Photoshop cut and paste aviation "art"

[rochie]

I see that he has pretty much removed his posts, but there are some valid points to people altering someone else's photo and claiming as their own. I have had it happen to me, as have many other photographers I know. If it is done without the copyright owner's permission, it is theft of the owner's intellectual property. Most photographers, if asked nicely, will usually allow their work to be used in artwork within reason. If it is done without their permission, they have a right to defend their work.

oh dont get me wrong Eric, i totally agree with what he was saying, personally i think the examples he posted were total rip off's of other peoples work and slightly altered for personal profit, but just felt his point had been made in several threads

 

[parsifal]

I see that he has pretty much removed his posts, but there are some valid points to people altering someone else's photo and claiming as their own. I have had it happen to me, as have many other photographers I know. If it is done without the copyright owner's permission, it is theft of the owner's intellectual property. Most photographers, if asked nicely, will usually allow their work to be used in artwork within reason. If it is done without their permission, they have a right to defend their work.

Eric i do get your point, my rant was really about the concept of "reasonable use".....and the law aside, when it is morally wrong to just steal someones work for the cudos. Sometimes though, people might be using the image for research or something similar. If the source of the image is properly acknowledged, and the use is not for profit or gain, I get a bit testy about being refused any access to that image. Sometimes there can be legitimate reasons for showing a detail from an image for some purpose. might be saying, for example "see there are no rivets here" or "the undercarriege works this way" Particularly relevant for modellers and the like

 

[evangilder]

I am not against that either. I have donated images to non-profits for use for things and allowed flight safety schools and formation schools to use my images as well in the interest of giving back to the aviation community. I have even had some of my images used as a basis for paintings with permission. But someone else claiming my work as their own or using my image without my permission for profit or to advertise is where I draw the line.

 

[evangilder]

And Karl, you are right. I didn't realize until I started looking around how prolific the rant was. The point need only be made in one post.

 

[Airframes]

I agree. I had already replied in one of the other threads on this same subject, basically agreeing with the principles of this new member's argument.
But I do feel that the point has been made well enough, and there is no need to overload the various threads with the same point being laboured over and over again.
No doubt there are a number of my images, uploaded here on this forum, which have found their way into other forums etc, and I don't have a problem with that, given the 'watermark' is retained, and/or due acknowledgement declared, as most of these images were posted to provide information for aviation enthusiasts and/or modellers.
But if any of these were displayed as, or with an intimation of, being the work of someone else, then those concerned could expect a nocturnal visit by men in black 'Nomex' suits ...................

 

[rochie]

I agree. I had already replied in one of the other threads on this same subject, basically agreeing with the principles of this new member's argument.
But I do feel that the point has been made well enough, and there is no need to overload the various threads with the same point being laboured over and over again.
No doubt there are a number of my images, uploaded here on this forum, which have found their way into other forums etc, and I don't have a problem with that, given the 'watermark' is retained, and/or due acknowledgement declared, as most of these images were posted to provide information for aviation enthusiasts and/or modellers.
But if any of these were displayed as, or with an intimation of, being the work of someone else, then those concerned could expect a nocturnal visit by men in black 'Nomex' suits ...................

yep send them round to that well known author that stuck your painting on his book Dogsbody !

 

[Airframes]

Ah, yes! I've since discovered, having had to buy a copy of the book in question, that there is an acknowledgement, in small print, on the rear flap of the dust jacket. But I never got the royalties mentioned at the time, small though they might have been, or a free, signed copy of the book either !

 

[vikingBerserker]

Yea that's just not cool. Being legal is one thing, but you still need to be ethical about using other's work even with permission.

 

[Graeme]

Most photographers, if asked nicely, will usually allow their work to be used in artwork within reason. If it is done without their permission, they have a right to defend their work.

The original poster seems to be concentrating on photos that, for a better word, have been "re-touched" using sophisticated computer programs. The examples he gave show the new "artwork" - but to me the most obvious thing is that the aircraft appears not to have moved at all position wise from the original photo - not 1mm.

So what happens, legally, if I take one of your photos and paint it on canvas - but I twist the image ever so slightly one way or the other?

