# Wife's Birthday Project: Needing PS Help...



## kyledmontague (Aug 14, 2012)

Hey everybody,

I'm new to this forum and honestly joined in an effort to find someone with more PS experience than me (which won't be too hard since I have none) to help me do something special for my wife.  I had the idea to get a panoramic photo of our wedding location framed for my wife on her birthday which is about a month away. Here's the photo:

(Obtaining rights from photographer to alter the photo)

I was really only hoping to get the yellow rope on the tree removed from the image. I wouldn't mind if there was other minor editing done to the photo, just do what you think would make it look best. I understand I am not an established member of this community and i apologize if this request rubs people the wrong way, I was just hoping to get some help to make this idea of mine even better. If anyone would be willing to help out I would be extremely grateful, and I know my wife will as well. Feel free to post any edits back in this thread, or email me at kyledmontague@gmail.com. Thanks in advance to anyone willing to help...

Kyle


----------



## paigew (Aug 14, 2012)

there are companies that will do this for a small fee...less than 10$ I think. Professional Digital Retouching Services - photo retouching, manipulation, colour correction, enhancement and restoration - Australia


----------



## sm4him (Aug 14, 2012)

The BIG question is: Do you hold the full copyright to this photo?
If it's not yours, nobody here is gonna touch it.


----------



## Chris Stegner (Aug 14, 2012)

I'll do it for $50. Have it done in an hour!


----------



## kyledmontague (Aug 14, 2012)

sm4him said:


> The BIG question is: Do you hold the full copyright to this photo?
> If it's not yours, nobody here is gonna touch it.



Sorry I didn't even think to address that issue. Here's the email from the photographer who gave me the photo:

Good afternoon,


When I am not at school or taking pictures I work as a guest service representative at Gordon Lodge on North Bay.  About a week ago my manager, Rory Madsen forwarded me a message stating that you were looking for a panoramic picture of the point where your wife and you were married.  I have attached a picture of the point and you may use it as the gift.  If you were looking for a print, there are many websites such as http://www.mpix.com and my favorite, Online Photo Books, Prints, Calendar, Digital Photo Printing Services - AdoramaPix that you may use or please contact me for more information on my pricing.  I hope that I e-mailed you before her birthday. 


Best regards,


Zach Kunstman


KUNSTMAN DESIGNS



www.kdesigns.tk





10346 Orchard Drive
Sister Bay, WI 54234


I deleted his email address and phone number just out of respect of his privacy, but thats the email where the photo was attached to. Hopefully that clears up the copyright issues...


----------



## kyledmontague (Aug 14, 2012)

paigew said:


> there are companies that will do this for a small fee...less than 10$ I think. Professional Digital Retouching Services - photo retouching, manipulation, colour correction, enhancement and restoration - Australia



If I don't get any responses from this thread I will definitely check into a company like the one you linked to. Thank you very much for the advice!


----------



## sm4him (Aug 14, 2012)

Okay, I hope this isn't going to sound snarky, BUT:
The problem is, that doesn't really seem to give you any rights to ALTER the photo, only to print the photo as is.
Photographers tend to take very seriously the rights of OTHER photographers to their photos, so most of us would not be willing to alter this without stated permission to do so.

If I were you, I'd email the person back, thank them very profusely for their photo and then very delicately throw in the question of whether it might be okay if you were to have someone remove the yellow rope from the tree.


----------



## OLaA (Aug 14, 2012)

*edit* Didn't read the whole thread, and assumed it was your own photo.  Can email or re-post here once you verify with photographer that its okay to alter his work.


----------



## MLeeK (Aug 14, 2012)

If you would like the full sized image it'll be $25


I'll go kill that attachment until you have a release!
View attachment 16943


----------



## kyledmontague (Aug 14, 2012)

I will give an update once I hear back from the photographer on whether or not he's okay with me editing the photo...


----------



## kyledmontague (Aug 14, 2012)

MLeeK said:


> I'll go kill that attachment until you have a release!
> View attachment 16943



Done. Thank you.


----------



## MLeeK (Aug 14, 2012)

We've got to have you scan and post the release allowing us to work on it. I am sorry, but we've got to CYA!


