Our mentoring group has been considering the question of photographic ethics both in general and as it applies to posting on 365 and would be interested in opening up a discussion amongst the whole 365 community. Several of us have begun playing with Texture Effects, hyperdroste, and other similar programs which have made us wonder about the potential ethical considerations and also ways to support everyone's learning on the site as we advance in our editing skills
We have two questions. First, how much and how should we share information in the narrative/comment section? This question comes from a desire to contribute to the site and share processing techniques, tips, and results. Second, under what circumstances does use of other tools mean it’s no longer “our” photo? This question comes from the ethical question of what should be shared so we are not taking credit from someone else’s photos, templates, textures etc. If we don’t cite our sources, are we really plagiarizing someone else’s work? Below are questions that have come up as we’ve discussed this with one another via email. We thought it could be useful to take our conversation to the 365 site.
Below are some comments from our email exchanges. We aren’t listing who said what, but these represent a number of our shared views.
-If I use a texture created by someone else, should I acknowledge the creator of the texture? Or is it enough to just name that I used textures? Or is it my artistic vision that begins with a photo of mine and can use elements from other people?
- If I use elements in one of my photos that were taken by me but not in the same frame as the main subject, should I say so up front when I post it?
-If I use a template that either I bought or got free online or as part of a subscription and add my photo to it, should I say so up front when I post?
-Somehow for me the Hyper Droste and similar templates are pretty obvious...I at least when I first used the program, named it as such when I posted using it. And I see it as sharing what I am learning with others on the site who are eager to learn.
-I've taken a moon from one of my photos and placed it in another one and done the same occasionally with a sky. I haven't always said so up front mostly because I want to know if it is so obvious that someone asks or if it works pretty well. Of course if someone asks I would say that was what I'd done and sometimes after it has been there for a while and I've gotten a pretty good idea re whether or not it works, I will add that info to the picture in question.
-I haven't said where I got the textures that I have used but not created myself. I'm thinking maybe it would be better to give credit where it is deserved, but I'm still unclear if that is excessive.
-I've posted a few composites and so far just used my own photos though sometimes someone else's textures, but if I included stock photos or someone else's photo I would think I should credit appropriately.
-I’ve posted and given links to the textures.com site that I’d used. I just assumed on 365 that we would want to share what we are learning in case others want to use it as well. I also have gotten links from others and when I can remember who shared the link with me, I try to give them credit. I can’t always figure out where I got the link though.
Our mentor group has been grappling with this for a while and we are aware that there is a range of views. We would appreciate hearing from others who use textures, templates, and processing that goes beyond basic editing. What do you do? How do you think about this question? What would those who don’t yet use textures, templates and the want to know and understand for their education about photography, etc. We hope to start a conversation that helps us think through both the educative side of things – we learn from each other – AND the ethical side, avoiding the mistake of seeming to take credit for something that was not ours originally.
i would answer your questions with another question: At what point do you, or someone else, control an _idea_ to the point of not allowing another to build from that idea? Computer software is a field that is rife with copyright, patent and intellectual property suites that common sense has been thrown out the window (not the software type).
I guess my point is, does what some else does inspire you but you are not allowed to build on that inspiration, or do you try to emulate their action and come out as good or better (or even add you own twist) to what they did?
Could you have been the one to build that texture? Or the PSE script that you use? And if you built that script, did you do it the same way that someone else wrote it? (is some cases that is only _one_ way to produce that function? Try writing direction on leave you house and walking to your mailbox. Have another member of your house do the same thing. How do they compare?)
I see so many photos here, that when I am in the field, how do I know who to credit for an inspiration on a shot??
Its a very personal choice really as to how much of your process you are prepared to reveal and how much ownership you take of it.
For me if I used another person's shot as an element of mine I'd feel obliged to credit it. This is because this is what I would want someone to do if they used my shot in that way.
Puzzlingly though, if I use collage in a painting I don't feel the same obligation. I would say it is collage, but not what publication I have torn up in the process!
