dull retouching outcome

[Justgeorgi]

This woman TOOK my daughters photograph from somewhere. She did not have permission, it was not listed anywhere publically and therefore that means she STOLE it. Where did she get it? That is the point here. She took the photograph from me without permission. She is not the photographer that took the photograph, that is the point!

[Punkydoodlebug]

I'm not complaining that the photo is here, I just wanted to know where she obtained it so that I can have it taken down from whereever it is so that it doesn't get taken again. It's fine that she used it as an example of what she is trying to do, I understand that. I myself came to this forum to learn photo retouching and I am finding this place to be quite informative.

My only concern is that she was able to obtain this photo from some source that I do not know about, how many other people have also obtained it and are doing who knows what with it. Its a copyrighted photo of my child and the only 3 people that should have had a copy of it were myself, the retoucher and the photographer that took the photo whom I know does not have a website. Obviously the OP is no longer on these forums so I will not be able to find out.

[PatrickB]

I completely understand both of you. But nonetheless this should not become a bashing against one single forum member, do you agree?

Justgeorgi, do you have any evidence that kris stole the picture? I myself get my pictures from many websites, maybe you have seen the thread about bad photos and where to get them to practice? Maybe some other person published this photo somewhere and kris just took it?

I guess we'd better all calm down and clear this via PM, maybe Kris can help you to find the person who published this picture?

Patrick

[Justgeorgi]

Patrick,

First of all these are COPYRIGHTED photographs taken by PROFESSIONAL photographers. They are not public property. You, the original poster and the neighbors cannot just "take" them and do what you want with them. They were never made public to anyone. In fact the one of my daughter was a photograph I have ever particularly cared for and therefore never used anywhere. I don't know how this woman got the photograph in the first place. Its 3 years old for goodness sakes. I don't want strangers (especially those with uneducated views about my personal hobbies) playing around with my childrens photographs!

[Caitlin]

Georgi - you might want to calm down a little and not start making accusations unnecessarily. No matter what the original poster may or may not have done, there is no need to start making aspersions against other members here, who are simply trying to help you.

You say you have emailed Kris - have you received a reply from her yet? How long ago did you email? I have to say that if you emailed her in a similar tone I will not be surprised if she does not reply. You will find you get better results if you do not start attacking in the first instance. There may well be a reasonable explanation (as punky has suggested) for why Kris has your daughters photo. I do not think it is likely her intentions were ill - given that this is a private forum that requires membership to view images she certainly is not flaunting them.

BTW - Thank you Punky for clarifying your concern that your daughters image might have been posted on another site for free-for-all download - I can understand why that could be concerning to you.

[Justgeorgi]

Excuse me but obviously your children's photos were not STOLEN and posted on a board that ANYONE can sign up to enter in less than a minute.

My tone is very similar to TWO "tones" posted on this very thread that I have copy and pasted below.

I won't be back, I've contacted the OP and made my statements.

I am curious to know what your concern is, as entering your daughter in such an event seems to suggest you would want such attention?

Isn't a pageant something like "take a little girl, slap some coat of makeup on her face and let her walk down a catwalk in the hope of some people admiring her and her mother?

[PatrickB]

I won't make any statement on the quote above about yesterdays post, it is my own personal opinion and that's all.

But about the copyright thingy: There are hundreds and thousands of websites out there showing photos which are free to download, distribute and use. (eg. flickr.com, just as an example where I took a lot of pictures). So without knowing exactly the source where kris got the photo it is not ok to accuse her of theft!

Just a neutral example: If you buy a car and some time later the cops are at the front door and tell you this car has been stolen, are you a thief? Or just a poor wretch you bought a car somebody claimed it was her own?

That's the point in the whole discussion...

BTW, I myself did retouch-work for customers in the past and would NEVER EVER publish them without their permission since anyone could download them from my website and do whatever you can image.

You might try asking kris of which photo she originally got and where she got it from. If it's the retouched one, you know who published it probably

Patrick

[winwintoo]

WHOA!! Slow down!

Reading between the lines, here is what I believe the REAL issue is. Someone (who is no longer posting on RetouchPro) posted a picture of some young girls and asked for help in retouching it. The original post was over a year ago.

Then yesterday, the mother of one of the girls in the picture came across the thread, recognized her daughter's picture and understandably upset since she has the only copy of the picture, posted an inquiry about where the digital copy came from.

The mother's concern is that the picture might be floating around the internet. Not that it was released into cyberspace from this forum, but that it existed in cyberspace BEFORE it was posted here. AND she would like to locate it and find out how it came to be there.

Harsh words from us won't help her.

Margaret

[1STLITE]

I did a web search and all I was able to come up with is that the person is named Christy and she is from Amory, Mississippi. Dunno if that helps or if the two of you moms are from the area, as neither of you have anything listed in your profiles, but that is what I found. And I wanted to bring up that the person did not appear to be using your photos, except as an example of an effect she wants to replicate in her own work. Maybe you two should contact the person who took the photos and ask where they may have been using them, since you say you have never put it online or given a copy to anyone else who may have put it online.

One of the links I came up with when searching for tzfotoz was a contest someone was doing for pageant retouching. But I could not find her or anything that she did there. Still, though, maybe your photographer has used your children and their photos somewhere online, and maybe that is how "christy" came across it. ?

Dawn

[Flora]

Hi,

I'd like to join Margaret in asking everyone to please slow down ... now and in future ...

