What's new
By:
Photoshop Gurus Forum

Welcome to Photoshop Gurus forum. Register a free account today to become a member! It's completely free. Once signed in, you'll enjoy an ad-free experience and be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Copyright Infringement Question


ChrisHPZ

ChrisHPZ

Power User
Messages
371
Likes
61
Hi everyone, how we doing. This may seem like a rather unconventional question but I think it deserves attention anyway. My problem is this. I have a hard time making realistic mountains in Ps. Everything about doing so eludes me. So as a solution to this, I loaded a few photo's of mountain ranges into Ps and made brushes out of them. Now here's the dilemma, if I use an element out of someone else's photo to make a brush, does this qualify as something I absolutely have to give credit to the owner of the photo to? My thoughts are that it is a fine line here. I'm not really using someone's photo in my work, but I am using an element of a photo as a basis to expand upon. I guess I'm just wondering about the ethics of this practice.
 
It mat depend on the stock images usage rights. There are those that allow it for personal or private use in which case there's no need to acknowledge the original creator of the images. Unless stipulated, you can't use even a part of a copyright image for personal or commercial work.

That's my .02....
 
Here's the deal on copyright.

Any and all photographs you (or anyone) might take are not automatically copyrighted. If the photograph is simply a record of how the mountain looked on that day it is not subject to copyright. In order for a work to be eligible for copyright it must show some human creativity - and it is that creativity which is subject to copyright.

Photography raises some interesting questions on inherited copyright. If you take a picture of a copyrighted work, that picture inherits the copyright of the original work. Since mountains are not copyrighted (last time I looked, anyway) a simple picture of a mountain does not trigger copyright protection.

So if you use a random image of a mountain you found on the web as part of your graphic design that image is probably not under copyright. If, however, you use an image of a mountain from a (copyrighted) Ansel Adams work, that image falls under the original copyright by Ansel Adams.

Bottom line? Don't use any photograph that claims to be copyrighted or is watermarked. Even if that copyright isn't valid it's just easier. But if you are just using a random image off the net which is just a mountain, you're unlikely to trigger any copyright issues.

The above does NOT apply to an original drawing or painting. Those are always subject to automatic copyright as being the product of human creativity. Don't reproduce them without permission or attribution. At all.
 
We covered this subject in college as it applies to user created digital graphics, in other words custom graphics made with whatever graphics editor. However the class was divided in what makes for automatic copyright protection. Seems like for every stipulation in favor of copyright, there was something else that countered the automatic copyright protection. This is actually one of the reasons that I insist on using my own work for my own work. The other reason is that the more I do with whatever editor I use, the stronger my skill set becomes. Thank you everyone for the input on this most controversial of topics.
 
Here's a really good link with some listings: http://www.publicdomainsherpa.com/public-domain-photographs.html

Personally, I don't believe in photos that are on the web (or elsewhere) being automatically copyrighted, which doesn't mean that a person shouldn't give credit when the credits are known. I think if an artist wants exclusivity, she should mark it with a signature or a watermark.

That doesn't mean that I won't take, as you suggest, an element of someone's photograph and use it in a composite. Whether that's strictly kosher, IDK, but there is a fine line and an ongoing discussion/debate. One thing I refuse to do is use any part of someone else's photo manipulation or drawing (unless it's clip art). I might make an exception for someone's cartoon drawing from deviant art site to fit into something silly. But I go to sites like deviant art to look for what I need before I google.

Did you search this site for this discussion BTW?
 
No ibClare, I didn't search this site for this discussion. I was going to, but then I assumed (insert the comment about assumed here) if I did find anything on this subject I'd be just as divided in my opinion about it as I was before. So to play it safe, I'm just going to start doing simple mountains in Photoshop. Gradually, I'll get better at it until I'm to the point where I can produce such imagery that seems to be photo realistic. Took a lot of work with Photoshop to be able to do some of the stuff that's on my website. But that fact is that all of my work is original and I like it that way. LOL, in all of my web graphic design classes in college, we were given "permission" to use stock art and what not for our assignments. But the whole point behind such was to develop skills with Photoshop. Some of us caught on more so than others. The thing that separated those that could do something in Ps from those that couldn't was the time and effort put into learning and developing a skill set with the application. I could very easily download some free 3D graphics editor, Lord knows I have a computer that can run these programs. But that would defeat multiple purposes such as my participating in this forum (I like it here) and using industry standard tools. Still seeking employment in the web/graphic design field.
 
I agree with you Chris; I don't do much drawing anymore and I rarely draw in PS. But I know what you mean about letting another program or plug-in do all the work for you (though there are plugins which help you do things beyond PS).

Anyway, it's good to see you developing a work ethic. This discussion is only bound to get more intense as the government gets involved.
 
Why get all political about an issue that's been around longer than the internet?
I can't remember the last time i viewed a image or compilation put up on this site that had a link back to original artist or confirmation of usage, yet you all bark on how it's not the way to go about things.
 
I guess maybe the discussion is relevant because people with philosophical and ethical questions have been around longer than the internet and so has the discussion.And ... even though I grow old and wonder what is new under the sun, there are those younger than I who come fresh to the question.

Just a thought.

and incidentally Paul, I have credited artists on more than one occasion when their photos formed a large part of my work.
 
Last edited:
and incidentally Paul, I have credited artists on more than one occasion when their photos formed a large part of my work.

Your ok then?
 
Interesting thread.

I see, actually, quite a bit of credit given to original artists on deviantart.

I've done it, myself, messing with somebody's photo, and giving them full credit for the original photo.

There are also specific laws on using variations on copyrighted images. Political cartoonists don't get sued if they draw a caricature of Mickey Mouse, right?

(at least I never have!)

Agent
 
Back
Top