What's new
Photoshop Gurus Forum

Welcome to Photoshop Gurus forum. Register a free account today to become a member! It's completely free. Once signed in, you'll enjoy an ad-free experience and be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Looking for Photoshop Professional


Status
Not open for further replies.

davevalley

New Member
Messages
1
Likes
0
Hello All,

I'm simply looking for a Photoshop professional that can place my daughter's picture on another picture of the boy band "One Direction". I'm simply looking to have it appear that she posed with "One Direction". I'm willing to pay a fee for their time.

Can you all point me in the right direction?
 

iDad

Guru
Messages
11,578
Likes
4,467
..........
 
Last edited:

ibclare

Queen Bee
Messages
11,034
Likes
4,638
Hi dave. Thanks for coming to our forum with your request.

Please look at these guidelines if you haven't already. On the other hand, iDad is a qualified and expert Photoshopper, so he will do good work for you. Please deal only with our legitimate freelancers. They must post their interest in your thread. That is the only way we can protect you if there is a dispute. It also helps to maintain our integrity as having known and respected artists. TYVM for your cooperation!
 

Crotale

Power User
Messages
314
Likes
236
I'm not trying to be the proverbial wet blanket here, but does this request not violate the "altering of legal documents or materials and plagiarizing copyrighted designs or images created by others" clause in our very own rules for freelance work? Not only does the action potentially violate any copyrights of the original image owner, but there is the additional issue of model releases by all persons depicted in the finished work.

While these types of image manipulations are a dime and a dozen on the internet, the changing hands on money only serves to exacerbate the legal entanglements. What I mean to say is that a person who creates or publishes (posting on the web) such a composite image may receive a cease and desist order from One Direction's legal team; the changing hands on money in the creation process will provide legal fodder to an actual lawsuit for damages on all participants.

If you are only planning on placing the finished product as a personal print off your own printer and hanging in the daughter's bedroom, you will likely be fine. Otherwise, you could be setting yourself and everyone involved up for a potential lawsuit. Just food for thought.
 

ibclare

Queen Bee
Messages
11,034
Likes
4,638
That is an ongoing discussion with little final agreement, certainly not 100%. But the majority opinion at this forum is that doing fun things for harmless personal use is OK.

Definitely grey to black is asking for a legal document to be altered, (including, not limited to, yada yada yada, driver's license, birth certificate, graduation certificates, marriage certificates, etc.) removing a copyright, humiliating potential of an edit we might do.

Our ground floor stand is that edits and manipulations done for personal use are generally harmless. There is still the issue of using copyrighted images like Spiderman which came up in recent admin discussion. Most of us including Steve and dv8-fx believe if it does not infringe on the owners' ability to make money, it's OK. My personal opinion is that most artists, movie stars, etc., not only don't mind, but love it. I expect it's just more positive publicity for them. I know I would feel that way . . . flattered by fans!

There are grey areas and will never be perfect agreement. If you ever have any concern about how dark that shade of grey may be, please use the report button and bring it to our attention.

If Photoshop Gurus Forum ever gets "sued up the ying yang," I imagine this policy's ying ying will tighten up a bit! :rofl:

In the meantime, use your discretion, common sense, and the report button as needed.
 

Hoogle

Guru
Messages
8,334
Likes
2,587
I disagree you can throw all laws at me etc unless the Ops Daughter is Miley Cyrus or another celebrity, or even a picture that will make 1D look bad ie drugs, nudism etc the it would be a valid argument.

But Fair usage applies here if the OP provides the pictures then the PSG member fulfilling the job is doing a job requested and is not reselling other peoples work.

if you hire a decorator but supply the paint and wallpaper yourself is that decorator going to ask for proof of purchase and interrogate the client to find if the stuff supplied is stolen or not.

90% probably more of the images on our database which people have uploaded are not their own works originally but have edited it into something etc.

Fair usage is still applicable here unless they want a watermark on it saying official merchandise. I have yet to meet a photoshopper that has only ever worked on content which they whole heartedly own themselves without some kind of license disclaimer or google searched etc.

Keep things realistic and if 1D or any lawyers send a take down notice or contact us stating within good reason what we have done to violate their clients wishes etc then we will certainly comply.

We are not here to make money by stealing, making money is a treat a little something back to the people who contribute here and for those that will only participate where money is involved as you all are aware of who they are.

We provide a contact anyone wishing to employ PSG directly for work they can do so at www.photoshopgurus.com where requests and work will be done in a more professional manner and charged more appropriately with disclosure contracts etc.

This is why the pricing suggestions are just suggestions based on low pricing to literally compensate for the time.


And fyi under all these copyright claims etc I have yet to see something in this forum where it would be a legitimate claim. I have done work for mobile apps taking well known branding (logos) and editing them for guess the logo games etc. now if your thinking that the aps paid to use the logos then your in for a shock, I contacted legal personal and the companies and as long as you dont disgrace the company they are fine with it, they get free publicity and advertising.