'Pageant' is a very controversial topic and everybody is entitled to see it the way they want and to express their opinion ... and for me that's all there is to it ...

But the problem here was the non-allowed presence of those pictures in the Internet ... I understand it must be very disturbing to realize pictures of your children have somehow 'leaked' in the Internet ...

I guess Kris, the original poster, simply found and downloaded them during an Internet search on 'pageant' and only wanted some help in learning the techniques on how to achieve similar results .... (we have at least one professional pageant retoucher here at RP..) ... from his/her side no real harm intended and done ... so ... 'steal' is a bit excessive ....

... You are absolutely right in trying to trace back to the first (real) leakage ... It surely shouldn't happen ... more so if you invested a lot of money to get the services of "professionals" ... ...

However, aggressiveness, accusations and insults, particularly if thrown in the wrong direction (the pictures actually only 'landed' here ... ) ... even if the outrage behind them might be justified, never helped anyone ....

[chrishoggy]

Must admit that if private pictures of my kids came up on any forum (without me doing it), I would be just as upset as the person on here. I think the pictures should be removed ASAP, and one of the mods contact the original poster by Email to request some info on where the photo came from.
Also the original file name they downloaded would be a good place to start a trace. I've done it in the past and found a great deal of info. If you know the original photographers name, this may also trace the picture back.
EDIT
Well she didn't take much tracing. If you get no reply from the user in question, I have info you may need to contact her direct Try contacting the webmaster of this site http://www.udesignimageworks.com/EXAMPLE_2.htm as there are photos of hers on there too

[grafx]

Howdy all,

Kristy is a photographer and she recently began to try her hand at retouching her own photos (I've retouched some for her in the past). In my experience, if she has the "un-touched" version of a pageant photo (which no one ever sees) she was either hired to retouch it, given it as a "test" of her retouching skills, or she took the photo.

Looking at the photo it does not look like it came from one of the big name pageant photographers. The photo was most likely farmed out to someone to retouch...perhaps it was Kristy? If not her, maybe someone she knows that needed some help.

There are no malicious plots here. Take the pageant drama back to the Pink Board and please Moderators remove the mother's photos from the board.

Additional thought: Retouchers do not necessarily need parental permission to use photos in their portfolios etc. If the photographer has a release they can extend that to the retoucher. Copyright remains the property of the photographer not the client. They may get a release if they plan to use a photo in advertising, but for their own use they do not need it. This doesn't apply to posting on boards or randomly on the web, of course. An honest mistake I think.

[Kraellin]

i dont see any malicious intent here either. best guess is, a photographer takes pictures. they build a portfolio to sell themselves to others. that portfolio is going to contain shots they've taken in the past. i'd certainly do it and not feel the least bit guilty about it either. that i might also put part or all of that portfolio up on the internet, the greatest advertising 'agency' since madison avenue, is no real surprise either. and likewise, if i'm retouching for business, i'd also want my work seen.

but, this whole issue does raise some interesting points. in an age where 'kiddie porn', child abductions, and other child crimes have come more to light and seemingly more prevalent, as a parent i'd also be a bit concerned over such things as having my child's image blazoned over the internet. yet, you can still go to almost any web site where photos are posted and find children's pictures a plenty. so, it's not as insidious as one might seem. but, it does raise the question of who owns the photos a photographer takes. as a photographer, i say i do. as a client, i might also say i do. so, perhaps in this age of music, software and video piracy, photography shld start setting some standards along these lines as well. i've lots of photos i took years ago and would think nothing of posting them and do definitely consider that these are MY photos and that i dont need anyone's permission to do so. but, perhaps this is changing and in a lawsuit happy society, the wise photographer might want to start covering their behind and get up-front agreements before taking the shots.

and that's only one part of it. what about if i simply go to a pageant of the kind in question, or, for that matter, a sporting event or some other public venue and just take photos without it being on a commission basis? would i need to get releases from those i took the shots of before i could post or sell them? do sports photographers have to get releases from those they take pictures of before they can sell their shots to a newspaper or magazine? and what about the shots of celebrities taken without their permission? if i take a shot of some famous star and the local tabloid will pay me good money for it, surely those folks arent getting a release signed first. and if the photo in question was obtained in that manner at a child pageant, would i need the parent's release before i could post or sell it? i think not. i'm not saying that's the case here. this is just an additional question on the matter.

but back to the issue at hand, putting myself in the place of the two folks originating about their child's photos showing up on the internet. i think i'd be a bit surprised and perhaps a bit upset also. i made a contract with a photographer, a private contract for that person to take pictures of my child. i think i would not expect those pictures to suddenly show up on the internet without the photographer first contacting me. it's more or less a private deal when talking about a commissioned work, sort of like between oneself and one's lawyer, or oneself and one's confessor. you just dont expect it to go outside those walls. realistically, it does, as in the case of portfolios and so on.

and, taking this one step further, if i commissioned a photographer with my intent being for me to sell the work he produced, i would most certainly want a formal contract stating conditions. i dont think that's the case here either; just happened to think of it.

so, it's an interesting question. i dont know that there's any current legal answer. the thing i'd do is simply contact the folks involved and ask them to remove the pics and i'd guess that in 80-90% of the cases, they would. for that other 10-20%, well, that would be up to the individual how they wanted to pursue it or if even to pursue it. it sounds like the biggest issue here is 'how the heck did pictures of my child that i thought i owned exclusively, suddenly end up on the internet?'. and to that end, the obvious solution is simply to ask and trace the trail.

K.