I disagree, Chip. I think it's a (not very good) alteration of a copy of the
original image. Check the supposed "foliage" seen through the window in the
second image. I believe you can see clear evidence of the use of a clone
tool in 1) the lack of clarity of the foliage and, more tellingly 2) what
looks like clear evidence of use of a 'clone tool' to fill in the area,
based on what looks, to me anyway, of some pattern repeats within the area.
I deal with this sort of crap all the time, as images from a site I write
for (and have taken the pictures for) are often ripped off.
---
Scott Gomez
-----Original Message-----
From: Chip Stratton [mailto:cstrat@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2001 07:38
To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [OM] I need your help, or: Photo Altering Ethics
I have to disagree, I think those are truly two different images.
Chip Stratton
cstrat@xxxxxxxxx
>
> She stole them. What else can she claim. They are not 'similar'
> pictures,
> they are the same pictures. Cut a little, flip a little. Jeez, at least
> mask out the background or do something to make them different.
>
> If it was me, I'd find a lawyer at a firm with impressive letterhead. I'd
> pay them the fee to write a very stern letter, complete with threats, to
> either cease and desist or to provide 'provenance', such as paid invoices
> from the client for the work. If she doesn't do both, threaten
> to sue. And
> do it.
>
>
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|