christine~ (eppylover) wrote,
christine~
eppylover

Credit? What?

Credit? Why should I receive that?

I didn't take the pictures, I just found them, online or in purchased or old books or materials!

Unless I'm the original photographer, or unless I run a professional business dealing in images,
I have no business insisting on credit for a photo used as an icon!
It's just common sense, people!

Take and use and enjoy and display
any pics I put on the internet, no worries!
I want lots and lots and lots of folks to see Brian --
they do not need to hear about the Eppylover.
THAT'S WHY WE SHARE THINGS ON THE INTERNET
... ? ...
Umm, at least I thought so once.

- RANT -
"CREDITING" PHOTOGRAPHIC MANIPULATIONS

I love the icons and things that people make using pictures of the Beatles and others. They can be very cute or meaningful.

However, I have never understood this "crediting" shit. People who want credit for manipulating the original photographers' work - no matter how much time or talent is involved - should be ashamed of themselves for demanding to be recognized for it. Unless, of course, they insist on the original photographer being honored or named FIRST. Or at least say, "original photographer unknown, photo manipulation by 'name'."

This is the main reason I will have nothing to do with communities who rag on people for not "crediting" an icon or pic someone "created" by playing with a photograph obviously not originally shot by them. It's bogus. These same raggers never credit the original photographers, so where do they get off insisting on credit when they themselves use someone else's material -- as if?

That's like taking an original Halsten dress, putting your own frills on it, and then insisting that everyone who wears it must credit you for it, ignoring Halsten. It's bullshit.

BTW, I can understand wanting credit for original art, such as the delightful scribbles by leikomgwtfbbq or masterpieces by apartment42b or trefenwyd, or k_diddy, or many others -- you know who you are.

The people who go, "I made this thing, I made this thing!" should take a good look at what they think they "made." No matter how much time or talent is put into it, manipulating someone else's photography into icons and other neat things is like paint-by-numbers. You've already got the basic elements. You're just adding to it, changing it, etc.

If you crave attention as a creative person, using someone else's work as your base and then taking credit for it as a whole (without crediting the original photographer-creator) is a very lame way of doing it.

If you want credit for manipulating a photo, then just out of courtesy it should be mandatory that the original photographer, if known, should be named first! If unknown, then "original photographer unknown" should be added to the credit.

Otherwise, you're just jacking off in front of everyone by claiming the work as your own.

We're all aware that none of us took the picture, okay? Since that is so, it's pretentious as hell to blast someone because they didn't credit you for whatever you happened to do TO it.

Granted, I'll wuss out, suck up and "give credit" most of the time, whenever not doing so might put a bug up someone's buns. Because, like Brian did, in some ways I do lower my own principles just to keep to the status quo - sorry, JohnYoko - Yeah, I have a feeling our Johnny would have thought this crediting garbage was lame too, don't you? Sometimes when I give in and "credit" something, I hear Lennon dissing me from beyond the grave, calling me "soft" and a "cop-out."

In my opinion, the very most for which people should be able to insist on "credit" for themselves:
    Manipulated photos, icons, etc:

  • "Photo by (photographer or unknown),
    icon by (lj user)"

  • "Photo by (photographer or unknown),
    art by (lj user)"


    Unmanipulated photos:

  • "Found (and/or) made available for you by (lj user),
    original photography by (photographer or unknown)"

  • "Brought to you courtesy of (lj user),
    original photography by (photographer or unknown)"

  • "Photography by (photographer or unknown),
    via (lj user)"

Well, I'll stop now. I think the point is made that I don't believe in being one of those anal-retentive "credit-worshippers" who have the retarded idea that just because they manipulate a photograph that someone else took, they should receive praise for it.

I'd be very curious to find out who started that whole silly business.

The stupidity of it never fails to astound me.
Added May 10, 2006:
Comment on a beatlepics post:
"i just like to icon pictures and the watermarks usually get in the way. i do credit where the pictures originally came from, if i ever do use them for graphics. so, for people like me, who actually credit artists & such, watermarks are just a hindrance."

Another LJ'er's answer:
Ah, but do you actually ... um.. *ask* the person who owns them? Simply crediting doesn't *actually* cover it, if there were a legal issue. You're still borrowing/stealing, even if you're crediting, because the person hasn't actually *said* you could use it.

The following is not really a defense of these businesses, it's mostly an explanation. Times are changing drastically, and companies that deal in the sale of images, audio and video are going to have to adjust somehow, or give up the business, because the 'net has made these products so very available to everyone that their businesses are fast becoming obsolete.

Somehow, youngsters growing up in the Internet Age are losing the ability to comprehend the concept of copyright ownership. Ownership of pictures has been a business since photography was invented, and the images belong to them. That's how they make their living, that's their job, that's where their paycheck comes from

— when they display an image on the internet, it's like seeing something for sale in a display window. A watermark is like the glass between the product and the buyer. When someone illegally removes the watermark and uses that image for anything without paying them for its use, it's the same as breaking that glass and stealing the product. That also goes for audio and video.

But, like I said before, copyright ownership of photographs, audio and video is becoming obsolete. They're going to try to protect their products in all kinds of different ways, but it will be all in vain — because everything becomes accessible on the web now.

Businesses that depend on image, audio and video copyrights are going to have to either wake up and adjust to these facts, or die.

To get back to the original post, though, I still think this "crediting" crap is for the dogs. It's nice as a courtesy, but to *demand* it or make it *mandatory* is bullshit. You don't *own* the photo, so the courtesy extends to the original photographer or artist, and not just to the jack-off who messed around with the original picture. That's like stealing a can of soup from the store, then putting it in a plastic container and telling people you made it from scratch. When someone wears a new dress to school, it's nice to tell them "that's a pretty dress," but does the wearer EXPECT or INSIST that you say it? A courtesy is just that. A courtesy. That's what a credit should be. If you happen to think of it or feel like saying it. And nobody should get all bent out of shape when people don't feel like it or forget. So what.
Subscribe

  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
  • 5 comments