", which was also done in darkrooms of the past. With regard to this thread it's my understanding that photograph content replacement, with AI generated content, is the issue.
ruthenium wrote:
Regarding the definition of a photograph as "the most reliably accurate representation of physical reality" - what color is the famous dress? https://share.google/SYBl4ru6vb5a7Mqbp
A photographic image is an illusion of reality (similar to painted art). What we see in a photo can be significantly the product of our imagination, or a play of light.
I believe that those who mastered the art of digital photography are capable of enhancing some of the illusionary aspects of photographic images through post-processing, to create impressive visual results without resorting to content replacement.
Is that a trick question? The dress figure is blue with some black fabric attached. There is a small section of material, probably an article of clothing, to the left of the dress that may or may not be a dress, but it's not the subject of the (bad) photo.
