Ethical or copyright violation?

I am relatively new and ran into a problem with one of our fellow

members. He had a picture for critique. I gave it a 4/4 and explained that I

felt it was a nice motive, but for my taste a little dull and also not sharp. In

order to demonstrate what I meant, I edited the

picture to sharpen and brighten it and uploaded it with my comments.

The member was very upset and accused me of unethical behavior and

violation of copyright, and requested I remove my critique, which I did

together with an apology of having upset him.

 

I do not think I did anything unethical, and certainly did not violate

his copyright (after all, the modified picture appeared together with

his original and not somewhere else). It is my understanding that the

purpose of PN is to give all of us an opportunity to become better

photographers, and since the critique feature permits uploading of

pictures, I would imply that my action was within the rules. I, myself, certainly

would be pleased to receive illustrated critiques from my fellow

members.

 

What do you folks think about this?

Some people don't really want criticism. It's one bad experience. I've done the very same thing as you numerous times with no problem. It's not a copyright infringement, you didn't use it for anything commercial.

"It's not a copyright infringement, you didn't use it for anything commercial."

 

Let's keep our concepts straight here. It does not matter if the use was commercial or not.

 

Commercial use affects whether or not permission is needed to display another's likeness.

 

Copyright is about who owns, may use or display an image, of any kind, in the first place.

 

Two seperate concepts althogether.

Earl, there are some people here who are touchy about someone 'editing' their images. You will never please all the people all the time but if this incident bothered you, maybe the next time you could ask if they would like some constructive criticism *and* show them how they could make those changes themselves.

 

Just a thought.

Perhaps the owner of this site, Phil Greenspun, can make a policy allowing/disallowing

examples such as you showed the picture maker.

 

As an aside - I think the picture owner needs to lighten up.

 

Got a URL for the picture(s) in question?

Pico: We have a policy. It is the "Terms of Use", linked from the bottom of every page on the site. It explicitly allows downloading, editing, and uploading back to photo.net.

In case you can't find it, by posting you implicity agree to the Terms of Use which contain the following:

 

"...You agree to upload only material that you created or for which you have permission from the copyright holder, except that under U.S. law you do have the right to quote from others' work. Within the photo.net community, it is acceptable for Reader A to download Reader B's photo, edit or mark it up, and repost it to the Site..."

 

If you don't agree to this, you probably shouldn't post.

Phillip! I admit negligence. Sorry about that.

<p>

Now, about Mr. Atkins' post...

<p>

<i>Within the photo.net community, it is acceptable for Reader A to download Reader B's

photo, edit or mark it up, and repost it to the Site..."</i><p>

I am a bit confused but won't rile things up.

ACH! Phillip, I am more negligent than ... dunno. What's lower than a gnat's knee? I misread

your post. It does not conflict with Mr. Atkins'.

 

Bedtime for Pico.

Karl,

I just looked at your portfolio. Anytime you want to edit mine, feel free. I'd be happy just for some help.

"Commercial use affects whether or not permission is needed to display another's likeness."

 

Commercial use is also a factor in determining fair use under Section 107 of the US Copyright act.

 

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

 

Even without photo.net policy stating as such. Such use may be determined fair use.

Karl, it sounds like you were offering genuine suggestions and sounds like you did nothing wrong according to PN policy so the incident is unfortunate but I guess the person also has a right to ask you to remove your comment which you did so it's all good I guess. I hope that won't stop you from offering help - I'm with what John Seward said above.

Gee wiz, I thought that was the point of the site, sharing ideas on photography...

I swear, reading all these threads about the critique forum, and peoples reactions to the ratings they get reminds me of watching the early auditions in American Idol every year. So many people take themselves so seriously, and are just so convinced of their own greatness, you just can't tell them otherwise. Not even to offer constructive criticism.

 

Personally I can't think of a better way to illustrate your critique than by actually making the corrections to somebody's picture and then letting them see what you meant in your critique. It's a photo related site after all, and a picture is worth a thousand words. Judging by all the ratings threads popping up, it's a rarity for someone to even offer a useful critique, much less take up even more of their time to illustrate. It's really unfortunate you got the reaction you did. Like they say, no good deed goes unpunished.

