Ethical Considerations

[thomasgeorge]

EVERYONE: It seems as though every new advance in technology is accompanied by abuses,as, the ethical"instruction manual",as it were, is generally not "shipped" with the technology in question. Digital retouching on a mass scale and avaliable to the general public is, I think, a good example. Brand new and just trying its wings.What are your thoughts on a code of ethics as regards the use of these powerful programs? Are there image manipulations which are "out of Bounds" or is all protected free expression? Is it a matter of personal choice or are there higher considerations to contemplate and use as guides? This is a serious subject, I think, and everyone from beginner to seasoned Pro should weigh in on it. A photo is a very powerful thing for good and for not so good uses. What is your take on this? Tom

[DJ Dubovsky]

I generally consider copyrighted material off limits but in a few cases were friends and family were concerned, I have crossed that line. I made no money on it and it's not something I would do for just anyone. I wouldn't want anyone to undercut me that way so I try not to do it to others. But you are right, where do we cross the line? It's a tough question.
DJ

[vogonpoet]

we draw the line at money.

that is obvious I would have thought. As long one is not trying to profit from an image, and gives credit to the original artist/photographer I don't see the issue. Blatant plagerism, where one intentionally steals an image in order to profit from is wrong and should be frowned upon. generally speaking, most artists allow use of their work as long as it is not used commercially, i.e. for making money. Most artists appreciate the extra awareness created by people using their work I would think.

Common sense rules as always..

just my 0.2cents ~Vp~

[Doug Nelson]

Well, there's absolute ethics (ie: law, copyright, privacy, etc.) and relative (or personal). You've all seen the hoops I jump through to stay within the law here. The personal ethics are trickier.

I was recently emailed via my biz site by a hunter that wanted me to take a picture of him with a large animal he'd killed and remove a deep shadow and retouch out the antlers. I suspected something was up about the antlers, but mostly I was just repelled by the photo. I emailed him back with my apologies, refusing the job.

He wrote a very long, calm letter telling me exactly how stupid I was and how dishonest my website was (since I didn't explicitly state "no murdered animal retouching" or something).

Even if I was a big fan of hunting I'd have been hesitant about the antler thing, and would have needed that cleared up first.

[thomasgeorge]

I recently was asked what it would cost to take two pictures and combine them. It seems they were of a husband and wife who got along well enough to have two kids then, although never divorcing, kept out of each others way for the next 40 years. No pictures of them together were ever taken as they BOTH refused to be photographed together. One of their children now wants a picture of them together and both are still alive and adament about NO PICTURES. Currently I am sitting on the fence about this one. Any ideas? Tom

[kathleen]

how 'bout the golden rule. really.

[Doug Nelson]

Well, if you know the opinion of the subjects, who technically own their likenesses, you'd probably be better off heeding that.

That's a toughy, though.

[thomasgeorge]

I rather doubt I will be seeing the folks again as the price I quoted was predictably more than they were willing to pay, read that as anything over $5 = TOO HIGH. But I wanted some input anyhow. Ethics are a quagmire of emotion,legality and common sense with a healthy dollop of higher considerations thrown in, and to avoid getting tangled in that web I like to find out what others think and what their suggestions are. What helps one can certainly help all. Tom

[Chris W.]

Well I just had to make one last stop at the forum before I head for cool Colorado.

Tom,

I love the anything more than $5...we really are from the same type of area. Even down to the couple who avoided each other for 40 years...have a couple just like that here. I guess I would probably suggest to the kids that maybe using a picture fram that holds 2 pictures and put one of each parent in there might be the best route to go. They could have the background blurred and have them vingetted (sp?) and a matting put in and it would really dress it up. This is of course if it's a picture they have taken and have the negatives. If they don't have pictures of the parents they've taken then just putting them in the frame without retouching would still work. As I believe DJ said in another forum, everyone today is sue crazy and I do believe this to be very true. I stick with the rule of thumb that if they have no negative then they sign a release.

Doug,

Good choice on the antler decision. Sounds like someone was trying for a Boone and Crockett rating which is the cream of the crop in the hunting world. I have a customer who not too long ago received a B&C rating on a buck he killed...but luckily it was his buck and the picture was definitely not manipulated.

The work we all do is a specialized type of thing that a few customers will try to use for their own not so legitimate purposes. Just one of those things in life I guess where we have to ask questions and then ask more questions and be extra careful.

