|
stick233
Jan 22, 2004, 8:17 PM
Post #1 of 81
(9098 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 18, 2002
Posts: 339
|
Surprised no one has mentioned the appearance of cryder's gollum pic in this months Climbing rag... did they get your permission cryder? anyway, congrats... a little photoshop work gets a little publicity...
|
|
|
|
|
overlord
Jan 22, 2004, 8:21 PM
Post #2 of 81
(9098 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 25, 2002
Posts: 14120
|
nice.
|
|
|
|
|
jughead
Jan 22, 2004, 8:23 PM
Post #3 of 81
(9098 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 23, 2002
Posts: 292
|
very coolsaw some posters aroun my gym featuring the now famous pic 8)
|
|
|
|
|
strongerthanyesterday
Jan 22, 2004, 8:29 PM
Post #4 of 81
(9098 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 15, 2003
Posts: 213
|
Did they get Climbsomething's permission? That was a great image but let's not forget who took the original and deserves credit and the right to be asked her permission and to be compensated. her name was second, like some kind of afterthought. :evil:
|
|
|
|
|
alderak
Jan 22, 2004, 8:48 PM
Post #5 of 81
(9098 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 18, 2003
Posts: 155
|
I wonder how they got ahold of the pic.... prolly something somewhere that states that every picture posted is public domain or something silly like that..
|
|
|
|
|
xanx
Jan 22, 2004, 8:51 PM
Post #6 of 81
(9098 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 6, 2002
Posts: 1002
|
congrats... cryder is truly the photoshop master. i actually think his "dry dreams" blow the gollum pic out of the water.
anyway nice job, always good to see ppl on here go big!
|
|
|
|
|
tucsonalex
Jan 22, 2004, 8:52 PM
Post #7 of 81
(9098 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 11, 2002
Posts: 1689
|
In reply to: I wonder how they got ahold of the pic.... prolly something somewhere that states that every picture posted is public domain or something silly like that..
In reply to: This website and all of its content and design are Copyrighted 1995-2003 under US copyright laws. You cannot reproduce or distribute this material in any way without the written consent of the owners.
Look closely, this is at the bottom of every page. Submitted photos remain property of the photographer.
|
|
|
|
|
flagstaff_climber
Jan 22, 2004, 9:19 PM
Post #9 of 81
(9098 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 22, 2002
Posts: 310
|
Yea, I just missed being in Climbing once agian, I was belaying for that pic :) Well maybe someday :)
Rick
|
|
|
|
|
slcliffdiver
Jan 22, 2004, 9:51 PM
Post #10 of 81
(9098 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 18, 2002
Posts: 489
|
In reply to: Yea, I just missed being in Climbing once agian, I was belaying for that pic :) Well maybe someday :) Rick
The question is did you trust Gollum to belay you up? He may have wanted your "precious" gear.
|
|
|
|
|
fitzontherocks
Jan 22, 2004, 9:59 PM
Post #11 of 81
(9098 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 11, 2003
Posts: 864
|
I think it's backwards: wouldn't climbsomething be liable for copying Gollum from the movie?
|
|
|
|
|
epic_ed
Jan 22, 2004, 10:06 PM
Post #12 of 81
(9098 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 17, 2002
Posts: 4724
|
She didn't -- Cryder did. But even then, he took a public image and altered/edited it. No copyright violation (as has been asserted by a few people who were discussing this in another thread).
Ed
|
|
|
|
|
tucsonalex
Jan 22, 2004, 10:09 PM
Post #13 of 81
(9098 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 11, 2002
Posts: 1689
|
In reply to: I think it's backwards: wouldn't climbsomething be liable for copying Gollum from the movie?
Just so you're up to speed.
Hillary took this amazing photo of Kole:
http://www.rockclimbing.com/photos.php?Action=Show&PhotoID=18131
Cryder turned it into this:
http://www.rockclimbing.com/photos.php?Action=Show&PhotoID=18873
Climbing magazine then published it giving Hillary nothing more than her
name second in the photo credit.
|
|
|
|
|
sixter
Jan 22, 2004, 10:09 PM
Post #14 of 81
(9098 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 25, 2003
Posts: 262
|
In reply to: I think it's backwards: wouldn't climbsomething be liable for copying Gollum from the movie?
I would have to check my photgraphy books to be sure, but I think this falls under "fair use". If the original work is significantly changed, then you are creating a new copyrightable image. I believe this sort of work and parody is protected under copyright laws, but don't quote me on that.
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Jan 22, 2004, 10:16 PM
Post #15 of 81
(9098 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
In reply to: She didn't -- Cryder did. But even then, he took a public image and altered/edited it. No copyright violation (as has been asserted by a few people who were discussing this in a nother thread). Ed
Someone seems to have given Cryder bad advice. Unless he got specific permission from the makers of the LOTR movies, he is stealing copyrighted material. He (and Climbing Magazine) could be liable for damages.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
scubasnyder
Jan 22, 2004, 10:18 PM
Post #16 of 81
(9098 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 3, 2003
Posts: 1639
|
that photo was pretty nice, looked realistic
|
|
|
|
|
fitzontherocks
Jan 22, 2004, 10:36 PM
Post #17 of 81
(9098 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 11, 2003
Posts: 864
|
"The purpose of the work is to be given considerable weight. For instance, a parody that comments on the original work, as opposed to copying the work merely to get attention, is more likely to be viewed as having a valid defense under the fair use doctrine. "
-- from http://www.independentdealer.com/marketing/marketing3.asp
I'm no lawyer, but I'd bet a nut "fair use" this was done "merely to get attention." It actually looks like two parties are remiss... whoever photoshopped the shot, and Climbing magazine. Don't get me wrong. I have no dog in this fight. I think the original photo is great and the photoshop Gollum is awesome. But that's the kind of thing you share with friends, not the World Wide Web. Friendly advice: don't flash your homemade money around the bank.
|
|
|
|
|
dsafanda
Jan 22, 2004, 11:06 PM
Post #18 of 81
(9098 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2002
Posts: 1025
|
In reply to: But even then, he took a public image and altered/edited it. No copyright violation
I don't know Ed. Just because an image has been distributed to the public through various channels(movies,posters, werb sites, etc.) does not mean that there is no copyright protection for the image in question. I imagine that particular image of Gollum is indeed protected by numerous copyrights.
One question that comes to mind is...did Cryder actually render that illustration from scratch or did he simply take a still from the movie or movie promotions and paste it in to another photo along with a few Photoshop tweaks. That might make a big difference. I'm assuming it was a case of a sophisticated cut and paste job but correct me if I'm wrong.
I really don't know the answer but my guess would be that by the letter of the law it is indeed a copyright infringement. Intellectual property and copyright laws make for interesting discussions. In any event, with the amount of movie piracy that is going on right now, I would think that the studio responsible for Lord of the Rings has much bigger fish to fry. RC.com or even a climbing magazine doesn't even make for a blip on their radar. If I were the orginal Gollum illustrator/animator I'd be flattered instead of upset.
|
|
|
|
|
climbsomething
Jan 22, 2004, 11:29 PM
Post #19 of 81
(9098 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 30, 2002
Posts: 8588
|
In reply to: Surprised no one has mentioned the appearance of cryder's gollum pic in this months Climbing rag... did they get your permission cryder? anyway, congrats... a little photoshop work gets a little publicity...
And no, Climbing magazine did not obtain my permission, or contact me at all regarding use of the image. Cryder, yes, but not me. I guess despite them giving me a joint photo credit, I didn't really matter.
Furthermore, Climbing did not put the photo into any context. For all non-rc.com junkies know, that was the slick work of some in-house creative dude at Climbing or within the LOTR family.
I did not alter a photo of Gollum. I took an original photo of Kole. Cryder then applied his Photoshop savvy to my photo. I have had no part whatsoever in potentially stepping on any copyright toes.
I am more than a little pissed.
One more knock against Climbing magazine, and you may already know how much I love them.
But gee, I hope all of Climbing's readers worldwide really really dig that image.
|
|
|
|
|
dbtex
Jan 22, 2004, 11:49 PM
Post #20 of 81
(9098 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 15, 2003
Posts: 45
|
There seems to be a lot of speculation or conjecture about the law, on the part of more than one, in this thread. Is there an atty., that knows the "ins and outs" of copyright law, that will respond and clear the air. I would like to know the "real" answer.
As for the shots, regardless of the legal implications, they both show artistry. My hat's off to all three talents: Cryder, Hillary, and Kole. Keep up the good work!
|
|
|
|
|
dsafanda
Jan 22, 2004, 11:59 PM
Post #21 of 81
(9098 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2002
Posts: 1025
|
In reply to: There seems to be a lot of speculation or conjecture
ha! Ofcoarse. What do you think this forum is for?
Actually, I'd love to hear an answer from an intellectual property lawyer also. I'm not holding my breath.
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Jan 23, 2004, 12:00 AM
Post #22 of 81
(9098 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
In reply to: There seems to be a lot of speculation or conjecture about the law, on the part of more than one, in this thread. Is there an atty., that knows the "ins and outs" of copyright law, that will respond and clear the air. I would like to know the "real" answer. As for the shots, regardless of the legal implications, they both show artistry. My hat's off to all three talents: Cryder, Hillary, and Kole. Keep up the good work!
My wife (Lisa) has litigated copyright and trademark infringement cases in the past, both in this country and internationally. My post in this thread is basically Lisa's opinion--after I printed out both the original "Kole" photo and the altered "Gollum" photo and explained to her that the latter then appeared in Climbing magazine.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
hangdoggypound
Jan 23, 2004, 12:06 AM
Post #23 of 81
(9098 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 23, 2002
Posts: 169
|
In reply to: ...And no, Climbing magazine did not obtain my permission, or contact me at all regarding use of the image. Cryder, yes, but not me. I guess despite them giving me a joint photo credit, I didn't really matter. Furthermore, Climbing did not put the photo into any context. For all non-rc.com junkies know, that was the slick work of some in-house creative dude at Climbing or within the LOTR family.... I am more than a little pissed. One more knock against Climbing magazine, and you may already know how much I love them. But gee, I hope all of Climbing's readers worldwide really really dig that image.
Never let a magazine use your work - words or photos - for free. Evidently you didn't exactly 'let' them. Like I said, I'd be pissed too.
|
|
|
|
|
flagstaff_climber
Jan 23, 2004, 12:35 AM
Post #24 of 81
(9098 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 22, 2002
Posts: 310
|
In reply to: As for the shots, regardless of the legal implications, they both show artistry. My hat's off to all three talents: Cryder, Hillary, and Kole. Keep up the good work!
HEY, what about me, I was after all belaying and shouting beta to him :) Geeesh nobody ever apreciates the contribution of the belayer :D
Rick
|
|
|
|
|
climbsomething
Jan 23, 2004, 12:42 AM
Post #25 of 81
(9098 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 30, 2002
Posts: 8588
|
In reply to: In reply to: As for the shots, regardless of the legal implications, they both show artistry. My hat's off to all three talents: Cryder, Hillary, and Kole. Keep up the good work! HEY, what about me, I was after all belaying and shouting beta to him :) Geeesh nobody ever apreciates the contribution of the belayer :D Rick |
|
|
|
|
|
1