So far I have only used my own shots (except for the What Would You Do challenge). Normally putting some blurb regarding how the shot was taken & processed, and say if it is a composite. This info is for me, so it jogs my memory, but I'm also happy to share info if people ask for more details. I can understand holding back on the composite info, if you are wanting to get feedback on whether or not it looks real.
If I have specifically used a video or link to learn a technique I will normally post that too.
When aware of taking inspiration from someone else's shot I will credit them and other people on 365 have shown me the same courtesy. The difficulty being that seeing so many images, not just on here but everywhere, you just sometimes aren't aware of a particular influence. Hence my caveat.
Except for the photojournalist genre, the issue doesn't worry me. And even there, I don't care unless an image is so important, so political, so contrarian, AND the compositor is so skillful as to be undetectable on the final result. But there are so few of these situations today, everyone is on the lookout and skeptical, usually, and many people are skilled at detection.
As for re-touching and adjustments in color, tone, line, perspective, lens distortion, blur or sharpness even if major (not "major content" for me although some would claim these are as much major as form and shape) that doesn't bother me. The modern camera still is quite primitive versus the eye especially in difficult light, and in many cases the final result is "more real" (at least as the eye interprets the image) than "what the camera captured." Indeed, no one ever shows exactly "what the (digital) camera captured" anyway, the raw linear tones of the raw file. I could go on at length about this hot button of mine, but I won't bore you here.
Use of other people's plugins/additions to the editors? Well they expect them to be used, they surely wouldn't publish them if otherwise, so there should be no problem with allowing their use to remain unattested it seems to me.
Here on 365 Project? Go for it, but don't prevaricate. You don't have to say anything, but if you do be prepared to be called out if you have "faked it."
I like that with digital photography, taking the picture is just the start of the project. The post processing is just as, or sometimes even more important. Some degree of processing is certainly expected unless someone states something to the effect of SOOC or minimal processing only etc.
If you were to actually lift a recognizable elements from a photo from someone else and incorporate it into yours and then pass it off as a photo that you took somewhere, then perhaps that should be acknowledged or otherwise might seem dishonest. I would not like to see my photo used in that way.
I don't think processing tools/textures etc such as those in Nik or photoshop or texture programs would not need to be acknowledged unless for educational purposes.
Personally, I am usually curious to see how others achieve their effects and would enjoy seeing reference to that in the comments.
I think creating a composite of photos you have taken is still your photograph/creation. It's up to you if you want to spell it out.
I like when people on the site give info on what they did to get the shot but I don't see that often at all.
If I have purchased resources ( say a collection of textures or a Photoshop action) and paid the producer for their use, I don't have any problem using them to enhance my images that I post here.
I'll say, if asked, and often without being asked, that I don't attempt to do, or claim my work to be, photo journalism. I use photography to create images that I like. I will usually mention if an image is a composite or heavily photo shopped, but I do that more as a courtesy to people who may wonder how it was produced, not because I feel guilty about possibly deceiving people about the authenticity of the reality represented by the image.
I wouldn't use resources produced by others, without their permission, or use them in works that I enter into contests that require the work to be all my own, although I think the lines here are getting murkier and murkier.
If I edit an image using Photoshop or LR is it no longer my work because I didn't write the the Photoshop software? If I use a Photoshop or LR preset, to give my image a certain look or style, is that image still my work?
How about if I use certain in-camera 'style' settings to produce jpegs with a certain look, still my work or not?
As a former news photographer I am grateful for being able to flex my creative muscles and not have to worry so much about ethics in terms of creation. My thoughts -
1) the projects are personal and far ranging, with different purposes in mind for each photographer. That makes it so that I do not think there should be rules or guidelines about the dialog that goes with an image. There are a lot of photography how to places around, and I like to think that on this site if somebody wants to know more we would all be willing to step up and explain our process. There are some days where I am just so drained it is a challenge to hit the send button for the upload, and the idea of having to write an essay to go along with it.... maybe another day.