Not 1 disclosure form or contract was ever signed for some of the biggest apps on marketplaces blatantly stealing logos etc as you would put it on here. Many companies, Celebrities, Tv Networks etc now provide free content which you can download and do with what you like normally vector format so that when people do use their name it is high quality and correct, even celebrities normally have a page on their website or their management company providing high res images to be used for media all be it with a watermark in the corner crediting the real image owner etc.
 

Crotale

Power User
Messages
314
Likes
236
Have it your way.

Not 1 disclosure form or contract was ever signed for some of the biggest apps on marketplaces blatantly stealing logos etc as you would put it on here. Many companies, Celebrities, Tv Networks etc now provide free content which you can download and do with what you like normally vector format so that when people do use their name it is high quality and correct, even celebrities normally have a page on their website or their management company providing high res images to be used for media all be it with a watermark in the corner crediting the real image owner etc.

Many IP owners will allow certain approved uses of their content as long as you meet all their legal requirements, of which no retail sales may be made in the process, and, distribution is also generally limited to certain digital forms only.

Everything I have stated is factual and true, regardless of what netizens think they can and generally do get away with.
 

Tom Mann

Guru
Messages
7,223
Likes
4,343
Some good comments, Clair and Hoogle.

However, Hoogle, the legal principle which *might* absolve a PSG freelancer is not "fair use", but more likely, "work for hire". Wikipedia has a good introduction to this concept: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_for_hire, e.g.,

"...if a work is "made for hire", the employer—not the employee—is considered the legal author. ..."

As you pointed out, in cases where a visitor (the OP) effectively contracts to a PSG freelancer, the OP assumes legal responsibility for the project instead of the freelancer.

The waters might be a bit muddied if holder of the copyright asserts that PSG itself benefited from the transaction (eg, because of publicity, increased traffic, etc.), but I doubt this would be a big factor.

However, "work for hire" obviously does not apply to freebies, and either "fair use" or simply slipping under the radar would have to be relied upon.

Tom
 

dv8_fx

Retired Administrator
Messages
13,761
Likes
4,789
We seem to be blowing things out of proportion here and/or jumping to conclusion.

If the image rework is meant to be hung on the daughter's wall, then the OP, image manipulator or PSG is within bounds of law.

I don't see how such an image can be used for profit or to pass as if the person inserted into the image is a member of a known all-boy band.

It's not like we're being offered a job to edit McDonald's Arches into McHealy's Bakery insignia or adding Michael Jordan into the line up of the Seattle Supersonics for publication in tomorrow's news scoop edition.

But for common people with simple desires as giving something to a sibling to smile about, I think this job request can pass and shouldn't be subject to our stringent policies.

If during discussions via PM the responding designer finds that the work is more than what it seems to be and finds it unethical, then it should be reported in the job thread for all to be warned and forum management to act upon.

If it's one thing I've practiced in my business proceedings over all these years it's never to use copyright items or even to manipulate these even in minute detail. But for a case like this, for as long as its for personal and private use, I think I can close one eye.
 

Hoogle

Guru
Messages
8,334
Likes
2,587
Exactly as long as the images are provided by the person paying or even freebies then your only doing the job being asked and thats how I cover myself.

In real world situations in my contracts it states all artwork provided by me will be purchased stock images or created by myself, and also states if you the client are providing images/fonts etc then you assume the responsibility of all legal consequences related to the images provided and or have permission to use them without violating any terms of usage. and blatantly state I do not assume any legal responsibility for content provided.

In an ideal world yes all designers paid to do work will be able to produce 100% their own content or purchase a license to use anything they may need.

Yes there are many legal gray areas on the internet more and more cases are popping up. But there is a big difference between photoshopping a teenage girl in a picture of her favourite band compared to someone taking a corporate logo/ brand and just removing the text to make it their own company.

I fully support Artists and their work and their right to protect it and I get frustrated when I see small artists having their work stolen by huge corporate companies and then loosing the legal battles.

I am not anti copyright infact I have been a victim of it and when starting out I was an offender without realising it.

And I stress this we will endeavour to adhere to copyright laws with a reasonable amount of enforcement we do not wish to offend anyone and will always comply if proof of image ownership is sent to us then we will without hesitation remove any images violating the artists personal copyright etc.

I am not saying at all it is the internet and it is a giant free for all but we need to keep a certain amount of reality oitherwise this will turn into an imageless site I or any other staff on here are not lawyers so can not sit here and say your breaking the law or say yeah its ok to do that legally etc but there is areas where you the members have to decide if you want to do the work or not. Because at the end of the day PSG does not assume any responsibility if any laws are broken then that will be an issue with the member and not PSG
 

dv8_fx

Retired Administrator
Messages
13,761
Likes
4,789
That is if the OP hasn't been turned off after seeing the growing copyright discussion or if a responding designer got the job under his or her belt even as we speak..........
 

ibclare

Queen Bee
Messages
11,034
Likes
4,638
:eek:fftopic:

Back to the actual topic of this thread . . .

Dave, did you get what you want? I'll close the thread if so. And you can clean your shoes from the foot deep off-topic "dung," (no offense intended guys - myself included) as it has been getting a little deep in here. :rofl:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top