This content has been marked as final.
Show 12 replies
-
1. Re: Fair Use?
Ann Shelbourne Aug 8, 2008 7:48 AM (in response to Wade S Zimmerman)Depends on how you caption it! -
2. Re: Fair Use?
Wade S Zimmerman Aug 8, 2008 8:09 AM (in response to Wade S Zimmerman)If I use it it will be a portrait of the ugly guy.
But still it is a funny situation the intent is not copy the image of the poster but it is clearly being use to exploit someone else's work. I think though it is fair use since it is one taking the subject out of context, that is it is no longer referring to the movie the poster is about and secondly it is working on a new concept though related in part to the original.
That s it is using the original in part as part of a new message and not as a representation of the original. And it has major elements that are not part of the original image that bring new meaning to the image of which it is now a part.
I would if I used it ask permission anyway. And have the original photographer grant a limited release.
If they did not release it I would remove the background. -
3. Re: Fair Use?
Allen Wicks Aug 8, 2008 8:56 AM (in response to Wade S Zimmerman)> If I use it it will be a portrait of the ugly guy.
...Which one is the ugly guy? -
4. Re: Fair Use?
Wade S Zimmerman Aug 8, 2008 9:14 AM (in response to Wade S Zimmerman)Of two ugly guys!
You and I are beginning to see things the same way! -
5. Re: Fair Use?
Ann Shelbourne Aug 8, 2008 9:53 AM (in response to Wade S Zimmerman)>And have the original photographer grant a limited release.>
I don't think that is necessary at all the poster is being displayed in a public space and its inclusion in the your photograph is purely incidental.
The only release you would need if the image is used to advertise a product, would be from the man portrayed on the left. -
6. Re: Fair Use?
Allen Wicks Aug 8, 2008 10:10 AM (in response to Wade S Zimmerman)> the poster is being displayed in a public space and its inclusion in the your photograph is purely incidental.
I would disagree; inclusion is not merely incidental. IMO the original poster image is a planned, important
i - essential even -
component of any artistic or commercial value of the combination image. (What that means as regards fair use I have no idea.) -
7. Re: Fair Use?
Wade S Zimmerman Aug 8, 2008 9:07 PM (in response to Wade S Zimmerman)Allen is correct it was intentional and it was planned even if at the spur of the moment.
I think it not only necessary to work it out withe original photographer but it is the right thing to do on the human level. Putting business aside.
And though this really doesn't enter into it I would not want to end up in court with this one.
Besides I can always take another photograph. -
8. Re: Fair Use?
(Silkrooster) Aug 20, 2008 3:50 PM (in response to Wade S Zimmerman)I think Wade is right. Its best to get permission than to find yourself at the receiving end of a law suit. Whether your in the right or not I wouldn't know. But it seams when it come to the court system, who ever has the most money wins. I think OJ kind of proved that. -
9. Re: Fair Use?
(Laurentius_Todie) Aug 20, 2008 4:15 PM (in response to Wade S Zimmerman)that's the simplistic approach
the picture is fine for private use
make it public (like posting it on a forum : ) and you can get in trouble -
10. Re: Fair Use?
Wade S Zimmerman Aug 20, 2008 6:16 PM (in response to Wade S Zimmerman)I think posting it one the forum is fine as it is not intended to pass the image involved off as my own and in no way infringes on the other photographers rights for commercial sale although now that you point it out I guess it could actually be construed as infringement.
You know I should contact the photographer of course for all I know he was paid for hire and the studio owns the rights.
I think would in this case, it is customary for them to work that way.
Good thinking Larry I will be in contact with them next week.
Of course the Lincoln Center Film Center has lots of pull and they like their box office guy a lot who is actually a fine illustrator and he likes the photo and wants to use it and so I am certain the studio will say no harm done and sure.
But I will be in touch with them let's see what their legal department says.
That might give us a clue. -
11. Re: Fair Use?
(Laurentius_Todie) Aug 20, 2008 10:31 PM (in response to Wade S Zimmerman)the Adobe forum is private property
(I think that your posting it here is fine, since as you said, it was not meant to be marketed)
[I think]
the OJ,.. money, rich, justice,.. was hogwash -
12. Re: Fair Use?
(Silkrooster) Sep 21, 2008 3:52 PM (in response to Wade S Zimmerman)I don't think the big boys will see it that way. They could argue that someone else would have access to that image and sell it.