 

[parsifal]

Graeme, Im sure eric will give a better answer than I can. My opinion, going back to the legal definition, is if some of your work is based on somebody elses work, ou need to acknowledge it. Particularly true for situations where you are seeking financial reward or some other form of reward. For study purposes, or "reasonable use" Australian law has a degree of latitude.

There have been similar cases in music, where the main theme remains the same, but elements of the song have changed. Still a breach of copyright if it is recognizable , but it sometimes depends on how much of that image remains.

Photography is tricky, because it sometimes is important what the picture is taking of. I know not much about images of aircraft especially in flight....

Best bet, seek permission.

 

[GregP]

Taking a picture of a plane in level flight does not mean you own the rights to all pictures or depictions of the plane in level flight. Almost any air force has similar pictures available for free. Also, you can make a model, string it up, use lights, and paint it without infringing on a pictire of a plane in level flight.

Get real here.

 

[GrauGeist]

If the photograph comes from your camera, it is your property.

There may be certain circumstances where photography is forbidden (items/areas on base, personal aircraft stored in a private hangar, etc.), but if an aircraft is out in general public, in flight and I take a photograph of it, that photo is my sole property.

 

[Graeme]

Taking a picture of a plane in level flight does not mean you own the rights to all pictures or depictions of the plane in level flight.

Even if I use a copyrighted image/photo to begin the basis?

I get to keep all the money?

 

[GregP]

If you use a copyrighted image, you DO own it. But there are numerous pics of planes in level flight, many of which are almost identical as they MUST be since the subject is the same, that are in the public domain. You'd have a damned hard time proving which pic was used to generate a painting, what with all the publically-available pics out there.

It is much easier to prove a special scene was used ... there are not usually multiple pics of one particular event available. Many of them are public domain since the military probably was the only available other photo plane in the area. If an artist uses a non-copyrighted pic to produce a painting and ANOTHER artist does the same, there is probably no provable violation since the original pic is available and painting it once does NOT give an artist the exclusive right to the picture that was taken by the government. It is available for further public use.

That's why most artists use a particular photographer or do it themselves ... they then have a copyrighted pic and can claim exclusive rights to it. But just because YOU take a pic of a plane on the ground doesn't mean someone else can't do the same for themselves. After all, a plane at an airshow sitting there is fair game for pics if photography is allowed. Claiming that all the pics of a Skyraider on the ground at an airshow are yours just because you took one yourself will cost you a lot of money for no gain ... it just isn't true ... anyone can take the same pic as their own.

Photographers and artists KNOW this and take pains to produce unique pics or painted scenes not easily duplicated by casual photographers / artists. Getting into a Bonanza and taking a pic of a unique formation will be hard to duplicate for the average photographer/arist. Taking a pic at a museum will NOT produce a very unique or copyrightable picture since anyone can take another one themsleves. In this case, proving someone used yours will be a tough sell to a reasonable court.

On the other hand, the digital art shown at the start of this thread is another thing, as is obvious to all who see both. The only real question is which one was first? That one is the owner. It gives you a good reason to date pictures once taken and committed to digital memory or film, doesn't it?

Good post just above, Graeme! It is hilarious, but you'd NEVER get an award for trying to prosecute the artist of that top monstrosity. But, hey, if you like tilting at dragons and throwing money at lawyers, go for it. I can show you maybe 150 public-domain pics with almost the exact same angle for the shot. Basically it's any shot of a T-6 from another T-6 in formation ... I have one of my own, taken by me. No, wait, I have maybe 15 of them, each very slightly different. I KNOW the props are not in the same exact place at any rate.

 

[Graeme]

that top monstrosity.

I'm hurt Greg.

Check out Blue Poles...we paid 1.3 million for this...when a million meant something!

Number 11, 1952 (painting) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[evangilder]

LOL Graeme. I would have a hard time proving that painting was based on my image. But proof of ownership is indeed difficult for some shots, as Greg mentioned. The chances of a generic shot getting put into a commercial space are pretty rare, but they do happen. I have seen shots from airshows that are very similar to mine published or used. Sometimes its the position of the aircraft or even the prop that can make a subtle difference.

I typically give the benefit of the doubt, unless it is blatantly obvious, or if the pic is used for commercial purposes. For educational purposes, charity or example types, I look at it as a good thing. We have enough negativity in aviation.

That being said, if you get 1.2 million for that, I would appreciate a small stipend.