Does editing a photo negate ownership?

i don't know how they apply to photographs, but it seems to me this would be a violation of the photographer's moral rights. i don't see how the photographer could give up his rights (unless they were assigned somehow) just because someone else doctored the photo.
 
You word the question in a very confusing way.

No, edits do not negate ownership. Even if somebody modifies an image under fair use, the rights to the original are still held by whoever holds the rights to original. As to what constitutes fair use, that's an entirely different question.

If they licensed the use of the photo and edited it, then whoever holds the rights to the original still holds the rights to the original.
 
Sorry, I did not intend to confuse. While I can understand edits for artistic or satirical purposes, I can't figure how changing a Reuters photo is proper simply by virtue of saying it has been changed, and then only saying so eventually.
 
i seriously doubt this comes to fair use. this is obviously a mass-produced magazine, and it is probably a licensed photo (for which the photographer was compensated). if they got it off the internet and then doctored it, that would be different.

regardless of ownership, etc., it's pretty unfortunate.
 
In general, you can alter a work of art if your purpose is to mock or parody it. THe alteration has to be transformative - which of course is a loose definition. (Copyright is of course different in UK and US, but in both countries the principles are similar).

Here, the photo has been altered to make a political point about Obama, not the photo. Its copyright still belongs to the photographer, who (or his agency) should therefore be credited.

One can argue his moral rights have been infringed, in that his work has been altered without his permission. But, in Europe, moral rights don't generally apply to news photos. If the National Review had credited him/the agency, and acknowledged the photo was digitally altered, then they will have done the right thing. I'm sure they always Do The Right Thing.
 
Some people understand propaganda very well.

Seth MacFarlane many years ago did as well, that controversy is great free publicity. The difference being, of course, that he does bad taste for a living.

I'm sure they have a shoot-first-ask-questions-later legal department.
 
Mr. Fizzlesticks said:
The photograph is legal as long as it was paid for and the intent was clear, but the larger question is whether or not the doctoring of the photograph creates any slander. If I was one of the people in the photograph holding a sign, the National Review would "have some s'plainin' to do!".

If I took a photograph of someone and put a caption under it "I molest chiwawas!" I would be screwed. No doubt about it. It is evident to me they stepped over the line on this one.
Click to expand...

That's actually a really good point. In the UK, they would have a slam dunk - it's one of the best-possible cases of libel from a lawyer's point of view. Any publisher hit by this would pay out without taking it to court (there's a similar case study in one of the leading UK media libel courses).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom