Fixing someone else's work?

[Asmodeus]

If this isn't the right place for this I'm sure it will get moved. Anyway...

Let me say up front that I feel kind of odd about this whole process. A friend of mine posted, in her profile ona website we frequent, an image that had been taken by the event photographer at recent fetish event. This wasn't a casual snapshot, but taken with backdrop, props, etc. The image posted had clearly been cropped and marked with the photog's copright info.

My friend liked the image enough to post it, but wondered why it was so dark and why the edge of the backdrop and the concrete wall behind it were in view. They were clearly not artistic elements. She wondered if the pic could be made to look better.

Let me say that I would never have released the original image with my name on it, had I taken it. Especially when I knew that this small image (700x500 pixels) would be placed in a location where potential customers could see it. But I didn't take the original picture, and with a lot of trepidation, I told her I could "fix" the image.

So with five minutes of work (mainly adjusting the light levels, a little noise reduction, and cloning the backdrop to cover the wall) I sent her back that same small image, with all of the original copyright info intact.

I was uncomfortable modifying someone else's work, but since I left his copyright/website info in the image I thought it would be ok. That and the fact that few images on the site where it is posted engender much comment.

Much to my surprise, the image has gotten dozen of comments, I'm sure mainly from her friends, though I can't say that for certain. But what made me feel icky about the whole thing is that there are a lot of comments complimenting the photographer on his great work. Now I feel like I did those people a disservice by modifying the image, and I've pretty much resolved not to do this again, but where do you draw the line for friends?

The photog who took the image could have spent the same 5 minutes on it that I did and probably gotten better results since I was working with a tiny, throwaway version of the shot. My friend really liked the way the shot looked and deserved to get her value from it, but was not well served by the photog. To a certain extent, I feel like I was in the middle of a non-issue, but I tend to be hyper about copyright issues (I make my living as a writer and over the years have had many articles stolen and republished under ther people's names in different countries).

If anyone actually cares to see the changes that were made, let me know and I'll PM a link to before and after copies of the image. but I don't know how much that has to do with the basic question..

[noxcuses1]

I'd be interested in seeing how much "adjusting" you did on the image.
Did you contact the photographer to ask permission first?
Also, is this a photo of you friend? I'm assuming it would be since they wanted to post it.

[Asmodeus]

I'd be interested in seeing how much "adjusting" you did on the image.
Did you contact the photographer to ask permission first?
Also, is this a photo of you friend? I'm assuming it would be since they wanted to post it.

I'll PM you the image link. Yes the person in the photo is my friend. I didn't think to contact the photog because I didn't want to make a big deal of this; it was just a small, low-res image, and I would never have edited out his copyright.

[dreamcatcher23]

Hi.

What you've done is against the rules really. Was there not a possibility that the original photographer could re-edit for them?

As for the shot being dark, that's unacceptable, whatever the reason (unless they specifically said at the time that there was a problem with it and offered to re-shoot, eg. someone else tripping the strobes, temporarily wrong camera settings etc). Regarding the wall in the background - I shoot events and it's quite a common problem. Usually to do with more people trying to get onto the backdrop than really possible so you've got to zoom out, or people not following instructions. We don't edit these shots, but we do alert them to the fact that the background isn't continuous at the time - if we edited them it would push our average edit time from 10 secs to a few minutes, which isn't achievable with typically 1000+ shots a night.

If you show me the photos I might be able to to get you know why they were dark.

--dc23

[sspellman]

Asmodeus-

Copyright clearly includes the right to control edits and modifications to your image. Especially in a situation were it would have been so easy for your friend to contact the original photographer and have them make the edits. Your information does not even include that your friend even had permission to publish the picture, much less modify it.

I'm sure you would be very unhappy if a client severely modified your pictures on their own.

-Scott

[Asmodeus]

sspellman - yeah, I'm uncomfortable with the whole thing; it's just hard to blow off a friend for something that I had perceived as minor as this. She did have the right to post the image; it was an expected use of it ( I was at the event and talked to the photog ealrier in the evening on a separate issue).

dreamcatcher23 - I'll pm the image to you.

[hypertech]

This is an interesting topic. I was recently approached to do some editing on someone else's wedding pictures. I told them that I would do it if they got the right for that from their photographer.

It sounds like that isn't exactly what you did here (with the exception of the cloning). It sounds like you made the photo usable for its intended purpose. In patent law, you are allowed to make repairs so long as it isn't a reconstruction to be able to use that which you paid a license to get. I'm not sure if a similar notion exists in copyright law or not. I've never searched for it.

[dreamcatcher23]

Looks to me like the strobes didn't fire. Do the other images have the same exposure problems, or just this one?

I understand it's really minor and not going to change anything in the grand scheme of things, and I really wouldn't get too stressed about it. However, where It's not too difficult to ask the photographers permission, I'd do that, just to cover your butt.

[Rubi Jane]

Asmodeus, you infringed on the photographer's moral rights. Regardless of leaving the copyright intact you edited without their permission.

As for how to manage friends, it's quite simple for me, if I didn't shoot it or it's not the friend's shot I don't edit it. I might edit it if I received permission from the original photographer, but honestly why improve someone's work; even for a friend?

[Asmodeus]

Looks to me like the strobes didn't fire. Do the other images have the same exposure problems, or just this one?

I understand it's really minor and not going to change anything in the grand scheme of things, and I really wouldn't get too stressed about it. However, where It's not too difficult to ask the photographers permission, I'd do that, just to cover your butt.

No clue what the other images looked like. I 've only seen the one she posted online. I guesss I'll drop the photog an email.

