What compels people to copy other people's photos

[MICKEY88]

and then alter them, and repost them, telling the OP/photographer that they made it better.

Isn't photography as an art very subjective, shouldn't a photo be the way the photographer wants it to be. would anyone take a painting by one of the masters and change it, telling them it could have been better...


now if the op asks for help or critique, I can see the point.

otherwise I can't imagine telling someone how to make their picture better without understanding what exactly they were trying to accomplish..

in the past week I've seen people being told their pics should be lighter, darker, straighter, cropped differently, to remove foreground objects, which actually is a very good way of framing...and showing depth...

maybe it's just me, and the way I was taught, the course I took was taught by full time working professionals, they would grade photo assignments on audio tape, they never told a student that a picture was bad, or wrong, they would point out good points, then suggest that next time you might want to try _______________. fill in the blank...much more positive way of helping someone..

 

[andromedaslove]

The only time I have seen it done was on one of the DIS boards as a matter of fact. In that instance I think that a certain person was just trying to make some neat pictures from pictures that someone else had already taken. I don't see anything wrong with it. I also don't mind if someone critiques my pictures. If I did I wouldn't be putting them on a public board. I have actually learned alot from the people who have critiqued my photos. Just my opinion of course.

Dana

 

[Charade]

That's how people learn. There are web sites who's sole purpose is to get your pictures critiqued. But it is a bit presumptuous to assume that people want you to download/alter/correct their picture just to "help". Pictures can be aesthetically pleasing but technically flawed. Color, exposure, etc can be dead on but not very aesthetically pleasing because of many reasons. Composition, subject matter , etc.

Aesthetically pleasing is quite subjective so there's really no completely right answer. However, there are many images that can span a broad spectrum of tastes. Why? Because they follow certain "rules" that have become accepted standards.

Beauty is *always* in the eye of the beholder. Mostly...

 

[LordAthens]

I know exactly what you're talking about...

If I was over on PhotoSIG or pBase and the photog asked for a critique, I wouldn't mind doing it, but there are other times when it's just not asked for..

 

[MICKEY88]

The only time I have seen it done was on one of the DIS boards as a matter of fact. In that instance I think that a certain person was just trying to make some neat pictures from pictures that someone else had already taken. I don't see anything wrong with it. I also don't mind if someone critiques my pictures. If I did I wouldn't be putting them on a public board. I have actually learned alot from the people who have critiqued my photos. Just my opinion of course.

Dana

as for the person trying to make neat pictures out of someone elses work, were they just correcting for color or density or cropping,the pic..??


I really don't care if anyone critiques my work either, although I know what look I'm after when I take a picture if I miss my mark I rarely share the picture, or I will correct it in PSP, but to tell someone their picture is wrong, or your alteration is better is a thought I don't get , it implies that their work should look the way you want it to rather than the way they want it to...

I worked in a lab for a few years printing, my best friend and I never reached an agreement on density, he liked to print lighter than I did, and I printed one stop too dark according to him, yet our customers loved the printing that we both did. then there were customers who wanted us to print lighter or darker than we both thought we should.. so it is subjective..

 

[willis37862]

This is a touchy subject with me. I don't always take people's comments about my work very well( and so everyone knows I am not referring to anyone on the disboards, but my family and friends). I don't mind if the person is trying to be helpful and knows what they are talking about . But as was pointed out the effect I wanted and what others think I should have gotten are not always the same. I try to remember how I feel about this when looking at others photos. I think you can learn about a person from looking at there photos , and if I changed them to look like mine then that would defeat the purpose of sharing photos to me.

 

[ducklite]

I see nothing wrong with offering constructive criticism of photo's on the PHOTOGRAPHY board, but I wouldn't on the other forums where people really don't give a hoot that Little Sally's got a shadow on her ear and Little Jack's pinky is out of focus.

That said, it would TOTALLY piss me off if someone started messing with my photo's and then reposted them in an altered state. I would ask nicely for it to be removed, and the next time I'd be on the phone with Pete and that user would be G-O-N-E from the Dis Boards, or he'd be talking to my attorney. (I can't imagine it ever coming to that though.)

Although I also gues for me--it depends on what photo they were messing with. I mean if someone really wants to play with this one:

Have fun!

But my band photo's? No WAY Jose!! They are copyrighted--all filed with the US Copyright office, and I'm ultra protective of my right of ownership of them. Just had some stupid little twit kicked off myspace for infringement two days ago.

Anne

 

[MICKEY88]

I see nothing wrong with offering constructive criticism of photo's on the PHOTOGRAPHY board, but I wouldn't on the other forums where people really don't give a hoot that Little Sally's got a shadow on her ear and Little Jack's pinky is out of focus.

