Gingerwings wrote:
Yeah I have had photographers tear images off of my mayhem/OMP (the latter being a more impressive feat) and "edit" them then send me the "better" ones.  I wrote them back saying no thank you and please do not rip the images photographers take of me again.  Stick to editing your own work.  Isn't her using the ones you edited illegal somehow?  I dont know.. It just sounds like it could/should/would be.

No not really... it being hard that it... you just press print screen which is above insert and it takes a copy of exactly what is on the screen then you put it in mspaint.. a windows standard, then you paste it and cut the image out and resize whatev... I didnt mean that to sound like i think you are dumb, so i hope it didnt come off that way but it you wantd to knw how to do it... and I dont see a problem retouching an image if A) the model took it herself (that happens alot here) or B) just to show your spin on it... it DOES seem rude though to make it like its not good enough already.. but doing it behind closed doors, like if someone repaints a picasso or copys a monet and hangs it in their home and shows a friend or two it doesnt hurt and both parties know you arent really the artist... the model posted the copy for the real thing and that is her fault.

f4 Photo wrote:
As for the right to retouch someone else's work, I can certainly do that as long as I don't publish it (and I wouldn't do that). If the model has an agreement with her photographer that she won't retouch any images then she shouldn't publish them either. I've no idea what agreement she had with her photographer.

Clearly the photo retouching police are not going to come along and arrest you for retouching someone else's images.  I just said you shouldn't.  It's professional courtesy to not screw with someone else's copyrighted images.  She shouldn't have used it either.  I understand you were just trying to be nice but it's not the best way to go about it.  I've come to the conclusion that when you offer someone something for nothing they don't see the value in it or appreciate it very much.  Oh well, sometimes we can't win.  Apparently there have been a few other posts about this since TX added a link.

TXPhotog wrote:
http://www.modelmayhem.com/posts.php?thread_id=70707

Good spot Rodger. 
By the way, wasn't it you who said that there was not a clear cut copyright infringement if the model did some modifications to the original shot as long as it was still obviously the same picture?
It's been a while so I could be incorrect.

markcomp wrote:

Good spot Rodger. 
By the way, wasn't it you who said that there was not a clear cut copyright infringement if the model did some modifications to the original shot as long as it was still obviously the same picture?
It's been a while so I could be incorrect.

Yes, it was me.  The issue isn't copyright infringement in any case.  Either she has the (limited) right to make copies or she doesn't, whether she edits pictures or not.  Rather, it was the "moral rights" that are at issue, and they don't apply to pictures used in advertising and self promotion (or most other pictures).

TXPhotog wrote:

Yes, it was me.  The issue isn't copyright infringement in any case.  Either she has the (limited) right to make copies or she doesn't, whether she edits pictures or not.  Rather, it was the "moral rights" that are at issue, and they don't apply to pictures used in advertising and self promotion (or most other pictures).

Well, I would have to side with her on this one.  I would be a little irked if a person did that to my work without asking first.

Tikal wrote:

No not really... it being hard that it... you just press print screen which is above insert and it takes a copy of exactly what is on the screen then you put it in mspaint.. a windows standard, then you paste it and cut the image out and resize whatev... I didnt mean that to sound like i think you are dumb, so i hope it didnt come off that way but it you wantd to knw how to do it... and I dont see a problem retouching an image if A) the model took it herself (that happens alot here) or B) just to show your spin on it... it DOES seem rude though to make it like its not good enough already.. but doing it behind closed doors, like if someone repaints a picasso or copys a monet and hangs it in their home and shows a friend or two it doesnt hurt and both parties know you arent really the artist... the model posted the copy for the real thing and that is her fault.

Yes, I know how to use print screen, however to get the file from the website you need to view source and know a little code, you can get the original files.  I was only really making reference to the rt. click lock on OMP.  If you know what you're doing, nothing on the computer is hard. :-)

f4 Photo wrote:
So I take one of the images in her portfolio and I retouch it for her. It looks 100x better and it shows I have some editing and retouching skills.

Holy cow.  I am truely amazed that you would take someone else's image and retouch it.    Did the photographer give you permission to retouch his/her image?

