Your images here & the internal risks they suffer

[Heroique]

I have an ethical question about the personal images we post here.

(And I mean this as an internal, ethical issue – not an external, legal one.)

What should happen if a forum member posts a personal image, and a second member takes it, changes it significantly w/o permission, and re-posts it?

Better, what if the first poster had stated a preference that this not be done?

As we know, this is a public forum, so there are fewer protections against this. Post your image, take your chance. However, it’s also a moderated forum, whose rules presumably bring back some of those protections. For the situation I’ve just described, I don’t think there’s a specific rule – only general ones about being polite and respectful. As far as I can tell, it’s simply the moderator’s call.

-----
So here’s my question – directed mainly to our image posters:

If the original poster asks the forum to remove the manipulated image – even if the manipulation was simply done for self-serving laughs – shouldn’t the forum be obligated to do so? Could any principle be more clear?

And if no forum obligation exists, then doesn’t this reduce, and possibly shatter the likelihood of people sharing useful images of any kind here, especially ones they care about?

[Leigh]

We had a similar situation happen rather recently. I don't recall the final resolution.
Someone posted a photo, and another member took it and created artwork (?painting?) based on it. Same photo but different medium.

You hold copyright to your images unconditionally, unless you specifically relinquish it.
As such, you have the legal right to request that a moderator remove any image or copy that infringes your copyright. That's the law.

I believe the Conditions of Use on this and most photography sites affirms that copyright interpretation.

That consideration aside, I don't post my best photos online anywhere, not even on my Zenfolio pages.

- Leigh

[John Koehrer]

But it's no longer the same artwork. Remember the Marlboro man that sold for $N.
The original photographer got bupkis. That was also commercial work.

Guess it depends how good your lawyers are.

[rdenney]

But it's no longer the same artwork. Remember the Marlboro man that sold for $N.
The original photographer got bupkis. That was also commercial work.

Guess it depends how good your lawyers are.

Since 1979, and in the U.S. (it's different elsewhere), the originator of an original tangible expression owns the copyright to that expression unless he relinquishes it in writing. There are two general exceptions. One is called a fair use, which only applies to an excerpt that does not have independent commercial value used for educational or critical purposes. A low-resolution or poorly reproduced photo used to write a review would be an example of fair use.

The other exception is work for hire. Employees do not own their own intellectual property unless they have an agreement in place with their employers that says they do. A contract photographer would have a contract that should stipulate who owns the copyright.

But the Marlboro Man photograph was made before the Copyright Act of 1978 went into effect, and at that time, the rules were quite different. So, the outcome of that case might not be relevant to the current issue.

On the topic, I believe that forum users should respect the integrity of a posted photo, unless the photographer specifically invites such editing. In good faith, someone might offer the editing mistakenly, in which case that person should ask the moderators to remove it when requested. Or the moderators should be willing to remove it if requested by the original image maker, unless that person had, when presenting the image, invited such editing. This does not seem to me particularly contentious, nor does it need a resolution of copyright law.

By the way, copyright applies to derivative works, too. That includes crops, manipulations, and direct conversions to different media.

Rick "knowing of one photography forum where each participant must declare whether image editing is allowed or not for their images" Denney

[Heroique]

Fine remarks, Rick & others above.

I haven’t posted here what I consider to be my best images, I’m just too protective. On the other hand, I’ve always been under the impression that the images I do post here – and which I still care deeply about – have enjoyed moderated protections against internal tampering. The realization that this may not be the case reduces my willingness to share them – even when I see a chance to help another forum member by doing so.

And if anyone’s reaction is stronger than my own, this very realization may do more than just “reduce” their willingness; it may very well smash it to smithereens. To be sure, the more people who become aware of this situation, the less help & sharing will be offered to this forum with images.

[Leigh]

On the other hand, I’ve always been under the impression that the images I do post here – and which I still care deeply about – have enjoyed moderated protections against internal tampering. The realization that this may not be the case reduces my willingness to share them

Pardon me, but I think you have completely misunderstood or misconstrued all of the responses.

Every one above has asserted that the images are unquestionably your property, and will be protected as such. Kirk's post of the forum rules confirms that.

- Leigh

[Heroique]

I understand the legal issues at hand, they’re perfectly comprehensible, and the remarks so far about these issues have been clearly stated.

My remarks mean to address the issue as an internal, ethical one at this site.

Please see above.

For example, I’ve been in a situation before in this forum, even recently, where I’ve requested that manipulated images of mine be taken down, and the moderator here that I contacted said, “I’m not going to make changes, but you might consider trying to take it up w/ someone else here.” This suggests, as I indicate above, that a “moderator’s call” is what controls this type of internal situation here – not a clearly stated guideline, including Kirk’s quoted legal text above.

This type of experience has the potential to reduce anyone’s motivation to post images here. What I’m pointing out, I don’t view as a legal matter – what I’m describing is a very different issue, but a related one. It’s a broad issue that can put this forum at risk as a means for us to help one another, not just a narrow issue that can put any one individual’s work in danger of being changed by someone and displayed for good, at the whim of a moderator.

[Heroique]

I’ve been in a situation before in this forum, even recently, where I’ve requested that manipulated images of mine be taken down, and the moderator here that I contacted said, “I’m not going to make changes, but you might consider trying to take it up w/ someone else here.” This suggests, as I indicate above, that a “moderator’s call” is what controls this type of internal situation here – not a clearly stated guideline, including Kirk’s quoted legal text above. This type of experience has the potential to reduce anyone’s motivation to post images here...

OK. That’s a problem. You’ll obviously avoid that site in the future. ...I’d ask my attorney to send an email to the site owner suggesting that he remove the offending image to avoid legal action.

Irony?

[Heroique]

In view of Kirk’s terse comment, I think it may be important to flesh-out the most recent of the “situations” I mentioned above, leave it in less mystery, and make the broader issue more clear. Below is the final portion of an exchange of PMs in which I’m requesting that a moderator here remove images of mine that have been manipulated and re-posted to the forum.

Keep in mind, this is a recent example about me (the narrow issue), but I think it’s symptomatic of the broader issue of this thread. In other words, due to the nature of the following exchange, my motivation to post personal images here has significantly dropped; and if others are going through similar experiences, my drop in motivation could, or might become more general.

These were the final two PMs:

Hi [Moderator],

Yes, the vitriol does get bad at times around here, and I admire your work that helps settle it.

I also agree that [Poster’s] posts are merely self-serving and sarcastic, but the broken principle is what rather concerns me, and remains on my mind.

I would still like the posts deleted in view of this.

If I had known that [my request to members not to change my image], as polite as it is, can be infringed w/o possibility of being addressed, I would not have posted it in the first place. Just for quick comparison, I have other posts where I ask people to help change an image, and in those cases too, I would still object to the type of sarcasm shown here. The difference in this case, of course, is that I stated my preference that changes not be made.

I hope you can understand my thoughts about this and can address them.

Next, the moderator’s final reply:

Perhaps another of the moderators would like to help here. I am reluctant to intervene.

-----
After these final words, I dropped it as an issue to keep pursuing, except as a more general topic for a thread; but I should add that since my post immediately above, the “poster” graciously contacted me to say that he would contact the moderators himself about this very example. Not sure if that will settle any issues – narrow or broad – but perhaps it will...

[David Hedley]

For example, I’ve been in a situation before in this forum, even recently, where I’ve requested that manipulated images of mine be taken down, and the moderator here that I contacted said, “I’m not going to make changes, but you might consider trying to take it up w/ someone else here.”

Heroique - can you give more specific details of that recent situation on this forum?