2) for textures and things, if they are in programs like Mextures (iPhone), On1 Effects, Smart Photo Editor, ACDSee and so on I tend to treat them as filters like unsharp mask - they are just enhancements to my original image.
I have been looking for some entry level iPhone instruction material and last week I picked up an E-Book about travel photography from the iPhone Photography School, and in it they are not only condoning but promoting changing skies and other things in images.
For here I say show the image the way you want it to look. It is not like this site is monetized for us to sell our work like over at 500px and similar sites.
When I post a digital scrape page on the site I belong to we give credit for the papers, the elements, the font, the tutorials we use, the textures etc. I try to do the same if I post s digital page here or use a texture from my class. I have the right to use them for non-commercial use but it seems polite and right to give credit. I have used another's picture with one of mine and gave credit. I have given and received permission to use pictures. I like to tell a bit how I process and have given more information when asked. But I am a yakky kind of person. I know that some pictures have been "processed" and remark I like it but the person hasn't said what they did and I don't care. I feel here it is our project and our rules as long as we don't steal each others pictures. If someone tells me their process I might try it. But we do feed off each other. From simple subjects (there were lots of deer in my feed last night) to techniques, to camera strategies you see them repeated. I think if you post in such an open forum you need to know that people are going to try to copy something they like whether you describe what you do or not. So for me it is more a matter of politeness and correctness to try to acknowledge someone's item I use or technique. But if someone else isn't yakky like me so be it. Seems what I read above most people would agree. And many people in your mentor group are very sharing people and I have gained a lot of knowledge from them as well as my mentor.
If you took the photograph, own all the separate parts for things like collages or manipulations, and did the editing work yourself in whatever program I don't think you need to say anything about it. Sharing what program or app you used to edit can be useful but ultimately its not necessary in my opinion. I used to do it when I was younger on other sites but I fell out of the habit years ago.
But the moment you add another artist's work to your photo (action, texture, brush, stock photo/drawing, whatever) you need to credit them. Not leaving any credit is considered theft in a lot of online art circles. Just saying "I used a texture" is meaningless to me because it implies that the texture is yours or maybe a default texture from a program (like an app or Photoshop). Pieces like this shouldn't be entered into contests, and should never be profited from or sold in any way without permission.
If you purposely take inspiration from another piece of art, especially another photo here on 365, I feel you need to give credit for that too. Its normal to subconsciously be inspired or to shoot similar subject matter, but if you made the choice on purpose its just common courtesy to give the original artist credit for their idea. I don't see anything wrong with drawing inspiration from other peoples' work as long as you're not blatantly copying every little bit, especially on 365 where we're all basically doing the same thing and try to help keep one another motivated. I wouldn't compete with or sell heavily inspired work either (unless that was the point of the contest, of course) but its more of a gray area.
I don't have much opinion on sharing your process. I think it can be extremely helpful if people go into detail but I don't expect random photos to teach me. I'd come to the forums for that :) I don't explain anything about my process because every photo would be "I stared angrily at my camera and turned it on and off repeatedly until the focus finally claimed to work. I could only hope at least one photo turned out clear and nicely focused." I really doubt that would help anyone, haha.
Overall, I don't feel that doing (or not doing) any of the above makes a work less yours. Unless all you kept from your own photos is just a tiny moon or blade of grass, its still your photos at the core of it all. (And using nothing but other peoples' stock is perfectly fine too. Its definitely not photography but its another type of art and still deserves respect.)
I've found this conversation interesting, even though I don't even know what you all are talking about with much of the terms. :-) I don't think that anyone should feel obligated to write a lengthy explanation when they post, although I do like reading them when I see them. I hope that others would agree that this site is one in which people are open to asking questions about techniques. I'm going to google some of what you all are discussing when I have time now because I feel like I'm missing out on things. Thank you for being so thoughtful.
Interesting questions. I think that no matter how much you edit a picture, it's still yours. You took it, you edited it. You own that. Whether you give credit to another source for the edit depends on where it came from. If you just edited using a regular photo editing program, I wouldn't give that program the credit. If it was something special, then maybe. I usually don't post how I edited a photo, unless I did something usual to it or I'm trying to tell someone else how to do it. I do enjoy reading posts from others about how they edited their photo. It teaches me a lot.
Now, when I worked in photojournalism this wasn't an issue. As I was shooting B&W film and the only editing you could do is to crop, blow up, add a filter to printing, or maybe dodge or burn. If the picture is going to be used in a newspaper or some other news source, I would prefer it not to be over edited. Just basic edits for cropping, focus and color adjustments. But, extreme editing doesn't really have a place in that genre, that's more for creative genres.
I have a different view on ethics in photography: below is the image I posted today and the text that accompanies it.
OCOLOY Day 138: Blot on the Landscape...?
There's a thread running on 365 at the moment on ethics in photography in general and 365 in particular which is mainly to do with the rights and wrongs of using third-party elements when editing an image and whether their use should be declared or not. I think the ethics question is far more fundamental than that: for me, it has to do with how we as photographers use our images to influence opinion.
This image is sooc so not edited at all, but I deliberately chose the PoV and underexposed the image so as to show wind generators as dark, ugly and unwelcome intruders in our surroundings and I chose the title to further reinforce that viewpoint. In fact, I rather like wind generators: I find them graceful and majestic and their presence nearby is enhanced for me by their green credentials... I took other images today which would support that view.
To be concerned about the ethics of image creation whilst ignoring the ethics of the influence that image might have seems to me to be rather introspective and even dangerous.
Sources of elements should always be cited if they are part of their terms of use. I generally think it is fair to cite (disclose) anything that is recognisable (but that is a subjective decision in itself!), or if there is potential for a viewer to be 'mis-led'. If an edit / composite has ten or more textures, or up to 40 layers, I am likely to have forgotten, or be un-inclined to take the time to be specific. I am always happy to provide specifics on elements used if asked though. The group might like to investigarte the ethical decision making framework & see if it can assist in developing a common understanding. A example is at https://research.ku.edu/sites/research.ku.edu/files/docs/EESE_EthicalDecisionmakingFramework.pdf or http://www.slideshare.net/hexakali/media-ethics
A simple and safe answer is: AVOID templates of any sort! Make the work ENTIRELY your own in every respect, not merely a pastiche of something that has been seen to work well for somebody else, who may or may not hold the copyright.
ALWAYS clearly state your own copyright and be prepared to prove that you thought of it first, because copyright is there to protect INTELLECTUAL property, not the individual image.
And FORGET all the nonsense talked about 'SOOC' or alleged 'cheating' by editing and processing ... they may make camera-club addicts feel important, but please REMEMBER that there are no 'rules' governing what is or is not ART, simply the LAW, which says "Thou shalt not steal.
Either do it yourself and accept full credit or blame for it, or DON'T DO IT AT ALL!
I have actually never given ethics a thought in all that I am posting. All my photos were taken by me and I am very much into altering their original state because I enjoy doing just that. To me, that is my art. My attitude is I am happy to share whatever processes I use for tweaking my photos. I think it helps others who are interested in the same effect. There are some people who are happy to share their processes and there are others who will not tell. My photography and creative processes have improved quite a bit since I joined 365. I have been pushed and inspired by my 365 family to get those creative juices flowing. I am proud to say I have 2 photos that were accepted into the Del Mar County Fair for this summer. Ok, I am not selling anything or opening an art gallery. That is not my intention. But for my photos to be displayed in the county fair is big time for me! I don't even see why this is an issue. I agree with Lisa Poland "You took it, you edited it. You own that".
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
I guess my point is, does what some else does inspire you but you are not allowed to build on that inspiration, or do you try to emulate their action and come out as good or better (or even add you own twist) to what they did?