----------



## Peano (Aug 14, 2012)

kyledmontague said:


> I will give an update once I hear back from the photographer on whether or not he's okay with me editing the photo...



If I were you, I'd take all the copyright warnings on this forum with a grain of salt. Lots of Barney Fifes here, if you know what I mean.


----------



## sm4him (Aug 14, 2012)

MLeeK said:


> If you would like the full sized image it'll be $25
> 
> 
> I'll go kill that attachment until you have a release!
> View attachment 16943



LOL; I saw that edit you'd posted and thought perhaps I didn't know you as well as I thought I did! Not that I "know" you at all; "cyber-know" I guess I should say.


----------



## sm4him (Aug 14, 2012)

Peano said:


> kyledmontague said:
> 
> 
> > I will give an update once I hear back from the photographer on whether or not he's okay with me editing the photo...
> ...



  Whatever.
It's really NOT being a "Barney Fife" to have respect for another photographer's copyright.
Fortunately, it seems to me that the OP understands that as well and is quite willing to do this the RIGHT way.  So, kudos to the OP!


----------



## MLeeK (Aug 14, 2012)

Peano said:


> kyledmontague said:
> 
> 
> > I will give an update once I hear back from the photographer on whether or not he's okay with me editing the photo...
> ...


There's no way in hell I am doing an edit on something without a release. Barney or not.
I refuse to screw over some other photographer. I'd be livid if they did it to me. Have some respect for your own work and others.


----------



## Peano (Aug 14, 2012)

MLeeK said:


> I refuse to screw over some other photographer.



That's pure Barney Fife. "Screw over" the photographer? How on earth would cloning out a rope "screw over" the photographer? How much money or business or reputation would he lose as a result?

Phooey. The job has already been done. At no charge. Get over it.


----------



## MLeeK (Aug 14, 2012)

I have a real problem with that. That's a major ethical problem and as a photographer I am really  not comfortable with someone in our group who would do an illegal edit like that.

I am really uncomfortable with any of my images that are here considering you think it's no big deal and you are one of us. 
At which point I am sure you're now having a heyday with some ingenious image edits. 
THAT IS A PROBLEM.


----------



## tirediron (Aug 14, 2012)

Peano said:


> MLeeK said:
> 
> 
> > I refuse to screw over some other photographer.
> ...


*
How much of anything he would lose is irelevant.  The law is the law.  Editing the image without authority is breaking the law.  Would you like someone to go find a few of your images and "edit" them in any way they saw fit?  Wind your neck in!
*


----------



## MK3Brent (Aug 14, 2012)

Hmm interesting topic. 

If I buy a painting from an artist, and use it for another piece of artwork I created... like maybe a collage of other paintings... is that infringement? 

Or, if I buy a service and buy photos... and they're my property to cut in half, can't I? I'm not re-selling or anything else for monetary gain.

*serious questions.*
Which laws are they, and where can we read them in detail?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#User-created_images


----------



## MLeeK (Aug 14, 2012)

MK3Brent said:


> Hmm interesting topic.
> 
> If I buy a painting from an artist, and use it for another piece of artwork I created... like maybe a collage of other paintings... is that infringement?
> 
> Or, if I buy a service and buy photos... and they're my property to cut in half, can't I? I'm not re-selling or anything else for monetary gain.


What does that have to do with *editing* the image?


----------



## MK3Brent (Aug 14, 2012)

MLeeK said:


> MK3Brent said:
> 
> 
> > Hmm interesting topic.
> ...


It's being altered, and is his property doing so.

In any case, it should be pretty easy to get a hold of the photographer and ask.
They might even offer to do it for him.

