Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="ohkphoto" data-source="post: 144443" data-attributes="member: 1573">Just thinking aloud here . . . mostly because I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around this decision and how we got to this point.If I have an idea for a composite (Photoshop) that uses several photographs, and say one of them is yours,&nbsp; I would think that the ethical thing to do is approach you for a license.&nbsp; Most licenses state that attribution is required and that the photo cannot be altered.&nbsp; So that puts me in a dilemma, maybe, because I may want to alter it in the composite and would have to get your permission to do so.So according to the above quote, I can legally &quot;appropriate&quot; your photo because by using it in a composite I have &quot;. . . altered the original with new expression . . .&quot; and it therefore, qualifies under fair use, and the &quot;new use&quot; doesn't even have to be a &quot;commentary&quot; on the original (which would at least have given attribution to the original photo).Am I seeing this correctly,and if so, why would anyone bother buying stock photography again if all they have to do is &quot;appropriate&quot; and &quot;transform?&quot;</blockquote>

[QUOTE="ohkphoto, post: 144443, member: 1573"] Just thinking aloud here . . . mostly because I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around this decision and how we got to this point. If I have an idea for a composite (Photoshop) that uses several photographs, and say one of them is yours, I would think that the [B]ethica[/B]l thing to do is approach you for a license. Most licenses state that attribution is required and that the photo cannot be altered. So that puts me in a dilemma, maybe, because I may want to alter it in the composite and would have to get your permission to do so. So according to the above quote, I can legally "appropriate" your photo because by using it in a composite I have ". . . altered the original with new expression . . ." and it therefore, qualifies under fair use, and the "new use" doesn't even have to be a "commentary" on the original (which would at least have given attribution to the original photo). Am I seeing this correctly,and if so, why would anyone bother buying stock photography again if all they have to do is "appropriate" and "transform?" [/QUOTE]

Verification