Could you have been the one to build that texture? Or the PSE script that you use? And if you built that script, did you do it the same way that someone else wrote it? (is some cases that is only _one_ way to produce that function? Try writing direction on leave you house and walking to your mailbox. Have another member of your house do the same thing. How do they compare?)
I see so many photos here, that when I am in the field, how do I know who to credit for an inspiration on a shot??
Interesting
Its a very personal choice really as to how much of your process you are prepared to reveal and how much ownership you take of it.
For me if I used another person's shot as an element of mine I'd feel obliged to credit it. This is because this is what I would want someone to do if they used my shot in that way.
Puzzlingly though, if I use collage in a painting I don't feel the same obligation. I would say it is collage, but not what publication I have torn up in the process!
So far I have only used my own shots (except for the What Would You Do challenge). Normally putting some blurb regarding how the shot was taken & processed, and say if it is a composite. This info is for me, so it jogs my memory, but I'm also happy to share info if people ask for more details. I can understand holding back on the composite info, if you are wanting to get feedback on whether or not it looks real.
If I have specifically used a video or link to learn a technique I will normally post that too.
When aware of taking inspiration from someone else's shot I will credit them and other people on 365 have shown me the same courtesy. The difficulty being that seeing so many images, not just on here but everywhere, you just sometimes aren't aware of a particular influence. Hence my caveat.
Looking forward to reading what others think
As for re-touching and adjustments in color, tone, line, perspective, lens distortion, blur or sharpness even if major (not "major content" for me although some would claim these are as much major as form and shape) that doesn't bother me. The modern camera still is quite primitive versus the eye especially in difficult light, and in many cases the final result is "more real" (at least as the eye interprets the image) than "what the camera captured." Indeed, no one ever shows exactly "what the (digital) camera captured" anyway, the raw linear tones of the raw file. I could go on at length about this hot button of mine, but I won't bore you here.
Use of other people's plugins/additions to the editors? Well they expect them to be used, they surely wouldn't publish them if otherwise, so there should be no problem with allowing their use to remain unattested it seems to me.
Here on 365 Project? Go for it, but don't prevaricate. You don't have to say anything, but if you do be prepared to be called out if you have "faked it."
.
If you were to actually lift a recognizable elements from a photo from someone else and incorporate it into yours and then pass it off as a photo that you took somewhere, then perhaps that should be acknowledged or otherwise might seem dishonest. I would not like to see my photo used in that way.
I don't think processing tools/textures etc such as those in Nik or photoshop or texture programs would not need to be acknowledged unless for educational purposes.
Personally, I am usually curious to see how others achieve their effects and would enjoy seeing reference to that in the comments.
I think creating a composite of photos you have taken is still your photograph/creation. It's up to you if you want to spell it out.
I like when people on the site give info on what they did to get the shot but I don't see that often at all.
I'll say, if asked, and often without being asked, that I don't attempt to do, or claim my work to be, photo journalism. I use photography to create images that I like. I will usually mention if an image is a composite or heavily photo shopped, but I do that more as a courtesy to people who may wonder how it was produced, not because I feel guilty about possibly deceiving people about the authenticity of the reality represented by the image.
I wouldn't use resources produced by others, without their permission, or use them in works that I enter into contests that require the work to be all my own, although I think the lines here are getting murkier and murkier.
If I edit an image using Photoshop or LR is it no longer my work because I didn't write the the Photoshop software? If I use a Photoshop or LR preset, to give my image a certain look or style, is that image still my work?
How about if I use certain in-camera 'style' settings to produce jpegs with a certain look, still my work or not?
1) the projects are personal and far ranging, with different purposes in mind for each photographer. That makes it so that I do not think there should be rules or guidelines about the dialog that goes with an image. There are a lot of photography how to places around, and I like to think that on this site if somebody wants to know more we would all be willing to step up and explain our process. There are some days where I am just so drained it is a challenge to hit the send button for the upload, and the idea of having to write an essay to go along with it.... maybe another day.