I didn't see what was posted before he removed it.
*edit* Oh, is it just a clone out job? n/m


----------



## MLeeK (Aug 14, 2012)

The problem here is the OP posted an image that did not belong to him and asked for it to be edited. Peano decided that all of us who refuse to edit an image without written consent from the SHOOTER are stupid and should just do it anyway, so he went ahead and did it so the OP could have it printed.
It's a blatant copyright violation and if the OP were smart he'd team up with the original shooter and file a big ol' infringement suit and split the cash. 
I cannot do that to another's work. 1. it's illegal and that's the bottom line. BUT 2. it's unethical. I can't expect anyone to respect my copyright if I don't respect others


----------



## rexbobcat (Aug 14, 2012)

MK3Brent said:
			
		

> Hmm interesting topic.
> 
> If I buy a painting from an artist, and use it for another piece of artwork I created... like maybe a collage of other paintings... is that infringement?
> 
> ...



http://painting.about.com/gi/o.htm?...tp://www.funnystrange.com/copyright/myths.htm


----------



## tirediron (Aug 14, 2012)

MLeeK said:


> ... BUT 2. it's unethical.* I can't expect anyone to respect my copyright if I don't respect others*


QFT!!


----------



## rexbobcat (Aug 14, 2012)

MK3Brent said:
			
		

> It's being altered, and is his property doing so.
> 
> In any case, it should be pretty easy to get a hold of the photographer and ask.
> They might even offer to do it for him.
> ...



Printing rights /=/ copyrights


----------



## MLeeK (Aug 14, 2012)

rexbobcat said:


> MK3Brent said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Or in other words... Printing rights do not equal copyright. It's only the right to print as spelled out in the release given with the photograph.


----------



## KmH (Aug 14, 2012)

MK3Brent said:


> Hmm interesting topic.
> 
> If I buy a painting from an artist, and use it for another piece of artwork I created... like maybe a collage of other paintings... is that infringement?
> 
> ...


A collage of other paintings would be a 'derivative'. Only copyright owners have the right to make derivatives of their images.
Copyright is actually a pretty large bundle of exclusive rights.

From your Wikipedia link *User Created Images*


> ....Such images can include photographs which you yourself took. The legal rights for images generally lie with the _photographer, not the subject. Simply re-tracing a copyrighted image or diagram does not necessarily create a new copyright&#8212;copyright is generated only by instances of "creativity", and not by the amount of labor which went into the creation of the work...._



Which laws here in the USA  are the copyright laws, which are United States Code Title 17 (USC 17) - found here U.S. Copyright Office - Copyright Law of the United States
Their main page is www.copyright.gov

Monetary gain has nothing to do with infringing copyright on a civil level. Infringement for monetary gain is covered in USC 18 which is the criminal federal statues regarding federal penalties.

Civil infringement awards vary from $250 to millions and could included the loser paying the winner,s court and attorney fees. If there was monetary gain, the winner can also be awarded all that money too.

Add www.photoattorney.com to your bookmarks too.


----------



## AaronLLockhart (Aug 14, 2012)

I understand the "severity" of all of this as far as an ethical standpoint goes. I also know what the law says. Let me open this by saying that I am in no way condoning illegal behavior with what I'm about to say.

However, not only do I understand what Peano is saying, but I also agree with him in some aspects. Just because the law says something, and even has a listed penalty for breaking it, does not mean that it will ever be actively enforced.

I would never alter someone else's work, but ONLY because I respect the wants of you all. To be honest, that is literally the only reason. However, let's say I did, and you wanted to do something judicially over it, finding a judge that would even hear the case out would be a job in itself. Even finding a lawyer that would want to take the time out for such a thing would be pretty difficult.

It would be one thing if someone took your entire gallery and posted it and claimed it as their own, but one picture, or even "illegal alterations" to several pictures would be laughed at in mockery before someone in law would take it serious enough to present it in a courtroom with you. You're almost always going to get a "I'll write him a letter and let's hope he stops" type of response.


----------



## Peano (Aug 15, 2012)

Apparently none of the legal scholars here have ever heard of the principle, long recognized in the law, called "_*de minimis non curat lex*_."



> a principle of law, that even if a technical violation of a law appears to exist according to the letter of the law, if the effect is too small to be of consequence, the violation of the law will not be considered as a sufficient cause of action, whether in civil or criminal proceedings.


----------



## cgipson1 (Aug 15, 2012)

AaronLLockhart said:


> *Just because the law says something, and even has a listed penalty for breaking it, does not mean that it will ever be actively enforced.
> *
> .