<i>Let's keep our concepts straight here. It does not matter if the use was commercial or not.</i>

<p>

Actually it does matter, a lot. It's a major factor in whether the usage is considered fair use or not.

Karl,

My 2 cents, if I post a pic asking for a critique and someone made a suggestion and edited a copy of my pic to show what they recommended I would be happy they took the time to demonstrate what they ment.

 

Fair use is a grey area at the moment but as Mr Atkins pointed out in the Terms of use this type of behaviour is acceptable so I would just shrug it off and not hesitate to provide constructive critisisms and edited copies.

"Within the photo.net community, it is acceptable for..."

 

This has been "acceptable" on all internet forums and forums that predate the internet (CompuServe, USENET, BBS systems, etc) for decades. Granted, it's a lot easier to do today than it was then...

Great to have this one clarified. I've edited a huge number of photos here to accompany my commnets and always been a bit on my toes which day the poster will get angry. So far in almost all cases I've got positive reseption to what I have done and never got negative response in regard with the right to modify.<p>

I sure hope the person who got angry is explained the way this site works. Great to see Phil's comment here:)

I have a different take on this subject. I think the person who got so angry should, as most

seem to say, lighten up. The editing was done with the best of intentions and it is stated

clearly in the terms of use that this is acceptable. But editing someone else's work, except

in some extreme and unusual circumstances, in my opinion, is not a very good teaching

tool. I don't think each of us should be providing another with OUR vision of how their

photos should look. We should be helping the other photographer to find his/her OWN

vision for themselves. That's why pointing out problems is a great thing and being

constructive can really mean making very general suggestions, as in a direction, not a

specific place. I think it's great to say, "there's not enough contrast in the skin tones, try

for more shades of gray in the subject's face." But there are thousands of ways to

accomplish that, with a variety of subleties and variations. It should be up to the original

photographer to explore that for him/herself, not for me to impose my own sensibility on

his/her work. A good liberal arts teacher suggests ways in which a student can accomplish

his own goals and teaches HOW to do things (if you want this effect, do this with your

camera or in post-processing, try this f-stop and shutter speed), not precisely WHAT to

do. I always assume people have the best of intentions, but I think among many of the

critiques I've seen, there is too much proactivity and not enough honest reactivity. Too

many comments like "Id crop it this way." Well, yes, you would, but you are a different

photographer with a different eye and a different plan. I think a better approach is: "your

crop makes me feel . . ." Of course, I know we're not all experienced teachers any more

than we are all experienced photographers, I just think it's not a bad guideline to follow to

be suggestive without substituting our vision for the original photographer's.

"Commercial use is also a factor in determining fair use under Section 107 of the US Copyright act."

 

Good call. Thanks for the info.

I think Fred has a point. But I also think that the community at large will benefit if our members (us!) will demonstrate how they would have addressed the subject. Using his example of a teacher, it is like telling the class: Look what the originator did, and how someone else would have done it (which might not have been better). Now, what can YOU do? Since there are so many ways to skin a cat, this could (should) get something interesting started.

"I don't think each of us should be providing another with OUR vision of how their photos should look. We should be helping the other photographer to find his/her OWN vision for themselves. "

 

Fred, with all due respect: OUR vision is the only one we can refer to and the only thing we can provide. I can't help the other person to find his/her OWN vision. I can only give feedback from MY perspective (limited as it may be), but there is no way I can get into other people's minds. I can say how I see their image, what I think about it, what I would do with it - hopefully all this would be supported with some dose of knowledge and insight.

 

They may agree or disagree - and one picture is worth a thousand words. I sometimes edit and re-post images to illustrate my point (erroneous as it may be, but with honest intentions). Never had any problems.

 

If someone has a problem when somebody else takes time to download their image, edit it somewhat for illustration purposes, post it again and write a comment - then maybe this someone should seriously re-think their attitude.

 

There is a lot of whining about 3/3 rates (I got pissed-off myself couple of times). Then most people say that they value critique more. Then - when somebody does his best to do that - whining again. C'mon, people...

 

In case you have any doubts, read Kant's "Critique of Pure Reason". If you not happy with it - read Schopenhauer's "Criticism of the Kantian Philosophy". At any case - I can only give what I have.