Misuse of My Photos in PlaniTulsa Presentations

[Ttowndad]

dsjeffries- Glad you got this resolved.  Happened to me once on the other side--oops.  Nice shots though

[TheArtist]

"provided that you don't modify the work"...

Now wait a minute. I always thought that if you took something and modified it sufficiently you in essence created a new work. A 25% change, whatever that means, would suffice to make it a completely original work. Think Warhol taking the Campbells Soup Can and using it to make a new work. Or if an artist took a photo or famous painting then made it look like a cartoon or an impressionistic version.

If I post this pic and label it

flickr photo by dsjeffries


Is that ok?

How bout if I make it smaller like this... Isnt that a modification? Would I have to ask permission to modify it in that way or to use it now?

Photo by dsjeffries, from flickr.


How bout if I made 2 modifications, crop and distort? Is it mine or his? Do I have to ask permission to do so and to post it?



Could I now do this...?

"Spanish Tile" by William The Artist...


Or would I have to credit dsjeffries with the photo and ask permission?

How bout this contemporary version of a Warhol type thing? Same image color changed and used multiple times? Would look neat done large over a couch in a contemporary loft lol. Should I have asked permission to modify the image lol, to have posted this image, or sell it?

[Hoss]

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

"provided that you don't modify the work"...

Now wait a minute. I always thought that if you took something and modified it sufficiently you in essence created a new work. A 25% change, whatever that means, would suffice to make it a completely original work. Think Warhol taking the Campbells Soup Can and using it to make a new work. Or if an artist took a photo or famous painting then made it look like a cartoon or an impressionistic version.

If I post this pic and label it

flickr photo by dsjeffries


Is that ok?

How bout if I make it smaller like this... Isnt that a modification? Would I have to ask permission to modify it in that way or to use it now?

Photo by dsjeffries, from flickr.


How bout if I made 2 modifications, crop and distort? Is it mine or his? Do I have to ask permission to do so and to post it?



Could I now do this...?

"Spanish Tile" by William The Artist...


Or would I have to credit dsjeffries with the photo and ask permission?

How bout this contemporary version of a Warhol type thing? Same image color changed and used multiple times? Would look neat done large over a couch in a contemporary loft lol. Should I have asked permission to modify the image lol, to have posted this image, or sell it?

You're still deriving it, hence the 'derivative' part of the commons license.

If you were to cut that part of the Mona Lisa that were recognizable (which most is anyway) and try to call it your own, would you get away with it?  Doubtful.  That's MY point.

And modification doesn't mean internet resizing.  Any html code can resize an image, but ultimately can be tracked back to the base image.  You're even more in the wrong if you take the image and put it in another location and resize it that way.

I see where he gets upset over this.  In the long run, it might be better for him to watermark all his images, that way there's NEVER any doubt who it belongs to.

[Porky]

quote:Originally posted by dsjeffries

I've refrained from posting this until now, but my aggravation has gotten the better of me.

Several weeks ago, when I went to the PlaniTulsa website to register for last night's workshop, I discovered that one of my photos had been used without permission.  It's a photo of St John Medical Center, and is on the Register page.

It's common place here but just look upon it as pride in what you shoot. "AMP" just did it to me a couple of weeks ago.

http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=11165

When people do this it shows what liars they are and just gives you more respect in what you offer. []

[TheArtist]

"  You're still deriving it, hence the 'derivative' part of the commons license.

If you were to cut that part of the Mona Lisa that were recognizable (which most is anyway) and try to call it your own, would you get away with it? Doubtful. That's MY point.  "




You could absolutely call it your own. And thats MY point lol.

This is a very famous work by Duchamp


How bout this one by Warhol...


How many times have you seen this famous image redone? Dozens of times in lots of different ways.



This is an original work of art.


And these...







I would say that the "cropped and distorted" image was Transformative, not Derivative. I would absolutely say that of the "Spanish Tile" work as well.

This from... http://wise-old-sage.blog-city.com/gaiman_joint_authorship_and_transformative_works.htm

"The question of transformative works is whether a truly derivative work- one that actually uses an original work as a basis for a new work- has transcended the influence of the original and established a presence and importance all its own, nearly independent of the original work. The derivative rights of an author are to protect the exploitation of their efforts, but, when a transformative work distances itself from the original with sufficient force, there is no exploitation to protect. It becomes a truly independent work in the minds of the public.