That DOES not make it right, either... does it?

I would be all for a policy here that requires instant and permanent bans for this type of thing....


----------



## cgipson1 (Aug 15, 2012)

Peano said:


> Apparently none of the legal scholars here have ever heard of the principle, long recognized in the law, called "_*de minimis non curat lex*_."



In this instance that would probably apply, since the photographer seemed to not mind GIVING the OP that photo.

However, your willing violation of the ethical side of this issue is one that has caused you to lose all credibility with me, and probably a lot of others here! (Yea.. I know, Like you care.. right?)


----------



## Peano (Aug 15, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> However, your willing violation of the ethical side of this issue is one that has caused you to lose all credibility with me, and probably a lot of others here! (Yea.. I know, Like you care.. right?)



Bingo.


----------



## kyledmontague (Aug 15, 2012)

So, I feel I deserve an apology to the forum after reading through the chaos that has ensued from my original request. I guess I thought since he was handing the photo out for free that he wasn't going to be upset if anything was done to alter it. I apologize for not recognizing the right way to do all of this early enough, and I'm sorry if anyone in this forum has potentially lost credibility as a result. I am still waiting to hear back from the photographer about editing his photo, so perhaps this issue can be salvaged. If I do receive permission I would still like to give the ability to members of this forum to do what they would like to the photo, it wouldn't hurt to get multiple edits and see which one I like best. So again, I apologize... and I will post again when I hear back from the photographer.


----------



## sm4him (Aug 15, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> AaronLLockhart said:
> 
> 
> > *Just because the law says something, and even has a listed penalty for breaking it, does not mean that it will ever be actively enforced.
> ...



It does seem to me like disregarding copyrights, and then basically STATING your intentions to continually, intentionally disregard copyrights should be grounds for a permanent ban.


----------



## AaronLLockhart (Aug 15, 2012)

cgipson1 said:
			
		

> That DOES not make it right, either... does it?
> 
> I would be all for a policy here that requires instant and permanent bans for this type of thing....



My statement was not a wager of right versus wrong. It was simply an honest statement about the dedication level of our country's judicial system to uphold the law.

I could get a ticket and a $250 fine for walking across the street outside of a crosswalk. The chances of it ever happening??? It won't.

Unless the defendant made millions off of the alterations of your work or claiming it as their own, a courtroom doesn't even want it on their doorstep.

Once more, I will emphasize that I'm not condoning anyone to do any of this. All I'm saying is that there isn't really anything that can be done about it if someone actually does it, regardless of what ever the laws say.


----------



## cgipson1 (Aug 15, 2012)

kyledmontague said:


> So, I feel I deserve an apology to the forum after reading through the chaos that has ensued from my original request. I guess I thought since he was handing the photo out for free that he wasn't going to be upset if anything was done to alter it. I apologize for not recognizing the right way to do all of this early enough, and I'm sorry if anyone in this forum has potentially lost credibility as a result. I am still waiting to hear back from the photographer about editing his photo, so perhaps this issue can be salvaged. If I do receive permission I would still like to give the ability to members of this forum to do what they would like to the photo, it wouldn't hurt to get multiple edits and see which one I like best. So again, I apologize... and I will post again when I hear back from the photographer.



This isn't your fault at all! It is just that some of us try to act Ethically, and some don't! Good luck with your gift, I hope it goes over very well... and makes your wife (and you) very happy!


----------



## sm4him (Aug 15, 2012)

kyledmontague said:


> So, I feel I deserve an apology to the forum after reading through the chaos that has ensued from my original request. I guess I thought since he was handing the photo out for free that he wasn't going to be upset if anything was done to alter it. I apologize for not recognizing the right way to do all of this early enough, and I'm sorry if anyone in this forum has potentially lost credibility as a result. I am still waiting to hear back from the photographer about editing his photo, so perhaps this issue can be salvaged. If I do receive permission I would still like to give the ability to members of this forum to do what they would like to the photo, it wouldn't hurt to get multiple edits and see which one I like best. So again, I apologize... and I will post again when I hear back from the photographer.