That said, it would TOTALLY piss me off if someone started messing with my photo's and then reposted them in an altered state. I would ask nicely for it to be removed, and the next time I'd be on the phone with Pete and that user would be G-O-N-E from the Dis Boards, or he'd be talking to my attorney. (I can't imagine it ever coming to that though.)

Although I also gues for me--it depends on what photo they were messing with. I mean if someone really wants to play with this one:

Have fun!

But my band photo's? No WAY Jose!! They are copyrighted--all filed with the US Copyright office, and I'm ultra protective of my right of ownership of them. Just had some stupid little twit kicked off myspace for infringement two days ago.

Anne

I can see offering constructive criticism if it's asked for, but even on the photo board, just because people are sharing doesn't mean they are asking for critiques..


you actually file every photo...!!!!??? !!! wow..you're the only photographer I know that does that..

 

[ndelaware]

I see it done on the dpreview forum all the time. It always suprises me when it's done and the fact that the OP nevers seems to mind suprises me as well.

 

[MICKEY88]

I see it done on the dpreview forum all the time. It always suprises me when it's done and the fact that the OP nevers seems to mind suprises me as well.

I could understand it a little more on a pure photography site, but this is more of a Disney oriented site with a small section for sharing photography and camera info. the threads I've seen just ask people to share their favorite photos..they don't mention critique.

maybe what we need are 2 sticky threads, one just for sharing and one to post photos for critique and advice..

 

[ducklite]

I can see offering constructive criticism if it's asked for, but even on the photo board, just because people are sharing doesn't mean they are asking for critiques..


you actually file every photo...!!!!??? !!! wow..you're the only photographer I know that does that..

I burned every photo as a thumbnail to a DVD and filed that--it's only $30, well worth it for 20K photos!

Anne

 

[LordAthens]

Maybe it's my age talking and I certainly don't know the details, but did it make you feel better to have the "stupid little twit" thrown off of myspace?

I can't help but sit here and imagine some 13 year old kid, who absolutely loves XYZ band, post a picture not knowing it was wrong and then have their account closed. Not that the kid can't just go sign up for another account, it's not like they lock them down based on IP or anything that extreme.

Like I said, I don't know the detail though.

 

[MICKEY88]

Maybe it's my age talking and I certainly don't know the details, but did it make you feel better to have the "stupid little twit" thrown off of myspace?

I can't help but sit here and imagine some 13 year old kid, who absolutely loves XYZ band, post a picture not knowing it was wrong and then have their account closed. Not that the kid can't just go sign up for another account, it's not like they lock them down based on IP or anything that extreme.

Like I said, I don't know the detail though.

ducklite is pretty cool, I'm betting the person was given fair warning and time to remove the photo before ducklite took action..

 

[LordAthens]

Yeah, probably.

I'm not meaning to accuse, certain things just get under my skin. No offense Anne, just my thoughts.

 

[ducklite]

Maybe it's my age talking and I certainly don't know the details, but did it make you feel better to have the "stupid little twit" thrown off of myspace?

I can't help but sit here and imagine some 13 year old kid, who absolutely loves XYZ band, post a picture not knowing it was wrong and then have their account closed. Not that the kid can't just go sign up for another account, it's not like they lock them down based on IP or anything that extreme.

Like I said, I don't know the detail though.

Not that I owe you any type of explanation, but here is the beginning of the correspondence with her... Read from the bottom up.

****************************

LOL! Then I suggest you ask the others, including XXXXX and his Mother to replace their pictures . Get a life and a job lady, based on “YOUR” personal picture, I can see your obsession with XXXXX!


----------------- Original Message -----------------
From: Anne (takespix)
Date: Feb 1, 2006 6:46 AM

Just because a photo was taken in a public place, dopesn't mean that it's ownership is public. I go through a lot of effort and expense to take photo's and when people use my work without permission, they are violating Federal copyright acts--in essence ripping me off.

Again, I'm asking nicely to please remove it.

----------------- Original Message -----------------
From: Dawn
Date: Feb 1, 2006 9:40 AM

I will kindly remove when presented with a reasonable explanation. This was in fact a PUBLIC concert!



----------------- Original Message -----------------
From: Anne (takespix)
Date: Feb 1, 2006 6:02 AM

Dawn,

The photo of XXXXX you are using is owned by me. It's my copyrighted material, and I'm going to ask you nicely to please remove it from your myspace account. XXXXX uses it with permission, as does his mom. I limit the use of that photo for legal reasons. Thanks for your understanding.

Anne
****************************

At that point I wasn't going to go any further with her, so I contacted myspace. THEY removed the photo's. Then she started harrassing me with multiple nasty e-mails, and went as far as to accuse me of pretending to be someone else. She's quite obviously delusional and unbalanced. At any rate, I reported her to myspace and "POOF" she was gone.