The case that gives the best example of "transformative use" took the term from copyright and applied it in a case of right of publicity. (Comedy III Prods. Inc. v. Gary Saderup, Inc., 21 P.3d 797 (Cal. 2001).) That case used a pure example of transformative use in the world recognized artwork of Marilyn Monroe done by Andy Warhol. Clearly, the photocopied and colorized images of Marilyn were directly taken from the copyrighted photograph owned by the photographer who took them. By rights, the photographer should be able to protect his property from unauthorized derivative works made from his originals in as far as they impact his economic rights. But the artistry and "Pop Art" quality of the new creations was so original and unique that Mr. Warhol transcended the arena where the copyrights of the photograph could extend and entered a completely different realm. Someone looking at or buying a Warhol print is in no way intending to buy that photo of Marilyn. It's a wholly different object and so isn't an infringement of the photographer's copyright. "



From... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appropriation_(art)

"The painting's use does not 'supersede' or duplicate the objective of the original," the judge wrote, "but uses it as raw material in a novel way to create new information, new esthetics and new insights. Such use, whether successful or not artistically, is transformative."

The "Crop and distort" and "Spanish Tile", uses the original photo in a novel way to create new information, new esthetics and new insights....

[MDepr2007]

Sad that the photographer is actually paying this guy to use his pictures.
Don't forget who is drawing a paycheck with PlaniTulsa.

[dsjeffries]

quote:Originally posted by MDepr2007

Sad that the photographer is actually paying this guy to use his pictures.
Don't forget who is drawing a paycheck with PlaniTulsa.

Huh?

[Hoss]

quote:Originally posted by dsjeffries

quote:Originally posted by MDepr2007

Sad that the photographer is actually paying this guy to use his pictures.
Don't forget who is drawing a paycheck with PlaniTulsa.

Huh?

Nevermind MDdepr2007; this poster rarely makes sense...

[:O]

[carltonplace]

You never know what you are gonna learn on this crazy forum.

[MDepr2007]

quote:Originally posted by dsjeffries

quote:Originally posted by MDepr2007

Sad that the photographer is actually paying this guy to use his pictures.
Don't forget who is drawing a paycheck with PlaniTulsa.

Huh?

You= Photographer
You let PlainiTulsa use photos for free.
PlaniTulsa uses said free photos to make a presentation .
Tulsa pays PlaniTulsa for their work including the presentation.

I could understand if it was really a meeting that was just made up of Tulsans and you would donate the use but someone is getting paid and that person should pay for items they use to perform the job they get paid for.

IMO

[dsjeffries]

Ok, I guess you're saying as a taxpayer, I'm paying them to use my photos... Gotcha. I think.

They offered me a licensing fee, so I'm not paying for it..

[MichaelBates]

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist


I noticed Bates doesnt even allow you to save any of his photos on flickr. I suppose he must want to sell them. Either that or he thinks they are veeeeeeery special and shouldnt be for common use lol.[8D]

William, my photos on Flickr are saveable and linkable. I just logged out of Flickr and tried it. You can access all sizes, including the original resolution. What's the problem?

[TheArtist]

quote:Originally posted by MichaelBates

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist


I noticed Bates doesnt even allow you to save any of his photos on flickr. I suppose he must want to sell them. Either that or he thinks they are veeeeeeery special and shouldnt be for common use lol.[8D]

William, my photos on Flickr are saveable and linkable. I just logged out of Flickr and tried it. You can access all sizes, including the original resolution. What's the problem?

Ok, perhaps I am completely loopy. Didnt you have a bunch of neat skyline photos of Downtown Tulsa? I thought I even remembered some that had lightning in them? They were some really well done photos and I thought I remembered they were yours and that I couldnt download them and was like "drats!"... I actually remembered running across them several times. I just did a quick look at your photos and couldnt find anything remotely like what I remember lol. Egads, I must be losing it.   "Whats the problem?" You tell me lol. [8D]
However, some days I can search through literally tens of thousands of images, so getting who did what mixed up might happen. But I am usually pretty accurate in remembering images and who did them. My apologies.

[TheArtist]

Just ran across the guy and the pics I was mistaking you for Michael.  I have no idea how I was thinking David Schuttler was you lol.

He takes some really interesting pics.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/ourtulsaworld/796412863/in/set-72157604205285138/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/ourtulsaworld/2769224863/in/photostream/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/ourtulsaworld/2445420699/