Also, even if the photographer did give you permission, why would sending a retouched version of someone else's work show this model that you are a PHOTOGRAPHER that she should consider working with?  If you want to demonstrate YOUR retouching skills, why not send the model an example of YOUR work that is unretouched and then retouched?  Why would you take someone ELSE's work to show this?  Why would you take an image in her portfolio that she must be proud of and essentially insult her by showing her how YOU could make some other guys work BETTER?  Does YOUR photography work not speak for itself?

Odd

f4 Photo wrote:
I don't need anyone's permission to retouch their work as long as I don't publish it. That much should be obvious.

That's true, you don't.

f4 Photo wrote:
There are professional retouchers who do nothing but retouch other people's work.

That seems irrelevant to your discussion - they are hired to do that as part of a team.

f4 Photo wrote:
Why not use my own work - well, maybe it's so good it doesn't need to be retouched! On the other hand what would be more impressive to you as a client. An image of someone you don't know shot badly so I could demonstrate my "skills" or an image of you that someone else had (presumably) made as good as they could, which had been greatly improved by me?

My impression of what you did - you were showing off at the expense of another photographer.

f4 Photo wrote:
It's up to the model to throw it away or to use it. If she choses to use it, it's she who needs permission from the photographer, not me. Often the permission to alter images (or have them altered) is implicit in a TFCD release.

Nothing should be "implicit" if it's a competent release. The whole point of these documents is that they make everything explicit. Most releases I've seen have a statement about not altering images. I certainly don't want others modifying my art. But you're right, it is the models responsibility to clear it with the photographer of origin before posting it. It hinges on the agreement the two of them have.

f4 Photo wrote:
Some models just don't seem to know what a good image looks like.

Yeah, Ain't it the truth!

f4 Photo wrote:
They don't realize when photographers are giving them sub-standard images. If they did they wouldn't put them in their online portfolios.

Yeah, those darn models... they just don't get it.

f4 Photo wrote:
Maybe sometimes they need to be shown what a competent professional can do.

And you're the guy to do it.

And you do!

f4 Photo wrote:
I don't need anyone's permission to retouch their work as long as I don't publish it. That much should be obvious.

Certainly you can edit it. Whether you're permitted to copy it in order to edit it, however...

f4 Photo wrote:
There are professional retouchers who do nothing but retouch other people's work.

Yes, and they get releases to do so. (Or at least I do, when it's not given me directly from the photographer.)

f4 Photo wrote:
Why not use my own work - well, maybe it's so good it doesn't need to be retouched!

Hmm.

f4 Photo wrote:
Some models just don't seem to know what a good image looks like. They don't realize when photographers are giving them sub-standard images. If they did they wouldn't put them in their online portfolios. Maybe sometimes they need to be shown what a competent professional can do.

Sometimes, they take an image that was acceptable for magazine publication (and was published), and "tweak" it to their taste, changing the image to something quite different than what the photographer intended, too. It still irks me when models or makeup artists do it to my work, bur rhat's a battle I generally don't find worth fighting over.

f4 Photo wrote:
I don't need anyone's permission to retouch their work as long as I don't publish it. That much should be obvious.

Yup, your are correct.  But, did you get permission to COPY the image to your own web server then, PUBLISH it by sending the model a link to the image?  It is my understanding that courts are taking the position that displaying work on the internet is "publishing".  In your case, you copied the image and then displayed it on the web for COMMERCIAL GAIN (i.e. you used it to solicit business from the model). So, IMO not only did you copy it (unlawfully), publish it (without permission), you also used it in a commercial manner (which would further solidify the case for "publication"). If you wish to dispute that the image was "published and used commercially", fine -- that would be up to the judge.  But, can you defend your Copying of the image without permission?  How is it OK to COPY a copyrighted image without permission? 

f4 Photo wrote:
There are professional retouchers who do nothing but retouch other people's work.

Yes, and they are explicitly granted permission to do so by the holder of the copyright or a person with a license that allows them to make modifications.  Did you seek and receive this permission before copying, editing, and publishing the image?

f4 Photo wrote:
I have 20 images here and more on my website if a model wants to see MY work.

True.  But, in addition, you wanted to show the model your "retouching" skills and she would not be able to see this from your finished portfolio.  So, again, why not just send her an unedited and then edited version of your OWN images?  Why copy and then publish (without permission) someone elses work?

f4photo wrote:
It's up to the model to throw it away or to use it. If she choses to use it, it's she who needs permission from the photographer, not me.

