+

[TykeJack]

Originally Posted by Ashurachan

I, AS A PHOTOGRAPHER, see cosplay photography as a collaborative effort. Of course I'm not talking about candids, but for a posed picture, the model is just as active as I am, and the photo wouldn't happen if he didn't participate actively.
There's a French cosplayer, Milou, who's a contemporary artist, and who uses herself as a model for her creations. She makes costumes, she creates concepts, but since she's the model, she can't take the photos herself, so she asks photographers to take them, and then edits the photos to make them fit her vision. Is she less of an author because she's not the one who took the photos ? I don't think so.

See, I was talking about candids which i thought was evident because we were discussing taking pictures without permission and if someone was posing for you it would imply permission.

As far as your example is concerned, there's information that's not known. If you're claiming that Milou decides the angle of the camera, how to frame the image, and the composition for every shot and just needs someone to press the button, then she would be the owner of the photograph because she's the creator of all of the creative elements of the image, therefore the photo would be her intellectual property. I doubt this is the case and if it was, as someone else pointed out, she could just use the self timer.

It is more likely that she comes up with all of the ideas for the elements of the photoshoot and then has a photographer take pictures. In this case, the photoshoot is her idea or a collaborative effort but the photos are not. You may say "What's the difference?". Well, even though she came up with all of the creative elements of the photoshoot the photos themselves are the photographer's interpretation of the events transpiring before him/her. If the cosplayer doesn't give instruction or collaborate with how the pictures are taken, then the pictures are not a collaborative effort and without an agreement transferring ownership of the photos, they belong to the photographer.

Regardless, I don't see how this example refutes my argument that just because you're in a photo doesn't mean you own the rights to it. I never said cosplay photography can't be a collaborative effort, I merely said that just because you're in the photo doesn't mean you collaborated in its creation. Are there occasions where collaboration occurs, of course, it doesn't mean that it's always the case. Just because someone created a costume doesn't mean they created or helped create the photo. That photo is an expression of what the photographer deems inspiring to him/her and that expression is solely his/her creation.

[The Fox]

Lols, this thread.

[Lucilia]

Speaking as a cosplayer:

What if I go to a professional photographers website and copy a high resolution photograph they took. I then cut off some parts and mess with the hue slider a little, finally printed it on photo-paper.

I used my own skills to determine the composition of the image (by removing parts of the original). I ensured proper colour by messing with the hue slider (in fact, not a single pixel will be the same as the original). And I printed it, to give the image form in a different medium (physical vs digital).

Is this my work of art, to do with as I please (sell commercially, win prizes with, gain fame from)? Or should I get permission of the original photographer?

A cosplayer spends time, effort and money on their work. The photographer who takes their picture adds his own considerable skills to make a new and unique work of art. However, that new and unique work of art could never have been made without the efforts of the cosplayer, just as my hypothetical photo-edit could never have been made without the efforts by the original photographer. In effect the new work is a collaborative effort, and that needs to be recognised.

Just as the original photographer deserves to be asked for permission, deserves to be credited and deserves to share in any profits made on the edited image, I believe the cosplayer deserves to be asked for permission, deserves to be credited and deserves to share in any profits made on the image.

In the Netherlands, the law pretty much follows this line of reasoning - it is illegal to take a picture in which someone is the main subject without their permission, and it is also illegal to publish their image without their permission. Notably, it would ALSO be illegal for the cosplayer to publish an image of them without permission from the original photographer.

In effect, the subject and photographer share ownership of the work. If I later edited the original photograph as described, I would need permission from both the photographer and the original subject (and they would need mine to publish my version, but not the original version, since I did not work on that).

I think in the end, all things considered that this is a very fair and reasonable way of handling it, which recognises everyone's input.

[sukotsuto]

Originally Posted by Lucilia

Speaking as a cosplayer:

What if I go to a professional photographers website and copy a high resolution photograph they took. I then cut off some parts and mess with the hue slider a little, finally printed it on photo-paper.

I used my own skills to determine the composition of the image (by removing parts of the original). I ensured proper colour by messing with the hue slider (in fact, not a single pixel will be the same as the original). And I printed it, to give the image form in a different medium (physical vs digital).

Is this my work of art, to do with as I please (sell commercially, win prizes with, gain fame from)? Or should I get permission of the original photographer?

There is a big difference between being the subject of a photo and downloading someone's photo and claiming it as your own. I don't even see how you can attempt to relate them together.

However, a similar concept has some merit in a few instances relating to commercial sale of work. I believe that the lights on the Eiffel Tower are copyrighted and any photos of the Eiffel Tower at night cannot be used commercially. How they could manage that restriction from a legal aspect, I really have no idea. So basically, in that one instance, the subject of the photo has some legal restrictions, but it only related to commercial use.

[TykeJack]

Originally Posted by Lucilia

Speaking as a cosplayer:

What if I go to a professional photographers website and copy a high resolution photograph they took. I then cut off some parts and mess with the hue slider a little, finally printed it on photo-paper.

I used my own skills to determine the composition of the image (by removing parts of the original). I ensured proper colour by messing with the hue slider (in fact, not a single pixel will be the same as the original). And I printed it, to give the image form in a different medium (physical vs digital).

Is this my work of art, to do with as I please (sell commercially, win prizes with, gain fame from)? Or should I get permission of the original photographer?

A cosplayer spends time, effort and money on their work. The photographer who takes their picture adds his own considerable skills to make a new and unique work of art. However, that new and unique work of art could never have been made without the efforts of the cosplayer, just as my hypothetical photo-edit could never have been made without the efforts by the original photographer. In effect the new work is a collaborative effort, and that needs to be recognised.

Just as the original photographer deserves to be asked for permission, deserves to be credited and deserves to share in any profits made on the edited image, I believe the cosplayer deserves to be asked for permission, deserves to be credited and deserves to share in any profits made on the image.

In the Netherlands, the law pretty much follows this line of reasoning - it is illegal to take a picture in which someone is the main subject without their permission, and it is also illegal to publish their image without their permission. Notably, it would ALSO be illegal for the cosplayer to publish an image of them without permission from the original photographer.

In effect, the subject and photographer share ownership of the work. If I later edited the original photograph as described, I would need permission from both the photographer and the original subject (and they would need mine to publish my version, but not the original version, since I did not work on that).

I think in the end, all things considered that this is a very fair and reasonable way of handling it, which recognises everyone's input.

No. To accurately frame this hypothetical example to fit your changing of a photographers photo, the photographer would have to take the cosplayers outfit (or a copy of it), cut it, trim it, maybe add a few pieces, rip off the sleeves, then dye it and then try to call it his/her own. Clearly that's not what photographers do and no one is condoning that. You're example falls flat because you're taking a photographer's image (or a copy of it) and making changes to it and then are trying to claim ownership of it. Photographers don't use the costume, nor do we make changes to it (or a copy thereof). So the parallelism does not exist. A photograph is a completely separate/independent work from anything in the photograph, where your photo manipulation is simply a derivative of the photographer's original image and is not a separate/independent work. A photograph is not a derivative of clothing and clothing is not a derivative of a photograph.

I do photo manipulations and sites like deviant art require you have permission if you're using someone else's photos as part of your work. It does not require that you have permission from the model to post a photograph. The only time you need permission from a model is if you're displaying your work as stock for commercial purposes. I would be interested if you could give me some websites founded in the Netherlands that state every photo you post has to have permission from the model. It's just something I've never seen before, and I'm sure it will be easy for you to give me some of those links than me trying to find them on my own.

[brucer007]

I agree with TykeJack. In my photos, I sometimes clean up the rough edges of a costume, like sloppy glue seams, or straps that keep horns on heads, etc, but I am not altering the costume itself; only a photographic representation of it.

If someone alters a photo, they are altering the actual product.

[Access]

Originally Posted by Lucilia

What if I go to a professional photographers website and copy a high resolution photograph they took. I then cut off some parts and mess with the hue slider a little, finally printed it on photo-paper.

I used my own skills to determine the composition of the image (by removing parts of the original). I ensured proper colour by messing with the hue slider (in fact, not a single pixel will be the same as the original). And I printed it, to give the image form in a different medium (physical vs digital).

Is this my work of art, to do with as I please (sell commercially, win prizes with, gain fame from)? Or should I get permission of the original photographer?

Derived work.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derived_work

[Lucilia]

These sites are in Dutch but I'm sure you can use google translate.

http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portretrecht
http://www.fotowijzer.nl/pages/portretrecht.asp

These specific articles cover the publication (commercial or non-commercial) copyright, not the actual taking of the photograph (privacy). I get back to the later later in the post.

For your convenience, I have also quoted the relevant law:

"Is een portret vervaardigd zonder daartoe strekkende opdracht, den maker door of vanwege den geportretteerde, of te diens behoeve, gegeven, dan is openbaarmaking daarvan door dengene, wien het auteursrecht daarop toekomt, niet geoorloofd, voor zoover een redelijk belang van den geportretteerde of, na zijn overlijden, van een zijner nabestaanden zich tegen de openbaarmaking verzet."

Rough Translation (I speak Dutch, but I don't speak Dutch legalese so it might not be perfectly accurate):

"If a portret has been created without an order by or on behalf of the subject being given, publication by those to whom the copyright belongs (Lucilia: the photographer), is not allowed, as long as the interests of the subject are not served or, after their passing, if their family members resist publication."

In most cases (exception: prime minister or famous politician), the privacy of the subject prevails.

http://blog.iusmentis.com/2009/04/16...boden-ja-echt/ (not a dutch case, but we fall under the same European laws)

For example, it is not legal for your employer to take your image because this violates your privacy.

http://blog.iusmentis.com/2010/12/27...t-smoelenboek/

If your employer cannot take your image without your permission, I doubt a random photographer can.

Furthermore, the cosplayer, especially a good one, has a second vested interest in not having their image spread: like non-cosplay models, they could earn money with images of them and their work. These interest (unlike the portretrecht which covers publication only) forbids taking people's images without their permission.

http://blog.iusmentis.com/2008/03/18...-portretrecht/

Regarding the photograph editing not being a valid comparison:

You say editing the photograph is only making changes to something that already exists. But the same is true for the photograph - the original subject already exists, all the photographer does is press a button to copy it in 2d form. Why do you evaluate my click to edit your work into a new photograph differently from your click to capture my work into a new photograph? What additional value did you as photographer add that I as editor did not?

For something to be derived work, it has to be substantially similar. If a photograph that has different colours, different composition and that is made in a different medium is too similar to the original photograph thus making it derived work, then arguably ANY photograph of the same subject from roughly the same angle would fall under the copyright of the one who took the first photograph of the subject, since they are all similar except for different colour / lighting, and composition. Surely this is not the case?

You could argue that the photograph is a different medium than the real cosplay outfit, but a physical photograph which I printed off of a digital work is also in a different medium (physical vs digital).

So let's say that a photograph of a piece of art is an original work, even if that piece of art is the only thing being displayed.

What if instead of editing your photograph, I make a photograph of your photograph and cut out the edges to a piece smaller than the original image and then do my editing. Is this a new and original work, since I photographed the original work rather than merely editing it, and since I put in effort to make it special?

Also, using the logic that a photograph of a piece of art is a new work, shouldn't the same hold for photographing or filming movies in the cinema? I doubt most movie labels would allow you to make photographs or video's of their movie as this violates their copyright. Why is the movie label's copyright violated if you photograph or videotape their piece of art when the cosplayers copyright is not violated if you photograph or videotape their piece of art?

Why should one form of art (cosplay) allow people to capture and spread it on camera without permission, while another (movies, photographs) cannot be captured and spread using the same method?

In the end it is not just about the law, but also about respect. I respect photographers enough not to download their photographs, print them and hang them in my room without their permission, just like I respect movie makers enough to not pirate their movies and watch them at home, despite the fact that BOTH are legal in the Netherlands.

It is my belief that as a photographer you have a legal and moral obligation to ask a cosplayer for their permission before taking their photograph. The cons I go to agree, and they can and do involve law enforcement for those who take images without permission in addition to tossing the photographer out of the con.

[Ashurachan]

Originally Posted by sukotsuto

However, a similar concept has some merit in a few instances relating to commercial sale of work. I believe that the lights on the Eiffel Tower are copyrighted and any photos of the Eiffel Tower at night cannot be used commercially. How they could manage that restriction from a legal aspect, I really have no idea. So basically, in that one instance, the subject of the photo has some legal restrictions, but it only related to commercial use.

How they did it legally : the lights of the Eiffel Tower are a copyrighted artistic creation, therefore any commercial reproduction has to be approved by the artist.

[TykeJack]

Originally Posted by Lucilia

Regarding the photograph editing not being a valid comparison:

You say editing the photograph is only making changes to something that already exists. But the same is true for the photograph - the original subject already exists, all the photographer does is press a button to copy it in 2d form. Why do you evaluate my click to edit your work into a new photograph differently from your click to capture my work into a new photograph? What additional value did you as photographer add that I as editor did not?

For something to be derived work, it has to be substantially similar. If a photograph that has different colours, different composition and that is made in a different medium is too similar to the original photograph thus making it derived work, then arguably ANY photograph of the same subject from roughly the same angle would fall under the copyright of the one who took the first photograph of the subject, since they are all similar except for different colour / lighting, and composition. Surely this is not the case?

You could argue that the photograph is a different medium than the real cosplay outfit, but a physical photograph which I printed off of a digital work is also in a different medium (physical vs digital).

So let's say that a photograph of a piece of art is an original work, even if that piece of art is the only thing being displayed.

What if instead of editing your photograph, I make a photograph of your photograph and cut out the edges to a piece smaller than the original image and then do my editing. Is this a new and original work, since I photographed the original work rather than merely editing it, and since I put in effort to make it special?

Also, using the logic that a photograph of a piece of art is a new work, shouldn't the same hold for photographing or filming movies in the cinema? I doubt most movie labels would allow you to make photographs or video's of their movie as this violates their copyright. Why is the movie label's copyright violated if you photograph or videotape their piece of art when the cosplayers copyright is not violated if you photograph or videotape their piece of art?

Why should one form of art (cosplay) allow people to capture and spread it on camera without permission, while another (movies, photographs) cannot be captured and spread using the same method?

In the end it is not just about the law, but also about respect. I respect photographers enough not to download their photographs, print them and hang them in my room without their permission, just like I respect movie makers enough to not pirate their movies and watch them at home, despite the fact that BOTH are legal in the Netherlands.

It is my belief that as a photographer you have a legal and moral obligation to ask a cosplayer for their permission before taking their photograph. The cons I go to agree, and they can and do involve law enforcement for those who take images without permission in addition to tossing the photographer out of the con.

Thank you for posting the links. I would have liked to have some photography sites based out of the Netherlands but your links partially served their purpose.

In regards to everything else, here is where I know you haven't followed the thread. I can't and don't expect you to read all 7 pages, but this leads to people constantly repeating the same concerns and receiving the same answers. For you to say that photographers just make a 2d copy when all they do is press a button, shows your inherent disrespect for photography. So it's hypocritical to demand respect when it is apparent you don't give respect to begin with.

You also can't seem to understand that photography is an intellectual property. It's the same as a novel, story, or script. It's not the paper with the words on it that a writer owns the copyright to, it's the story/idea. Same with a photographer, it's not the piece of paper with a photo on it, it's the image itself that is the intellectual property. So the medium is irrelevant. It doesn't matter if the image is online, on a billboard, on a t-shirt, or just a printed image, the image itself is the copyrighted intellectual property of the photographer. Understanding that should refute many of your objections.

As photographers, we use composition, lighting, focus, angles, and other techniques to express our interpretation of the physical world around us. Our skill and use of these techniques is what allows us to create our art, which is an image/photograph. These techniques require NO input from anyone else which is why the photographer owns the copyright to the images they take. No matter how similar another photo may be to your own, no camera can occupy the same space at the same exact time. Therefore, every picture will always be slightly different whether you're able to discern the difference or not. This makes it incredibly hard for photographers to try and find/prove someone used their photo and is also the reason why so many people create derived works without fear of being persecuted. Not only do you have the incredibly low possibility of a photographer seeing you infringing on his/her work, but then it's also going to be hard for that photographer to prove it.

Now let's say you created a derived work from your own photo and it is very similar to a photo someone else took. It is the burden of the photographer to prove you used his/her image for your derived work. We have legal recourse to address such dilemmas. Using today's technology, this can be done a lot easier since photographers can add digital watermarks to images. Half of the battle is our legal system. It really doesn't matter if the digital artist used another photographer's photo or not, so long as the photographer's lawyer can make a convincing case.

This applies to duplication of intellectual ideas as well. So if you see a very interesting and unique photo online, then you decide to hire the same model, use the same set and essentially recreate the same photo as the one you saw online, you can still be sued for copyright infringement. This is because you took the intellectual property/idea of someone else and tried to pass it off as your own. This is the same with filming a movie or taking a picture of another picture (both of which I've already addressed in this thread). If your artistic interpretation does not distinctly reflect your own ideas and expression, then you can be liable for copyright infringement. Derived work does not have to be very similar to the original either. If the original photographer can prove that you used his/her photo in your derived work, then you can be held liable.

As said before, the medium doesn't matter when talking about intellectual properties. When it comes to your costume, it's the design of the costume that is the intellectual property not the costume itself. So a photograph of a costume does not infringe on that intellectual property because a photograph has it's own unique criteria that makes it its own intellectual property. My photo does not use any of the design techniques or ideas of your design, it only uses the techniques of framing, lighting, composition, etc.

Now we're going to address your pirating example because it's ironic. Unless your costume is an original design, you haven't created an intellectual property, you've just used someone else's intellectual property (in this case "design") to model your outfit after. So if you're making a cosplay of the Sailor Moon costume, then you are actually taking someone else's work/design/intellectual property and making a copy of it for your own benefit. This is no different than the examples you gave of pirating movies online, or taking pictures of other peoples' photos. This is ALSO the MAIN reason why cosplay photographers can't use cosplay photos for commercial use. If we were to sell one of our photos of a Naruto cosplayer to a company to use for marketing their product, then the creator of Naruto could sue that company and in turn, that company can sue the photographer. Using a cosplay to sell products commercially infringes on the intellectual property of whomever designed the costume. Get it? Design=intellectual property, costume=physical property. As a cosplayer you physically own the costume, but the creator of whatever series owns the intellectual design of your costume, which technically you infringed on when you made the costume.

So I hope you actually read all of this and that you're starting to understand how the United States regards intellectual property. That's essentially what we're talking about here. I'm not going to try and say that the Netherlands is wrong for having different laws, I'm just refuting your arguments under the ideals that protect artist in the United States. Since many of your hypotheticals try to call into question the logic and reasoning of how we protect these intellectual properties, I thought i was important to explain that reasoning to you. I think I've done a pretty good job addressing your concerns and proving that any contradictions you thought might have existed in the way we regard copyright, actually don't.

TLDR; I don't do too long didn't read, so go and read the post if you want to have a considerate and intellectual discussion.

[Alyboxie]

I always ask for permission first, unless the cosplayer(s) is/are on stage and everyone else is taking photos/recording video of them... or if the news is recording them and they're going to be on television

[Access]

Originally Posted by TykeJack

costume. Get it? Design=intellectual property, costume=physical property. As a cosplayer you physically own the costume, but the creator of whatever series owns the intellectual design of your costume, which technically you infringed on when you made the costume.

This is not always true. Today you have things like the PCL or Zun's own terms of use (see below).

PCL:
http://piapro.jp/license/pcl
[this is something akin to creative commons for a character]

Zun's:
http://en.touhouwiki.net/wiki/Touhou_Wiki:Copyrights
"The copyright of derivative works belong to the creators of said derivatives.", among other things.

Note that in most cases, outright commercial use is still forbidden by licenses like these. But some form of limited commercial use or promotion may be permitted, like a musician who uses a certain miku PV video to promote a song publicly, while also selling the same song on CD or iTunes. Or in Japan, doujin artists are almost always tolerated, even though doujin are almost always sold for money. Just not on a large scale.

[TykeJack]

Originally Posted by Access

This is not always true. Today you have things like the PCL or Zun's own terms of use (see below).

PCL:
http://piapro.jp/license/pcl
[this is something akin to creative commons for a character]

Zun's:
http://en.touhouwiki.net/wiki/Touhou_Wiki:Copyrights
"The copyright of derivative works belong to the creators of said derivatives.", among other things.

Note that in most cases, outright commercial use is still forbidden by licenses like these. But some form of limited commercial use or promotion may be permitted, like a musician who uses a certain miku PV video to promote a song publicly, while also selling the same song on CD or iTunes. Or in Japan, doujin artists are almost always tolerated, even though doujin are almost always sold for money. Just not on a large scale.

I didn't bother to fuss with my browser's translator because things written in legalese are hard enough to understand as is. From my understanding, you're saying that's it's not ALWAYS considered copyright infringement to make a costume off of someone else's design because some companies/owners give permission for people to do it in limited use? Of course, if you have permission, then it's not copyright infringement. I was making comparison's based on doing things without permission. A public limited license that a company grants certainly supersedes this, and thus it's not considered copyright infringement. I'm not sure if that was the intent of your post, but if it was, thank you for pointing that out.

[Surfsama]

I think TykeJack is eloquently addressing a point and not trying to cover every facet of copyright, derivatives, creative commons, case-law, etc.

The thread is deviating from the OP's original question; “Do you ask for permission to take pictures?”

The premises of this question related to a picture of a person unaware she had been photographed and uploaded to a website. The OP felt this was an injustice to the subject and shouldn’t have occurred or at least the subject should have been asked first.
How you feel about it or how you justify your perceived rights can be argued ad-nausea but does not change the fact that in the US, in the public domain where there is no expectation of privacy you may be photographed without consent. How many times have you protested your picture/videotaping by cameras mounted on street poles/traffic lights/stores/offices/banks/etc?

I believe the wedding photographer in an earlier post was a good example. If you hire a wedding photographer do you believe you have rights to those pictures simply because you’re in the shots? Of course not. The photos belong to the photographer because that’s his/her work. If you like the pictures you can buy them but you certainly cannot claim a right to them.

Now, setting aside the rights/copyright discussion for the moment, it is respectful and courteous to ask a person for a photograph. Even if you can snipe; doesn’t mean you should. However, in the OP’s example, I found it a beautiful capture with no ill intent by the photographer. The OP disagrees and that’s fine since art by nature should be personal.

[Lucilia]

TykeJack, thank you for your detailed rebuttal and apologies I wasn't able to respond sooner. I like to take the time to think about what I say and you make some valid points which I wanted to address properly.

I want to clarify that I do, in fact, respect photography greatly - some of the images on this very site are breath-taking and that is in large parts due to the skill of the photographer.

The reason I made this controversial statement and that I am charging on the issue is to make a point: The question I wish to raise is what is the value added by a photographer above and beyond the capturing of the image that is not also added when editing a photograph?

You mentioned composition, lighting, focus, angles, and other techniques.

However, when a photo-editor edits a digital copy of a photograph, they change the composition of the image, can use filters to change the focus for some or all parts of the image and they can alter the colours of the image as well. You already agreed that a different image taken by a different photographer from a different angle is not an infringement.

Of course, one could argue that the photographer makes an original piece by selecting what they do and do not capture in their photograph. But by cutting out part of an existing image, so does the editor - after all, they put something different in the image than the photographer does.

<< post cut into multiple pieces due to technical problems >>