OP: I personally don't feel that YOu have anything to apologize for. You acted out of ignorance (I don't mean that as a slur, simply that you had no foreknowledge) rather than willful disregard for ownership.  You did everything as you should have; when you were made aware of the problem, you removed the photo and you are taking steps to secure permission from the copyright holder before re-presenting your request. I see nothing wrong with any of that, and commend you for your willingness to learn and to correct your error.


----------



## MLeeK (Aug 15, 2012)

AaronLLockhart said:


> I understand the "severity" of all of this as far as an ethical standpoint goes. I also know what the law says. Let me open this by saying that I am in no way condoning illegal behavior with what I'm about to say.
> 
> However, not only do I understand what Peano is saying, but I also agree with him in some aspects. Just because the law says something, and even has a listed penalty for breaking it, does not mean that it will ever be actively enforced.
> 
> ...




Do not be so delusional about "finding a judge." You don't have to "find a judge." All you have to do is file suit. Period. The judge has to hear the case. The law is there in black and white and the penalties are as well. The judge has to follow the law and hear the case. The relief afforded to the plaintiff in the case is also there. This is a willful disregard to that law. The plaintiff wins. That easy.


----------



## AaronLLockhart (Aug 15, 2012)

sm4him said:
			
		

> It does seem to me like disregarding copyrights, and then basically STATING your intentions to continually, intentionally disregard copyrights should be grounds for a permanent ban.



Please quote me where I said these were my intentions. In fact, I have said REPEATEDLY that I am not condoning these actions. I simply see where Peano is coming from.

K thx bai.


----------



## sm4him (Aug 15, 2012)

AaronLLockhart said:


> sm4him said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



:scratch:  My comment had nothing whatsoever to do with  any of YOUR comments and was not directed at you.

EDIT:  I  see now how you might have gotten that. I was quoting Charlie, and should have removed your "quote within the quote."  Apologies.


----------



## AaronLLockhart (Aug 15, 2012)

MLeeK said:
			
		

> Do not be so delusional about "finding a judge." You don't have to "find a judge." All you have to do is file suit. Period. The judge has to hear the case. The law is there in black and white and the penalties are as well. The judge has to follow the law and hear the case. The relief afforded to the plaintiff in the case is also there. This is a willful disregard to that law. The plaintiff wins. That easy.



You can tell that there aren't many times that you have been in a courtroom. You do have to find a judge. I have been in and out of both court and prison from the time I was 18 to 25 years old or so (not saying I'm proud of it). In MANY cases I have personally seen, the judge will "hear" the case and then dismiss it because he/she simply doesn't want to waste time on issues that he/she finds to be "petty."


----------



## MLeeK (Aug 15, 2012)

sm4him said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > AaronLLockhart said:
> ...



I have to agree here. We post our images here every day and we have a member who is repeatedly stating he has no problems with breaking the law and unethical behavior toward copyright. 
People are banned in here for disrespectful behavior, but illegal is OK? AND willful illegal behavior while scorning the laws and the ethics behind those of us who choose to follow it.


----------



## tirediron (Aug 15, 2012)

kyledmontague said:


> So, I feel I deserve an apology to the forum after reading through the chaos that has ensued from my original request. I guess I thought since he was handing the photo out for free that he wasn't going to be upset if anything was done to alter it. I apologize for not recognizing the right way to do all of this early enough, and I'm sorry if anyone in this forum has potentially lost credibility as a result. I am still waiting to hear back from the photographer about editing his photo, so perhaps this issue can be salvaged. If I do receive permission I would still like to give the ability to members of this forum to do what they would like to the photo, it wouldn't hurt to get multiple edits and see which one I like best. So again, I apologize... and I will post again when I hear back from the photographer.


*No need for you to apologize.  An unfortunate fact that many photographers deal with is ignorance of copyright and related intelectual property law.  People assume that because they have paid for or been given a photograph, that it is theirs to do with as they choose.  In fact, it's really very similar to buying software.  You pay for the right to  have the photograph, and to display it, but generally speaking, there's really very little you're allowed to do with it.

Some people don't care about this sort of thing, and that tends to upset many photographers who view the situation as, "What if this was my work?"  Granted, it's unlikely that cloning out something so small would bother the photographer, BUT as the creator of the image, he has to approve it first.

I notice that the poster who was the most vocal advocate of, "Who cares, it doesn't matter.." also never answered my question on what his thought would be if someone took his work and editied in whatever way they felt like.  I'm guessing he or she might not be too happy.  This is the same sort of attitude seen frequently in the lowlifes that think downloading software off of torrent 'sites and similar is okay...



*


----------



## MLeeK (Aug 15, 2012)

AaronLLockhart said:


> MLeeK said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


This isn't the PENAL system here. Quite obviously your lawyer sucks. Any copyright laywer worth his salt  would have insured that the case be heard AND that the law be heard AND  when the judge was too lazy to hear the case and dismissed it, would have filed beyond that. Copyright cases are heard every day. For ONE image. ONE. That's it.


----------



## AaronLLockhart (Aug 15, 2012)

MLeeK said:
			
		

> This isn't the PENAL system here. Quite obviously your lawyer sucks. Any copyright laywer worth his salt  would have insured that the case be heard AND that the law be heard AND  when the judge was too lazy to hear the case and dismissed it, would have filed beyond that. Copyright cases are heard every day. For ONE image. ONE. That's it.



Right, my lawyer sucks. That's why he's gotten me out of so many situations I could have served HARD time for, because he sucks.

You can believe what you want, but what I'm saying is real, and it happens every single day. If you honestly think that your image is worth a $1500+ lawyer and court fees so that the defendant has to pay you $250-500 for "altering your work" and get a slap on the hand, I'd have to say I question your logical decision making skills.

Like I said before. I'm not saying that it's ok to do it. However, I am saying that most of the time, you're going to find that the lawyer wants to send them a "please stop" letter before ever taking something like this to court.


----------



## MLeeK (Aug 15, 2012)

AaronLLockhart said:


> MLeeK said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Aaron, you  may want to read the copyright laws and what the fees are for willful violation. If it's a registered image those fees PLUS attorney fees.


----------



## AaronLLockhart (Aug 15, 2012)

MLeeK said:


> AaronLLockhart said:
> 
> 
> > MLeeK said:
> ...




I know that number can go up very high, I'm just saying on the average photographer's image what would typically be found legible to be awarded. even with Lawyer's fees having to be included, you're still about broke even and out of a bunch of time.

There is also something in the copyright laws known as the "Take down/put back provision," have you ever heard about this? Basically if someone takes your work willingly, or alters it and posts it somewhere else, they have the option to take it down willingly per letter from you or attorney, before any legal action can be taken.

Once again, _a simple slap on the hand._ This is copyright law, not murder. 

Although unethical, there are many ways of getting around such penalties that you speak of. 

I have to keep saying this, because I want you to especially realize that_* I*__*am not saying that any of this is alright to do.*_ I'm simply telling you that along with Peano, I think everyone on the board here takes it a little bit too seriously. I'm not saying that you don't have a right to take it so seriously, because you do. However, it's quite comical to me, because I couldn't care less.

_*Once a client pays for a shoot and my photographs, I could care less if I ever see them again, as I already achieved what I wanted out of them.*_ If the owner wants to tear it alive and make a desktop wallpaper out of it, more power to him. He paid me $160.00 to take the picture, that's all I care about.


----------



## Peano (Aug 15, 2012)

tirediron said:


> I notice that the poster who was the most vocal advocate of, "Who cares, it doesn't matter.." also never answered my question on what his thought would be if someone took his work and editied in whatever way they felt like.  I'm guessing he or she might not be too happy.



You're guessing wrong. Speaking of ethics, you're rather free with using quotation marks to attribute a position to someone who didn't use those words. Is that okay in your system of ethics? It isn't in mine.



> This is the same sort of attitude seen frequently in the lowlifes that think downloading software off of torrent 'sites and similar is okay...



There's a substantive difference between a minor alteration on a photo that was given (not sold) to someone for his personal use, and stealing music that was produced to be sold.