Wrong.  IMO, you copied the image and published it when you took if from her port, put it in the web and sent her a link to it.  When the google picture bot finds it on your webserver and creates a link to it do you think that the photographer will be happy that you copied the image without his permission? 

f4photo wrote:
Often the permission to alter images (or have them altered) is implicit in a TFCD release.

Again, wrong.  But, it really doesn't matter since you HAVE NO IDEA what the release for this image says.  The release MAY explicitly state that the model can "retouch to taste" by the model or anyone she chooses or, it may explicitly say that NO alterations can be made except by the photographer.  But, since you 1) did not seek permission and 2) copied the image without permission and 3) published the image without permission, you have no way of knowing what the release says.

I think that you have made a serious mistake here.  If the photographer sees the updated image in the models portfolio and IF he gets disturbed (he may not get disturbed -- it may not bother him/her at all) and asks the model "why did you edit the image"?  Her response will be "f4photo took it from my port unsolicited, edited it, put it on the web, and sent me a a link to it.  I liked it. So, then, I dowloaded it and put it in my portfolio..... did I do something wrong?"  If the photographer is disturbed, expect an angry email from the photographer and perhaps a note from his lawyer about copying/publishing images without permission.  They may even send you a bill for the commercial usage of the image.

CAP210 wrote:
You cant copy, alter, and publish someones copyrighted property, whether it be a photograph or a musical work, without the permission of the copyright holder.
Try doing that to a song from a major record label and see how fast their lawyers are on you.

Yup

f4 Photo wrote:
Some models just don't seem to know what a good image looks like. They don't realize when photographers are giving them sub-standard images. If they did they wouldn't put them in their online portfolios. Maybe sometimes they need to be shown what a competent professional can do.

Pretty bold statement.  I don't see anything in your portfolio that exactly wows me to the point to believe your work is above standard.  I'm not impressed.  But then again, I'm not all that great myself so who am I to talk?

Amy J Jones Photography wrote:
... I'd be pretty irritated that 1) another photographer took it upon himself to retouch my images and 2) the model has the nerve to then use that image vs the original one that I gave her...

I just recently was asked to take photos for a late in life model who was after all pleasant to work with and did offer me a couple of nice photos for my own portfolio.  Turn around and had someone photoshop my photos.  She still has my copy right on the photos which I placed there, but under credits now I have someone whom I don't know and was not involved with my work sharing my credit.  Because I know unless she get's some work done to remvoe her heavy strech marks and change her really manly chin she won't be doing anything much I haven't asked her to change this.  But the more I think about it the more I want my photo credit as it is, MINE...and if someone else wants to be involved with her they can spend the money to buy cameras, lights, and everything else I have to do her photos.

nick latino wrote:
I just recently was asked to take photos for a late in life model who was after all pleasant to work with and did offer me a couple of nice photos for my own portfolio.  Turn around and had someone photoshop my photos.  She still has my copy right on the photos which I placed there, but under credits now I have someone whom I don't know and was not involved with my work sharing my credit.  Because I know unless she get's some work done to remvoe her heavy strech marks and change her really manly chin she won't be doing anything much I haven't asked her to change this.  But the more I think about it the more I want my photo credit as it is, MINE...and if someone else wants to be involved with her they can spend the money to buy cameras, lights, and everything else I have to do her photos.

Like the OP, this is a violation copyright. They took your images, edited them, and then published them on the Internet without your permission. This is not covered by "fair use," and is in violation of U.S. copyright law. Send the model and whoever else was involved a cease and desist letter, and if they continue to use the image consult with an attorney that specializes in copyright law. People do not have the right to download a photo from the Internet, create a derivative work from that photo, and then publish it. Period.

  -P-

http://www.copyright.gov/

f4 Photo wrote:
I see a new model in my state and I'm interested in working with her. Her portfolio is limited and what's there isn't good, but I think she has potential.

So I take one of the images in her portfolio and I retouch it for her. It looks 100x better and it shows I have some editing and retouching skills.

I send her email with a link to the retouched copy of her the shot and asking if she'd be interested in working with me. No answer of course, but what's new about that.

So I look at her portfolio again and sure enough, she's using the retouched image I sent her. I said she could, so that's not a problem, but still no email.