2) for textures and things, if they are in programs like Mextures (iPhone), On1 Effects, Smart Photo Editor, ACDSee and so on I tend to treat them as filters like unsharp mask - they are just enhancements to my original image.
I have been looking for some entry level iPhone instruction material and last week I picked up an E-Book about travel photography from the iPhone Photography School, and in it they are not only condoning but promoting changing skies and other things in images.
For here I say show the image the way you want it to look. It is not like this site is monetized for us to sell our work like over at 500px and similar sites.
But the moment you add another artist's work to your photo (action, texture, brush, stock photo/drawing, whatever) you need to credit them. Not leaving any credit is considered theft in a lot of online art circles. Just saying "I used a texture" is meaningless to me because it implies that the texture is yours or maybe a default texture from a program (like an app or Photoshop). Pieces like this shouldn't be entered into contests, and should never be profited from or sold in any way without permission.
If you purposely take inspiration from another piece of art, especially another photo here on 365, I feel you need to give credit for that too. Its normal to subconsciously be inspired or to shoot similar subject matter, but if you made the choice on purpose its just common courtesy to give the original artist credit for their idea. I don't see anything wrong with drawing inspiration from other peoples' work as long as you're not blatantly copying every little bit, especially on 365 where we're all basically doing the same thing and try to help keep one another motivated. I wouldn't compete with or sell heavily inspired work either (unless that was the point of the contest, of course) but its more of a gray area.
I don't have much opinion on sharing your process. I think it can be extremely helpful if people go into detail but I don't expect random photos to teach me. I'd come to the forums for that :) I don't explain anything about my process because every photo would be "I stared angrily at my camera and turned it on and off repeatedly until the focus finally claimed to work. I could only hope at least one photo turned out clear and nicely focused." I really doubt that would help anyone, haha.
Overall, I don't feel that doing (or not doing) any of the above makes a work less yours. Unless all you kept from your own photos is just a tiny moon or blade of grass, its still your photos at the core of it all. (And using nothing but other peoples' stock is perfectly fine too. Its definitely not photography but its another type of art and still deserves respect.)
Now, when I worked in photojournalism this wasn't an issue. As I was shooting B&W film and the only editing you could do is to crop, blow up, add a filter to printing, or maybe dodge or burn. If the picture is going to be used in a newspaper or some other news source, I would prefer it not to be over edited. Just basic edits for cropping, focus and color adjustments. But, extreme editing doesn't really have a place in that genre, that's more for creative genres.
OCOLOY Day 138: Blot on the Landscape...?
There's a thread running on 365 at the moment on ethics in photography in general and 365 in particular which is mainly to do with the rights and wrongs of using third-party elements when editing an image and whether their use should be declared or not. I think the ethics question is far more fundamental than that: for me, it has to do with how we as photographers use our images to influence opinion.
This image is sooc so not edited at all, but I deliberately chose the PoV and underexposed the image so as to show wind generators as dark, ugly and unwelcome intruders in our surroundings and I chose the title to further reinforce that viewpoint. In fact, I rather like wind generators: I find them graceful and majestic and their presence nearby is enhanced for me by their green credentials... I took other images today which would support that view.
To be concerned about the ethics of image creation whilst ignoring the ethics of the influence that image might have seems to me to be rather introspective and even dangerous.
ALWAYS clearly state your own copyright and be prepared to prove that you thought of it first, because copyright is there to protect INTELLECTUAL property, not the individual image.
And FORGET all the nonsense talked about 'SOOC' or alleged 'cheating' by editing and processing ... they may make camera-club addicts feel important, but please REMEMBER that there are no 'rules' governing what is or is not ART, simply the LAW, which says "Thou shalt not steal.
Either do it yourself and accept full credit or blame for it, or DON'T DO IT AT ALL!
Using someone elses image without their permission is unethical at best and illeagal at worst.
Making edits or post-processing your images with software you purshcased or have a license to use is OK and does not need to be cited.
Did you need to cite what projector and chemicals you used to develop your film in the darkroom?