Photoshop Horror?

[Cavalier]

Originally Posted by Cheechako

Have you seen the Cialis commercial where the guy fixes a broken mainsheet shackle on his J boat "calmly and in control"? The last scene he is sailing along, but if you look closely the jib is backwinded on the windward side!

Sounds like a complete cock-up! ... oh wait...

[Mexdon]

Originally Posted by bobconnie

Our water in the gulf gets nice and Blue if ya go out far enough!! LOL and ya don't even need to photo shop it LOL

Not correcting your geography but would that be the Carib your talking about.

It is just south of the gulf.

[nautical62]

Photo editing, photoshopping, compositing or creating derivative works does not make a photo a copyright violation.

A composite photo using an image that is copyright by someone else without a usage agreement from the copyright owner of that photo may be a copyright violation, depending on the nature of the derivative work, the usage and the copyright status.

Creating a composite photo, even for commercial use in which the creator has either copyright or appropriate usage rights to both photo elements used would not be a copyright violation.


Given the background and low resolution image linked, it's hard to tell if that's a composite or not. (though I agree it has an unnatural look to it) What often gives composite images away are things like color fringing on the edges of the foreground image that do not match the new background, mismatches in scale, mismatches in lighting and poor interaction between the elements. Substituting what was probably one blue background for another would make those things hard to see. Her hair has a somewhat clipped or extracted look to it.

Over filtering, over sharpening, or extreme saturation can also give a photo a very unnatural look.

[Cavalier]

Originally Posted by nautical62

Photo editing, photoshopping, compositing or creating derivative works does not make a photo a copyright violation.

No, but uploading STs May front cover without permission from the publishers may well do - which I thought was obviously the copyright issue for the mods I was refering to..

[Pete7]

Originally Posted by Cavalier

No, but uploading STs May front cover without permission from the publishers may well do - which I thought was obviously the copyright issue for the mods I was refering to..

It might do, however, they have just been given access to 94,000 CF members world wide for this months ST magazine and as the saying goes, there is no such thing as bad publicity.

Pete

[Cavalier]

Originally Posted by Pete7

.....there is no such thing as bad publicity.

Pete

All depends on exactly how crumby your art director is, I guess!

[senormechanico]

Originally Posted by Cheechako

Have you seen the Cialis commercial where the guy fixes a broken mainsheet shackle on his J boat "calmly and in control"? The last scene he is sailing along, but if you look closely the jib is backwinded on the windward side!

I noticed that the first time I saw it.
I kept waiting for the engine to spit out water from the exhaust pipe on the last scene, but they either cut the scene in time or photoshopped it out.
At least he wasn't on deck with a girl both sitting in bathtubs while the boat "sailed".

Argh.

[nautical62]

Originally Posted by Cavalier

No, but uploading STs May front cover without permission from the publishers may well do - which I thought was obviously the copyright issue for the mods I was refering to..

I saw your copy of the image, but did not see the original context. Generally speaking, copying for purposes of education, news and commentary fall under fair use. The magazine may also grant usage for certain purposes they feel will benefit them. (sometimes they grant this in the magazine) Hot linking, which displays the image on a site, generally is not considered a copyright violation from what I understand. (Usually, it's using a copyright image for profit or commercial use that gets one in trouble).

That's my understanding of the legality, then of course, there is what is one's interest to actually enforce. In the U.S., to pursue an image infringement case requires images to be registered with the library of congress copyright office. It's also customary for the copyright holder, if they think an image use violates their copyright to send the web administrator a cease and desist notice of the alleged violation, so they have a chance to remove it or explain why they feel it's not a violation. As an above post indicated, often it benefits a publication for a cover to be publicly displayed.

Also at issue, is who actually owns the image. Just because it's on the cover of a magazine, does not mean the magazine is the copyright holder. I've sold usage to a magazine, but retained the copyright. Since the magazine has added text to the photo, they may have copyright to the actual cover photo as a derivitive work, even if they do not have copyright to the sailing photo itself. I'm not sure on that.

Since the image includes a recognizable person, also at issue could be rights relating to release such as rights of privacy or and rights of publicity, but that's another whole can of worms.....

I did participate in one topic long ago which dealt with a possible copyright violation in which a moderator did participate and it was clear to me that copyright was something they understood and took seriously.

The above are my thoughts and understandings, but I am not copyright professional and can not in anyway speak for site administrators or their policy.

[nautical62]

Originally Posted by Cheechako

Have you seen the Cialis commercial where the guy fixes a broken mainsheet shackle on his J boat "calmly and in control"? The last scene he is sailing along, but if you look closely the jib is backwinded on the windward side!

Yes, I got such a laugh out of that for so many reasons.....

[STmag]

Thought I'd put an original shot of this on the forum, it was quite heavily coloured, but these days anything to stand out on the newsstand is a good thing. I'm not sure why people on here think the entire shot is faked, we just cranked the boat over to get the desired effect (ie so we could get the cover lines in the right place) . I'd be interested to hear if people think the original shot would be better as the cover shot, as we have found sunny looking covers sell - especially on the App store, so 9 times out of 10 we put new sky in. (rather than Solent february -2 grey sludge!)

ST Mag

(for some admin reason I cant put pics on - anyone know why? )

[hogfighter]

Am I the only one looking at a picture of a family reunion in front of a chateau?

[Mimsy]

I would prefer the original photo! Maybe enhance the skies a bit to put in some more contrast but the original is better and she looks silly without her hat! You can tell from her gear and the weather its cold- a hat makes sense.

[STmag]

Mimsy can you see the two shots - I have two pictures of a sail on a lawn?

[Hud3]

Here are the cover and the photo side by side. I see why you 'shopped the sky and water!

p.s. welcome to CF. Hope you stay around and join in the discussions!

[shorebird]

As a photograph, I prefer the original. The sea and sky look more real, and create more visual interest and capture more of a sense of adventure. HOWEVER, what sells magazines is something about which I know nothing, so if the new improved pics sells more mags, then have at it.