MLeeK in another post dismisses the _de minimis_ principle by simply asserting: "All you have to do is file suit. Period. The judge has to hear the case." And if a judge dismisses a lawsuit on _de minimis_ grounds, MLeek declares him to be "too lazy."

A judge doesn't dismiss a case on his own. He does so on a motion to dismiss from one party, usually the defendant. Moreover, the motion must be justified by some law or precedent or recognized legal principle. A case cannot be dismissed simply because a judge is "too lazy" to hear it.

You folks are entitled to your opinions, even ill-informed opinions. But you're not entitled to invent facts.


----------



## tirediron (Aug 15, 2012)

Peano said:


> You're guessing wrong.


In that case I apologize; I don't think I've ever met a photographer who didn't care what someone else did with their work, but if you don't that's fine. 



Peano said:


> Speaking of ethics, you're rather free with using quotation marks to attribute a position to someone who didn't use those words. Is that okay in your system of ethics? It isn't in mine.


Fair enough; could you please define your position then?  My understanding from this:  





> If I were you, I'd take all the copyright warnings on this forum with a grain of salt. Lots of Barney Fifes here, if you know what I mean.


 and this: 





> That's pure Barney Fife. "Screw over" the photographer? How on earth would cloning out a rope "screw over" the photographer? How much money or business or reputation would he lose as a result?  Phooey. The job has already been done. At no charge. Get over it.


 was that you didn't really have any regard for the photographer and any artistic vision he may have had for the image.  If that's not correct, could you please clarify?



Peano said:


> There's a substantive difference between a minor alteration on a photo that was given (not sold) to someone for his personal use, and stealing music that was produced to be sold.


 Really?  How?  Copyright law applies equally to both as far as I am aware.



Peano said:


> You folks are entitled to your opinions, even ill-informed opinions. But you're not entitled to invent facts.


I may have missed the post to which you refer; what facts do you allege were invented?  I'm also curious as to why you state that certain opinions were ill-informed, yet you seem to state that copyright violation is okay.


----------



## Peano (Aug 15, 2012)

Peano said:


> Speaking of ethics, you're rather free with using quotation marks to attribute a position to someone who didn't use those words. Is that okay in your system of ethics? It isn't in mine.





tirediron said:


> Fair enough; could you please define your position then?


No. "Fair enough" is good enough for me.





Peano said:


> There's a substantive difference between a minor alteration on a photo that was given (not sold) to someone for his personal use, and stealing music that was produced to be sold.





tirediron said:


> Really?  How?


One is theft, the other isn't.





Peano said:


> You folks are entitled to your opinions, even ill-informed opinions. But you're not entitled to invent facts.





tirediron said:


> I may have missed the post to which you refer; what facts do you allege were invented?


Here are two that you yourself invented:


tirediron said:


> *How much of anything he would lose is irelevant.... Editing the image without authority is breaking the law.*


Fact: de minimis rulings have been based on the amount of a claimed loss. You invented the irrelevance of the amount of loss.
Fact: A law is broken when a court so rules. You aren't a judge and this forum isn't a court. You invented the violation of law (more below).




tirediron said:


> I'm also curious as to why you state that certain opinions were ill-informed, yet you seem to state that copyright violation is okay.


Irony alert: Your opinion that I "seem to state that copyright violation is okay" is ill-informed. 

A "copyright violation" occurs only when a court rules that it has occurred. You and others in this thread ignore the bedrock legal (and moral) principle of "presumption of innocence." You flatly declare actions to be in violation of a law, rolling right over that presumption and assigning yourselves the status of judge and jury.



If you have any further questions or challenges for me on this issue, you needn't post them, because I won't respond.


----------



## MLeeK (Aug 15, 2012)

How about we just shut this post down and not have this debate? It's something that is a very heated topic and no good will come of it.


----------



## pixmedic (Aug 15, 2012)

MLeeK said:
			
		

> How about we just shut this post down and not have this debate? It's something that is a very heated topic and no good will come of it.



Amen..
Amusing, but not productive.


----------



## tirediron (Aug 15, 2012)

*Seems like a good idea to me...  

<Clangggggg>* <- Sound of thread-gates being slammed shut!


----------