[neumanns]

I tend to be hyper about copyright issues (I make my living as a writer and over the years have had many articles stolen and republished under ther people's names in different countries).



I'm sure it only botherd you if they stole all your articles...If they only took one it was a non issue right!

I think you know where you stand on this but are just having a hard time justifying it to yourself...You can't.

I haven't had anything of mine stolen that i know about yet.... But I still know right from wrong.

If you rob a bank it dosen't matter if you only took all the money, half the money or just what was in one tellers drawer. The charge is still theft.

Sorry to be harsh..... But that's reality

[Asmodeus]

neumanns, FWIW, your analogy is inaccurate, but I get the point.

Turns out to all be moot, anyway, for the most part. It seems my friend emailed the photog latst night and asked if she could edit the images he gave her. His response was "they're yours to do with as you please, but if you post them online, please leave the copyright info." Apparently he only gave her the low-res images so he wasn't too concerned.

C'est la vie. Don't think I'll be doing this in the future, and it would appear that my fixed version of his image is actually generating positive buzz for him.

[neumanns]

You have been redeemed! ...I didn't mean to infer you should have been lead to the gallows.

Just making the point it dosen't matter if it was a thumbnail or a high res file that you removed the watermark from....It was infringment. But I think you got that ....

Please don't think that I'm as pure as the driven snow either... But for some reason copyright is something I feel strongly about. Just wish more people did

[Asmodeus]

You have been redeemed! ...I didn't mean to infer you should have been lead to the gallows.

Just making the point it dosen't matter if it was a thumbnail or a high res file that you removed the watermark from....It was infringment. But I think you got that ....

Please don't think that I'm as pure as the driven snow either... But for some reason copyright is something I feel strongly about. Just wish more people did


One thing I did not do was remove the watermark. Doing that never crossed my mind.

[S.Horton]

I think you were caught between a friend who wanted some help and someone that you did not know, and you chose the friend.

You did unintentionally benefit that photographer in the process, garnering praise for an image which otherwise was not that good.

Now, next time, perhaps you can get the paid gig for the shoot, having demonstrated your skills.

EDIT: Kudos to you for even having a conscience; I wish more people did these days.

[sspellman]

I have run into this issue often when designing comp cards for models that often involve using other photographer's pictures. I follow journalistic standards-it is only ethical to modify an image by cropping or slightly changing exposure on the whole image. Otherwise, I let the model know that they must get explicit permission or edits from the original photog.

-Scott

[Karl Johnston]

Technically it's illegal, honestly though you're not going to get in trouble for something so minor, so don't let it bother you. Have you re-sold the image as yours? No? Well okay then nobody's going to kick up a lawsuit over that...cause lawsuits cost money and not many of us are exactly wealthy.

Okay maybe a little bit.

Ethically, morally and legally it's wrong..but cmon, nobody cares honestly for something so small there's no sweat. It's like jaywalking. Relax.

If you resold it as yours, made 10000 copies and filed them around postcard agencies...yeah there would be something to fight about in that case.

This is what I do; contact the original photographer or the current copyright holder; ask permission. Usually it'll be okay, not many people are used to getting calls like that and some are even surprised you would care. but like most things in the field of photography, the professional standard lays very low (but high standards shine more and wave in the wind a lot faster than the lower ones).

Logically this would all be very straightforward, it would go something like this:

Client: Can you edit this photo, do this and this and this for me?
me: Is it yours?
Client: No this and that studio in nowhereinparticularland shot this, i think his name was Joe Blow.
Me: Okay can you give me his contact info and I'll call him and ask if I can have permission to conduct edits?
Client: Okay here
Me: *calls joe blow*
Joe blow: Hi
Me: Hi this is myname and I'm calling on behalf of mystudio, we were presented with a client who brought up thiscas and I wanted to make sure I had your clearance before I edit this photo you took of Ms. Blahblah and her 7 corgies took on thisdate of thatmonth.
Joe: Oh wow I never knew anyone cared, go ahead sir.
Me: er okay...oh yeah a buddy of mine at hisstudio had a similar case, though he didn't ask your permission first, we haven't done anything with it yet and he was wondering if he could get your permission to conduct edits too, will that be okay?
Joe: Sure thing
me: Okay well fax over it all in writing and we'll go from there.
Joe: Sure thing, I've gotta go though, I've got things to do and blacklisted lenses to package up and sell to china. Bye myname, take care!

[Asmodeus]

Well, in the sense of "no good deed goes unpunished" the photog who took the original image has been posting comments on the picture on her site and accepting accolades from other commenters for the wonderful job he did processing the image and bringing out her mood. He told her (publicly) that he "was happy she was able to find one shot she liked." Curiously enough, this image was the only one that he provided that was watermarked.

No, I won't say anything about it one the site the image is posted. Given that I've now seen all of the photos that he "gave" her (his word) I'm amazed that he actually makes a living doing this. Maybe I'm just spoiled by the level of the work I've seen displayed by pro (and amature) photogs on this site.

By doing my friend a favor I may have driven more business his way. I hope he is able to deliver a quality product to those folks.

I really won't be doing this again.

[Rubi Jane]

So now it's open with the original photographer post up the before & after images so we can see the difference. You've got me curious.

[Asmodeus]

So now it's open with the original photographer post up the before & after images so we can see the difference. You've got me curious.

The image has partial nudity so I won't post it here. Check your PMs

[Rubi Jane]

Yes, you certainly made the photographer look good.

[rosalynsam]

I am curious about this topic as well.....IF the friend had a "copy right release" from the original photographer', according to copy right laws, would it have been "wrong" to make the adjustments?