4 ms·

you could very easily take that into Photoshop, make it look like it was painted by a clown and then put it up on your website with the photographer credit I d

you could very easily take that into Photoshop, make it look like it was painted by a clown and then put it up on your website with the photographer credit I don't see how this matters. If you wanted to lie and discredit the photographer, you could just take your own photo, do the same exact thing, and claim the photographer took it. I do understand the economic incentive for the photographer to keep the digital copies, of course.

cwisecarver 13y ago
I didn't mean that it would be a malicious act. People have varying degrees of taste about photography. I might think a picture looks great the way I photoshopped it because it's my nephew and my monitor is calibrated incorrectly. Someone else might see it and think that there are dodge halos everywhere and all detail in the skin is lost because they tried to remove blemishes but instead removed all detail. They might think they've done a nice thing but they haven't. I've also seen wedding pictures show up in newspaper ads because it was the best picture that the person had of themselves. Hoomans don't understand or respect copyright, in general. When it's a big corporation it's one thing. When it's a guy/gal carrying forty pounds of gear around in their 15 year old car trying to make your memories last forever when they've got 1/500th of a second to get it right for ~$40/hr the copyright belongs to them. People should understand it. Edited for gender neutrality.