She was hardly 13--according to her profile and photo's, she's got a daughter who's about 13. I DO allow some people limited use of my photo's for free. But I also absolutely INSIST that they ask first. She had actually removed the copyright from my photo by cropping it out. That particular photo was just sold to a record label, and the ONLY people I allow to use it are the musician, his band/management, and his mom--who has become a friend of mine.

And BTW--my personal photo doesn't have him in it--in fact I've got two photo's of me with guys on myspace, one is my husband, and another is one of my best friends--who looks NOTHING like the musician being referred to, so I have no idea what she's referring to.

Anne

 

[elizke]

and then alter them, and repost them, telling the OP/photographer that they made it better.

Isn't photography as an art very subjective, shouldn't a photo be the way the photographer wants it to be. would anyone take a painting by one of the masters and change it, telling them it could have been better...


now if the op asks for help or critique, I can see the point.

otherwise I can't imagine telling someone how to make their picture better without understanding what exactly they were trying to accomplish..

in the past week I've seen people being told their pics should be lighter, darker, straighter, cropped differently, to remove foreground objects, which actually is a very good way of framing...and showing depth...

maybe it's just me, and the way I was taught, the course I took was taught by full time working professionals, they would grade photo assignments on audio tape, they never told a student that a picture was bad, or wrong, they would point out good points, then suggest that next time you might want to try _______________. fill in the blank...much more positive way of helping someone..

I agree completely! Even in a photography forum, no one should change your picture unless you ask for help. It's very presumptuous to assume you know how it would look better. I saw one the other day where someone had posted a silhouette photo and someone else took it upon themselves to "brighten up" the subject! I just don't get it, why some think that normal manners do not apply here.

In a regular photography forum, there are times when you make suggestions or point something out, but even then you don't "fix" it without asking.

And it is an art. There are extremes where we can all agree, but so much more subjectivity in between.

E.

 

[LordAthens]

Wow, some people out there are just unreal. I understand your frustration Anne, which is why I rarely post photo's anymore, nothing really decent, atleast.

I had a gentleman come into my store the other day to return a DVD recorder. He threw it down on the counter

"This thing is a piece of...".

"I'm sorry sir, what seems to be wrong with it?"

"It won't copy my DVD's to tapes!!!"

"Well, if you're attempting to copy a studio-released movie, there is a reason that the DVD recorder won't let you. It's illegal".

"Bull...., no it's not!"

"Actually, it is, mainly inpart due to the DCMA that was passed in 1999"

"There's no way that's a law! I'm a cop! I would have heard about it!"

He then dropped the "I'm a cop" thing another 8 or so times. I guess because he's a cop he's also a laywer and know's every law.. I was half tempted to ask him if he could explain some of the tax evasion laws to me.

 

[ducklite]

I goofed--I do have photo's of myslef with other guys on my myspace profile. One of them is me with my girlfriend and her son. One is my DH and I. One is me with a band I toured with 15+ years ago, and it's o distant you can't really even make out faces. One is my friend and I. And the last one is my DH, DS and myself.

Just wanted to set the record straight. Other than the really old one, I have no photo's of myself with guys in bands. Usually I'm on the other side of the camera.

Anne

 

[Kelly Grannell]

Meh, I don't care if in a "photography board" somebody takes my picture, messes with it (crop, rotate, change colour balance) as long it's for demonstration / input giving purposes, I'm all game.

Maybe this is not valid for most people, but I WANT to be criticized. Even if it is considered as "invalid criticizm". I have enough brain to filter which input I want to take and which input I don't. Besides, depending on the context, not every aspect of photography is subjective. Things like digital noise, over/under exposure, over saturation etc, UNLESS they are deliberate, those aspects can be argued objectively and scientifically.

For example, certain camera DO have visible noise at ISO 100 (more than an actual 35mm ISO 100 film grain), there is nothing subjective about this. The fact is that particular camera's ISO 100 is grainy, plain and simple, can't be argued. You like it? that's fine, but is it "right"? Of course not, because the job of a digital camera is to emulate film's characteristic (or better), so if the digital grain is worse than 35mm counterpart, then it's not acceptable.

Furthermore, the science of colour is, a science, that's the reason behind monitor calibration, printer calibration, or in recording studios: sound calibration. How do you know how much deliberate overexposure or oversaturation or desaturation etc you want if you don't know what is the reference point?

Liking vs not liking is subjective.
correct vs incorrect is objective.
DELIBERATE 'incorrectness' is subjective.
ACCIDENTAL 'incorrectness' is objective.

Oh, back to the topic: yeah, I don't mind (actually I encourage) people criticize my work by changing my work for the purpose of showing me how it's supposed to be done (in their eyes, both subjectively and objectively). It's a hell lot easier to give an example rather than writing a whole bunch of text. Especially because I have a fully calibrated screen and controlled lighting condition.

 

[Muushka]

Personally I would never critique a photo unless the poster asked for it.
And I would definitely not fix one!

But they are all great!