Wedding Photo into Oil Painting: $25
ic...@mailcity.com
Your wedding photo digitally rendered
into a beautiful Oil or Watercolor Painting, Pastel or Charcoal.
8 1/2 x 11 size only $25. For more information
simply email us at: ic...@mailcity.com
We'll send you an informative reply.
Best of love to you!
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Nathan Shafer
>
> What a wonderful gift these are.
>
> Your wedding photo digitally rendered
> into a beautiful Oil or Watercolor Painting, Pastel or Charcoal.
>
> 8 1/2 x 11 size only $25. For more information
> simply email us at: ic...@mailcity.com
Copyright. 'Nuff said.
- Nathan
Michael Allen Gelman
the cited author.]
Nathan,
You've just publicly accused this proprietor of breaking the law.
Why??
Certainly, you must realize that this is not necessarily an appeal
to break any law. It appears that you've made an AMAZING assumption and
consequent accusation -- please tell me if I'm wrong.
Surely you must know that not every wedding photo is done by a
professional, and not all professionals restrict copying priviledges from
the clients.
Honest people often take offense at being falsly accused -- I
know.
Sincerely,
Michael Allen Gelman
Amour Eternal Wedding Photography
___________________________________________________________
Planning to get married in western North or South Carolina?
http://AmourEternal.com
In article <35E207...@earthlink.net>, sha...@earthlink.net says...
JMH
>
> [This followup was posted to soc.couples.wedding and a copy was sent to
> the cited author.]
>
> Nathan,
> You've just publicly accused this proprietor of breaking the law.
> Why??
> Certainly, you must realize that this is not necessarily an appeal
> to break any law.
Nor is it necessarily copyright violation when the work in question is
being copied to a totally different medium. THose familiar with 2
dimensional artwork know that good photos often do not translate into
good paintings and vice versa. There is an element of artistic license,
for lack of a better word, in artwork which does not record what the eye
see exactly as does the camera. If I were to make a charcoal or pastel
copy from a copyrighted photo, I doubt this would be considered
copyright infringement since my copy would not be precisely exact as the
original. It would be my interpretation of a copyrighted work and
therefore not in violation.
There are computer software programs available in which a photo can be
scanned to create a counted cross stitch pattern. This is not viewed as
copyright violation as the finished product differs greatly from the
original. If there is a software program which can digitally master a
photo to make it into its intrepretation of the original, this is
probably also not copyright infringement.
Since this comes up routinely, perhaps I should scan in photos of pics I
had made in order to paint from them and the pics of the resulting
painting. One can clearly see then that my interpretation of the photo
would not be considered copyright infringement.
HOwever, the guy did violate the no ads posting guideline for this group
and that is enough to tar and feather him.
****************************************************
"When you tell the truth, have one foot in the stirrup."
- Mongolian proverb
http://www.mindspring.com/~thinds/jmh/
Nathan Shafer
>
> [This followup was posted to soc.couples.wedding and a copy was sent to
> the cited author.]
>
> Nathan,
> You've just publicly accused this proprietor of breaking the law.
No I haven't. What I have done is make a shorthand reference to a
discussion that has taken place several times on these groups. If
everyone was familiar with the argument, then my shorthand would
suffice. If not, then clearly it would be time for the discussion to
take place again.
> Certainly, you must realize that this is not necessarily an appeal
> to break any law. It appears that you've made an AMAZING assumption and
> consequent accusation -- please tell me if I'm wrong.
You're wrong.
> Surely you must know that not every wedding photo is done by a
> professional, and not all professionals restrict copying priviledges from
> the clients.
No, but I would guess that many people would think first of the ones
they paid to have done. Second, while not all professionals restrict
copying privileges, many do, and nowhere in that person's ad did I
see a copyright warning, such as the one I see everytime I go down to
my lab to have a print made.
Nathan Shafer, Alpenglow Photography
http://home.earthlink.net/~shafers
Photographic Artistry Nationwide: Weddings, Portraits, Nature & Wildlife
Tom K.
JMH wrote in message <35E2B4...@mindspring.com>...
>Michael Allen Gelman wrote:
>>
>> [This followup was posted to soc.couples.wedding and a copy was sent to
>> the cited author.]
>>
>> Nathan,
>> You've just publicly accused this proprietor of breaking the law.
>> Certainly, you must realize that this is not necessarily an
appeal
>> to break any law.
>
>being copied to a totally different medium. THose familiar with 2
>dimensional artwork know that good photos often do not translate into
>good paintings and vice versa. There is an element of artistic license,
>for lack of a better word, in artwork which does not record what the eye
>see exactly as does the camera. If I were to make a charcoal or pastel
>copy from a copyrighted photo, I doubt this would be considered
>copyright infringement since my copy would not be precisely exact as the
>original. It would be my interpretation of a copyrighted work and
>therefore not in violation.
>
Sorry to barge in, but I had to add my two cents worth (some say thats all
its worth anyway). The image process being discussed is a digital rendering,
NOT a person's interpretation of the photo. This IS a form of copyright
violation, if the person who took the photo wishes to pursue the matter. And
many photogs will if they make their living selling photographs. There is
sufficient precedent set in the courts to back up my thoughts.
Lets turn the situation around a little. Say you're an artist making their
living selling charcoal originals and I photographed your charcoal original
and went around selling prints. Its a completely different medium and I've
used my creative license to make the B&W photo. Get my drift? You're messing
with someone's livelyhood here. Especially since there are photographic
processes available to render the same effects as I think are being
discussed here. Plus I know the photographer can make a BETTER print since
there are fewer "generations" involved to print the photograph with that
effect.
>There are computer software programs available in which a photo can be
>scanned to create a counted cross stitch pattern. This is not viewed as
>copyright violation as the finished product differs greatly from the
>original. If there is a software program which can digitally master a
>photo to make it into its intrepretation of the original, this is
>probably also not copyright infringement.
>
The process does not greatly differ if you're only adding a screen or
pattern to the image. As for software that can think and create art solely
on its own, it makes me shudder.
>Since this comes up routinely, perhaps I should scan in photos of pics I
>had made in order to paint from them and the pics of the resulting
>painting. One can clearly see then that my interpretation of the photo
>would not be considered copyright infringement.
>
Huh?
>
>HOwever, the guy did violate the no ads posting guideline for this group
>and that is enough to tar and feather him.
>
On this point I do agree. I've got the feathers...
This is not the forum for this type of discussion but I thought it might
make someone realize the ramifications if they copy professional
photographs. Hope this keeps somebody out of hot water.
Best Regards!
Tom K.
Yes I'm a photographer. NO I don't do weddings or portraits. I'm a
commercial photographer (advertising etc..) and I bill hourly and give all
my clients unlimited usage rights. This is different from full copyright,
but they can use the photos whereever, and as many times as they need. I
also specialize in the reproduction of fine art for use in many printing
methods. I work with artists, and publishers in assisting them in the
production of limited edition prints and other uses. Just to give you an
idea from where I'm coming from.