I didn't think it was. This seems more like a case of trademark infringement than copyright infringement.Originally Posted by Leigh
Steve.
I didn't think it was. This seems more like a case of trademark infringement than copyright infringement.
Steve.
What is the essential difference between an image which has been selectively desaturated, and a B&W photo which has been selectively colored? The manipulation in both cases is minimal.
"It's the way to educate your eyes. Stare. Pry, listen, eavesdrop. Die knowing something. You are not here long." - Walker Evans
I used to make images similar to that (i.e. one part colored, the rest black and white) pretty often in the old days with film and a fume room using Kami masking fluid to mask the part to be colored and coloring in a toner or by hand-coloring. It was actually a very common practice. I'm surprised you've never seen anything like that.
Brian Ellis
Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you do criticize them you'll be
a mile away and you'll have their shoes.
I agree Brian. I haven't done it since I was an undergraduate, but fairly simple to do with hand coloring and masking fluid. I remember being given an assignment to do just such an image in Photo II at UNM 1970. I took a photo of a veteran's grave with a little American flag on it and just colored the flag. It took me just one evening.
Thanks,
Kirk
at age 73:
"The woods are lovely, dark and deep,
But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep,
And miles to go before I sleep"
A design department that I worked for ran into this exact thing. They didn't like the price for an image that was in photographer A's portfolio, so they hired a young photographer to do something in a similar style. Our legal dept. put the kabosh on it. They said the images weren't similar enough on their own to ruffle any feathers, but the fact that we had ASKED photographer A for a quote, and then declined, made it likely that we'd lose copyright suit.
Makes me think of the oft-repeated mantra around here: better to ask forgiveness than ask permission.
That seems to be the key idea here that solves the riddle, the idea that the two sides were in contact before the second photo was made (and there seems to have been other cases between these two). Absent that chain of events I'm not sure this would make any sense at all.
--Darin
I don't believe in copyright at all. It's nothing but protectionism. I'm sure that will ruffle many feathers here since photographers happen to be beneficiaries (sometimes) of this particular type of protectionism, but that doesn't make it right.
Science is what we understand well enough to explain to a computer. Art is everything else we do.
--A=B by Petkovšek et. al.
Only programmers don't believe in copyright because it is in their self-interest not to. Nothing noble or principled about it.
--Darin
As a programmer myself I can say that I do believe in copyright but not software patents. If you are a software developer and being paid by a company it's very much in your self interest to believe in copyright. Piracy means you don't get paid. Software patents are a totally different matter and I don't believe in those at all for very different reasons.Only programmers don't believe in copyright because it is in their self-interest not to. Nothing noble or principled about it.
--Darin
I agree completely. I think most programmers believe (out of self interest, among other things) copyrights good, software patents bad.
Mike → "Junior Liberatory Scientist" ✌
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks