Photo manipulating ethics
aitchmal0ne (37 points) | Wed, 2008-10-01 19:21How much of a photo can be manipulated for a lifestyle magazine to still fall within ethical practices? An example is I have a portrait of a chef and I need to remove a window in the background because the photographer didn't notice all of the cars in the background. Is this acceptable?
::Heather Malone
Instead of removing the window altogether, why not just photoshop out the traffic? However, before beginning this process, see what intellectual property rights you have for this photo, and also if the photographer requires credit.
"Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible."
— Frank Zappa
Paddle faster, I hear banjos.
In this case I'd contact the photographer and ask his/her permission. Don't forget to give credit to that person as well. As long as you've paid for rights to the image, you should be okay in editing it, but definitely contact the photog as they will be looking to get a copy of the printed piece you're making for their portfolio.
----
Natobasso
dirtandrust.com
"Powerpoint is not a design application"
----
The Salon Design Tech
I apologize for not mentioning that I am the art director for a magazine and the photographer is our staff photographer. I am able to edit as I see necessary.
::Heather Malone
Definitely vital information. :) Sounds like you're in the clear.
----
Natobasso
dirtandrust.com
"Powerpoint is not a design application"
----
The Salon Design Tech
You have full creative license in the case you mention. In fact, there is no "law" that states you can't completely manipulate images.
Most fact-based newspapers have internal rules and guidelines that prohibit manipulation simply because that is in effect manipulating "fact" or "news." You may recall the photographer that was fired recently (forgot which pub, Wall St. Journal maybe?) for adding more smoke to a photo he took of a bombed building in the middle east for the purpose of "sensationalizing" the photo. Most all newspapers have this rule of reporting the news (and photos are considered part of the news) AS THEY REALLY HAPPENED, and not as you interpret it after the fact.
Your situation simply isn't under the same circumstances, so you have full creative license.
But let me say that I think it's extremely cool of you to even take that under consideration in your work, and ask about it. It shows a LOT of professionalism, respect for your job, and your readers. Kudos to you!
-----------
Visit The Graphic Mac for graphics and Mac OS tips, reviews, tutorials and discussion.
I agree with everything you said except this:
"You have full creative license in the case you mention. In fact, there is no "law" that states you can't completely manipulate images.".
It's called Copyright Law and it does, indeed, cover photographs; whether you "maniuplate" them or not.
----
Natobasso
dirtandrust.com
"Powerpoint is not a design application"
----
The Salon Design Tech
i think, in context, he's still safe under copyright law. under copyright law, his company owns the copyright, thus his company has all legal rights to manipulate them.
I should have said I was responding to this statement: "In fact, there is no "law" that states you can't completely manipulate images.".
In this case, yes, the company owns the image and they can do whatever they want with it.
----
Natobasso
dirtandrust.com
"Powerpoint is not a design application"
----
The Salon Design Tech
I thought it didn't need clarification that you do have to actually OWN the photograph. Of course if you don't own it you can't manipulate it, you can't even use it... but it was clear from the get go that they owned the image, so I didn't bother to clarify my statement - perhaps I should have.
-----------
Visit The Graphic Mac for graphics and Mac OS tips, reviews, tutorials and discussion.