I can't find the original but it's been reversed and modified enough to be legal. The question is - which came first. Did someone dress up o match the Time photo ?
I don't think it is legal, even modified. Think about that artist who got into all that trouble over the Obama 'HOPE' poster. It's certainly not morally right.
And it's not that someone has dressed up to match the Time cover - the folds of the scarf are too close a match for that. Ditto the head gear.
victoria kelley Sure, and I understand that. But I still don't think it's acceptable to take a particular image (even if it was taken by one of their photographers) and modify it to remove the particular protest slogan that the girl was wearing. Did they ask the girl's permission to use this photo? Did she agree to its modification? It's a whole can of worms.
victoria kelley is right. They weren't referring specifically to the OWS protesters; a LOT actually got accomplished by protesters elsewhere in the world.
Edit: Since I didn't even know it was a girl in the photo until I saw the original, I don't think she'll mind.
I have no issue with them removing the slogan linking the protester to a particular protest, in order to connect her to the rest of the world.
Well, yes. But that's not my point. I'm talking about the modification of an existing image to make it appear generic when it was in fact OWS-specific. I think that's very poor journalistic practice.
Did they even have permission to use this image? If not...
ReplyDeleteNot to worry. Such corporations have license to lie and steal in the name of free speech - crazy, ain't it?
ReplyDeleteI can't find the original but it's been reversed and modified enough to be legal. The question is - which came first. Did someone dress up o match the Time photo ?
ReplyDeleteI don't think it is legal, even modified. Think about that artist who got into all that trouble over the Obama 'HOPE' poster. It's certainly not morally right.
ReplyDeleteAnd it's not that someone has dressed up to match the Time cover - the folds of the scarf are too close a match for that. Ditto the head gear.
victoria kelley Sure, and I understand that. But I still don't think it's acceptable to take a particular image (even if it was taken by one of their photographers) and modify it to remove the particular protest slogan that the girl was wearing. Did they ask the girl's permission to use this photo? Did she agree to its modification? It's a whole can of worms.
ReplyDeletevictoria kelley is right. They weren't referring specifically to the OWS protesters; a LOT actually got accomplished by protesters elsewhere in the world.
ReplyDeleteEdit: Since I didn't even know it was a girl in the photo until I saw the original, I don't think she'll mind.
I have no issue with them removing the slogan linking the protester to a particular protest, in order to connect her to the rest of the world.
No arguement there.
ReplyDeleteWell, yes. But that's not my point. I'm talking about the modification of an existing image to make it appear generic when it was in fact OWS-specific. I think that's very poor journalistic practice.
ReplyDeleteI think it's ok to do something like this. Maybe there is an attribution inside the magazine. You know, photographer, subject etc...
ReplyDelete