MicrostockGroup
Microstock Photography Forum - General => General Stock Discussion => Topic started by: chrisbradshaw on September 28, 2016, 09:08
-
I guess this would be called an ethics question. I understand that we all “polish” our images to remove imperfections, correct lighting, etc. And at times we can actually replace an element of an image, such as replacing a cloudy sky with a sunny one. But where is the line drawn?
I have recently come across a large portfolio of images from a resort town that I have frequently traveled to. I prefer not to mention the artist or post a link to the images as this point. What I have noticed is that the images are clearly not authentic photographs of the area, but are composites. For example, in one image of a beach with a marina in the background, the marina is the actual marina in this town, but the water and beach have been clearly replaced by a beach from a tropical area, such as the Caribbean. From my experience in this resort town, I can say with certainty that the beach and water have been replaced in the image with a different resort's water, beach and sand. The water in this particular town is dark green and rather murky. And the sand is very rocky, not fine at all.
If an image is described as a particular place in the description and keywords, and then half the image is replaced with elements that do not exist in that place, is that image misrepresenting that location? My first reaction is that the image would be fine if it was submitted as a “generic” place, using non-specific keywords and did not claim to be a specific geographic location (ex: Keywords “beach” and “ocean”, but not “Honolulu” or “Hawaii”).
I would be interested in hearing other stock contributor's thoughts.
-
Since we are talking about non-editorial content the place to draw the line is simple profitability I guess. I hardly imagine anyone skilled enogh spending hours of precious time making high-end composite for 10 or even 100 ridiculous 38 cents sells.
-
If an image is described as a particular place in the description and keywords, and then half the image is replaced with elements that do not exist in that place, is that image misrepresenting that location? My first reaction is that the image would be fine if it was submitted as a “generic” place, using non-specific keywords and did not claim to be a specific geographic location (ex: Keywords “beach” and “ocean”, but not “Honolulu” or “Hawaii”).
I've seen many cases where a tropical beach picture has keywords for countries across the Caribbean, and around the world - Hawaii, Maldives, etc. I've always thought that was a terrible idea - buyer can't rely on location information. For the same reason, I think that compositing in location elements is misleading if the keywords include the location.
So if you remove power lines or add in a vase of flowers on a table, I don't see a problem as it doesn't alter the basics of the place in the image. Likewise removing ship IDs and store names/logos. I also don't see a problem with replacing the sky as it still doesn't misrepresent the location, and there's no journalism issues in stock images.
Although I wasn't sure if the guidelines were clear enough, Alamy's question about whether an image is digitally altered is probably the best way to deal with this sort of thing - if it's marked as altered and you care about accuracy of the place, then you stay away from composites marked as altered.
-
If a buyer needs editorial content they should buy editorial content. Otherwise they risk buying an illustrative or enhanced portrayal of said subject matter. However, I agree that descriptions and keywords should be location accurate.
-
If the keywords are listing specific geographic locations, then I don't think the photo should include elements that are not found there, should a person go to that specific location. To me, that seems deceiving. Therefore, I think that one should either do the compositing and list generic keywords, or don't do compositing and list specific locations. Touchups = ok.