I have been looking at the tutorials page for VP and came across the one about correcting a photograph taken of a work of art from an acute angle.
This especially caught my eye for the following reasons:-
Any work of art including photographs are copyrighted works.
Photographing a work of art in and of itself is AFAIK not an infringement of the copyright.
However, if you go ahead and reproduce it (again AFAIK even if reproduced for personal usage should require the artists permission) for publication and also commercial gain…then you have infringed the copyright!
Why do I raise this point ~ not everyone understands what they can and cannot do with copyrighted works…and to give a tutorial of how (in effect) to ‘produce’ an exact(?) copy of such a work without qualification is not a great way to promote a software product.
Yes, no doubt there are those in society that will use software tools for nefarious & illegal purposes but IMO to avoid those, who have little knowledge, opening themselves to trouble…the responsible thing to do is educate not just about the software but also the implications of its ‘incorrect’ usage.
I am sorry for beating the drum on this but the infringement of copyright is all too often ignored
More than a hundred hours work for less readers.
The game isn’t worth the candle.
I am sorry but but I cannot understand your reply to my post?
I was talking about the DxO website “Tutorials” page and the VP tutorial there. I was not refering to your efforts in producing your tutorial/instructional website
If I have in some way offended you please accept my apology, as that was not my intention to offend anyone!!!
Your concern seems to be focused on using a software package to create and edit a photograph of a work of art that is perfect; in this case with respect to perspective and squared corners.
I think that is a misplaced concern with respect to DxO PL2/3 and VP.
Is it a copyright violation for me to make a “perfect” copy of a Monet? I cannot see how anyone would mistake my photograph for the original work. Is my perspective-perfect photo of Monet any more of a copyright violation than one made at an angle?
As I mentioned, it is (simply) my understanding that taking a photograph is not an infringement of copyright…!
However, the intent and purpose for which the photograph was taken may lead to an infringement…for example using the image in the Tutorial might be, depending on the jurisdiction, an infringement of some sort. (US or French Law?) Such as the publication of a derivative work???
As photographers I surmise we would all like our copyright to be respected and as such we should respect the copyright of others.
In respect of Monet, I had to do a quick Google but it seems his works are no longer under copyright ~ before anyone takes that as accurate please do your own checks before you go ahead and create derivative works such as coasters and mouse mats
However, were you to photograph a Damian Hurst and produce postcards for sale without authorisation…watch your back?
My overarching concern is that where copyrighted works are used for any other purpose, said use must be authorised by the copyright holder.
A whole industry has grown up to chase infringers e.g. Pixsy and though they are more likely to chase companies and corporates it does not excuse the abuse of copyright by individuals.
As you say above this discussion is not unique to PL and/or VP but all use of editing software(s).
Hi Box, understood. I think it is important to maintain some vigilance when it comes to any creeping erosion of copyright rights, as the Internet has washed over the entire regime as a tsunami. Perfect copies are available with minimal effort.
The only way this can really be enforced is on the commercial side. I can make as many Hurst photographs as I want and I can plaster them all over my walls, but if I attempt to sell one of his images on a postcard, that is when the legal structure assumes authority.
You mention Pixsy. I engaged their service awhile back via Flickr and for some time they were sending me alerts every day, even though some of them were false positives. Since then, they seem to have gone quiet.
I suspect it is back to, “you’re on your own.”
Pour le tutoriel VP de DxO, l’auteur est Gilles Théophile, qui est également auteur de nombreux ouvrages (papier ou ebooks) sur Lightroom en particulier. De ce fait je ne pense pas qu’il ignore les règles de droit français sur la propriété intellectuelle et les droits d’auteur !
C’est l’illustration d’une méthode pour corriger une prise de vue personnelle d’un tableau. Tant que l’usage qui en est fait n’est pas à caractère commercial, et que cela reste dans un cadre privé, je ne vois pas de problème.
Mais l’explication du tutoriel peut parfaitement être utilisé par un photographe professionnel répondant à une commande pour la reproduction de tableaux dans un musée par exemple.
Dans le cas pour lequel Pascal a réagi, c’est à dire à cet exemple : http://tuto.dxo.free.fr/EN/ViewPoint/ViewPoint.html#8_correction_Perspective_Lignes_Points. Je suis l’auteur de la photo, prise dans le cadre d’une exposition publique. Vous noterez que même s’il n’est pas très visible, j’ai pris soin de conserver pour l’image finale le nom de l’auteur (et le titre de l’oeuvre) ainsi que son cadre dans une vue plus large.
En droit français, cela correspond au “droit de citation”.
For the tutorial VP of DxO, the author is Gilles Théophile, who is also author of many books (paper or ebooks) on Lightroom in particular. As a result, I do not think he ignores the French rules on intellectual property and copyrights!
This is the illustration of a method to correct a personal shot of a painting. As long as the use made of it is not commercial, and it stays in a private setting, I do not see any problem.
But the explanation of the tutorial can perfectly be used by a professional photographer responding to an order for the reproduction of paintings in a museum for example.
In the case for which Pascal reacted, ie to this example: http://tuto.dxo.free.fr/EN/ViewPoint/ViewPoint.html#8_correction_Perspective_Lignes_Points. I am the author of the photo, taken as part of a public exhibition. You will notice that even if it is not very visible, I took care to preserve for the final image the name of the author (and the title of the work) as well as its frame in a broader view .
In French law, this corresponds to the “droit de citation”.
Yes, on all counts
In regard to Pixsy ~ like you I had lots of false positives but then again my Flickr does not have too much on it. I just wish they still also linked to 500px as well
On another photography forum there is at least one member who has continued success with Pixsy payouts up to 4 figures
I surmise mine are not worth ‘grabbing’
Firstly, thank you for posting in both French & English…to say the least my French is limited and rusty
Also thanks for your insight on the DxO VP tutorial…yes I would hope that a published author would follow copyright rules together with his Publisher As stated by me, not all will use the VP and PL (and any editing software) for legitimate purposes and therefore I feel that where tutorials are put in the public domain ‘we’ need to educate the unwary about copyright as appropriate at in each & every circumstance.
In regard to the example that you linked to where the work is displayed as a total, then yes I can see where that has educational ‘rights’(?) and would never be seen as infringing. But as I said any such copying and derivative works creation is all down to the copiers intent!
I am pleased at least for those that may see the DxO feedback forum that this discussion may help to educate all that notice it…to be sure to respect copyright!