See you all when I get back.

[kathleen]

chris,
i wish you were stopping by one more one more time because i think yours is a beautiful and creative suggestion.

i'm in $5 country too, by the way. whatcha gonna do?

[thomasgeorge]

I suspect you hit it on the head about the Boone and Crockett Chris. For the small amount some folks want to pay it is tempting to give them a burned stick, some colored clay and tell them to draw a reproduction of their photo on the nearest cave wall. Tom

[kathleen]

i had this sudden image of you standing on your porch, tearing your hair, beating your chest, yelling "philistines! philistines! philistines! i'm surrounded by philistines!"

[kathleen]

make that bellowing

[Ed_L]

Okay -- everyone who is *not* in $5.00 or under territory, stand up. Did you hear me? Stand up! Where did everyone go?

Ed

[DJ Dubovsky]

I live in one of the ritziest towns in the US and $5 is just toooo much to spend. (OK not in it exactly more like in the outskirts of it) Now maybe if I had a French Designer Label on my work that would be different. Hey.... maybe I'm on to something here.
DJ

[Ed_L]

I hate to tell you this Debbie, but I think you'd have to change your last name.

Ed

[thomasgeorge]

I only wish I had enough hair to tear!!! Tom

[DJ Dubovsky]

How's this? Priceless Moments by Dubois. Just a few letter modifications and I go from Chech to French. and voila'
DJ

[Doug Nelson]

Or DeJais

[Ed_L]

If you made it Dupuis, you could be one of my distant relatives.

Ed

[thomasgeorge]

Chris; GOOD POINT---QUESTION,QUESTION,QUESTION. Has anyone out there been approached to do "ORWELLIAN" type work,ie, manipulate a photo in a manner that seemed somewhat suspect? The power of even the most basic photo manipulation program is pretty great and those of us who use them have a responsibility to use our skills, no matter at what level they are in a, well, responsible manner. Whats your input everyone--no matter if you have 20 years or 2 minutes experience in this field your input is needed. Tom

[Ed_L]

Hi Tom,

I agree. Everyone should use their skills in a responsible manner. There might be times when you just have a bad feeling about something, and in instances like that, I think you just have to go with what your gut feeling is. Unfortunately, there are those who use these skills to produce illegal or immoral images. There is more to life than the almighty dollar in my opinion, and self respect is one of those things.

Ed

[edgeley]

Why not try the double christian name approach much beloved by hairdressers?

Perhaps "Adrian John Imaging" or "Henry Paul Concepts"

[thomasgeorge]

Edgeley, Good idea! Something along those lines does have a "flare" and would tend to keep your business name in thought as it is just unusual enough to spark interest. Thanks for the input! Tom

[edgeley]

Tom....your username ...it's perfect!

[edgeley]

Tom

On a more serious note, I am in complete agreement. I have refused requests that may have caused distress to an individual. Without going into detail, one request involved the manipulation of an individual's physical characteristics... I don't mean someones !!!!

Edge

p.s. I just LOVE these smilies!

[thomasgeorge]

Edgeley, I know what you mean there. As a "joke" I was contacted to do some "Orwellian" type work involving a man and an ex girl friend. NO WAY. My feelings are that Just because it can be done does not mean it SHOULD be done. Legal reprecussions aside, to establish Photo restore/retouch as an honorable profession and hobby that kinda stuff has got to be refused, if we dont police ourselves then all is lost. Tom

[kathleen]

amen

[edgeley]

I think one of the more worrying trends in recent years is the willingness of the Press to indulge in manipulation in order to degrade and demean the subjects of their articles.

In the UK, some tabloids have the mentality that "anything goes" as long as you increase the sale of newspapers. Worse still, there are numerous sites on the Net that are actively engaged in the manipulation of "factual" images and passing them off as legitimate. Also, I'm afraid that generally people accept information from this quarter without question

It's a sad, sorry state of affairs...

Edge

[thomasgeorge]

EXACTLY---- I have a saying taped to my desk that reads "FREEDOM WITHOUT RESPONSIBILITY IS SIMPLY ANARCHY". It is distressing to note the erosion of principal which has slowly been destroying the creditability of the press. I would hate to see the cynical attitude the public has towards that institution spill over to what we do!!! Tom