So I write to her again, Tell her I'm pleased to see she liked my retouching work and ask again if she'd like to work with me.

She reads my email but yet again decides it's not worth a response.

If anyone wants her name, I can't post it here, but maybe NJ photographers might like to get together and exchange a list of models who don't seem to be very interested in work and who probably aren't worth wasting time on. I have a pretty long list and it gets longer every week.

This is a violation of federal copyright law. Don't do this again.

  http://www.copyright.gov/

f4 Photo wrote:
I see a new model in my state and I'm interested in working with her. Her portfolio is limited and what's there isn't good, but I think she has potential.

So I take one of the images in her portfolio and I retouch it for her. It looks 100x better and it shows I have some editing and retouching skills.

I send her email with a link to the retouched copy of her the shot and asking if she'd be interested in working with me. No answer of course, but what's new about that.

So I look at her portfolio again and sure enough, she's using the retouched image I sent her. I said she could, so that's not a problem, but still no email.

So I write to her again, Tell her I'm pleased to see she liked my retouching work and ask again if she'd like to work with me.

She reads my email but yet again decides it's not worth a response.

If anyone wants her name, I can't post it here, but maybe NJ photographers might like to get together and exchange a list of models who don't seem to be very interested in work and who probably aren't worth wasting time on. I have a pretty long list and it gets longer every week.

And you want to share this person's name because you've wasted so much time on her? Why not move on and let this one go? I don't get all this drama. If you don't hear back from someone, while it may be rude, it's obvious they don't want to work with you for whatever reason. Let it go and find someone who does. That's what I do.

  -P-

  It's really amazing how much artificial complexity people add to their lives...

f4 Photo wrote:
Some models just don't seem to know what a good image looks like. They don't realize when photographers are giving them sub-standard images. If they did they wouldn't put them in their online portfolios. Maybe sometimes they need to be shown what a competent professional can do.

Yes, this is highly frustrating to those of us that know better, but educating models of this fact is delicate business to say the least.

We don't always know what someone's motives are to be a model and whether they're serious. Good work will only impress those that are serious.

DigitalCMH wrote:

Pretty bold statement.  I don't see anything in your portfolio that exactly wows me to the point to believe your work is above standard.  I'm not impressed.  But then again, I'm not all that great myself so who am I to talk?

I'm with you here, but I'm not surprised. Someone with the nerve to do what he did is probably not very experienced, and there's nothing in his profile to make me think he is.

f4 Photo wrote:
I see a new model in my state and I'm interested in working with her. Her portfolio is limited and what's there isn't good, but I think she has potential.

So I take one of the images in her portfolio and I retouch it for her. It looks 100x better and it shows I have some editing and retouching skills.

I send her email with a link to the retouched copy of her the shot and asking if she'd be interested in working with me. No answer of course, but what's new about that.

So I look at her portfolio again and sure enough, she's using the retouched image I sent her. I said she could, so that's not a problem, but still no email.

So I write to her again, Tell her I'm pleased to see she liked my retouching work and ask again if she'd like to work with me.

She reads my email but yet again decides it's not worth a response.

If anyone wants her name, I can't post it here, but maybe NJ photographers might like to get together and exchange a list of models who don't seem to be very interested in work and who probably aren't worth wasting time on. I have a pretty long list and it gets longer every week.

If the young lady wanted to talk to you she would.  HINT HINT

f4 Photo wrote:
As for the right to retouch someone else's work, I can certainly do that as long as I don't publish it (and I wouldn't do that). If the model has an agreement with her photographer that she won't retouch any images then she shouldn't publish them either. I've no idea what agreement she had with her photographer.

I realize this is a little off the original question, but if it bugs me, maybe it also bugs her.

having the (legal) right to do something doesn't make it ethical, or appealing.  if I'm reading this correctly, then you have the right to snag any of the pictures I've taken, that a model publishes/displays, and change them.  continuing in that vein, I have to specify limits on your behavior in my agreement with her.

personally, I know I'm not yet very good, and so if a model approaches you to clean up something I shot, I can live with that.  that's her call.  but for you to grab it, sans that request, is rude.  sure she may be using it.  if someone were to be rude and offer me something of value at the same time, I might take it, but I wouldn't go back to that person.

just my $0.02.