Question about interaction within the community

[WarpGirl]

Well either way comments should still be respectful.

[marchale]

marchale, there's a bit of a minefield, you're stumbling into. When we go to play with Trip/T'Pol in fanfiction, we're dealing with persons that are not real. When you're copy/pasting Trip's head out of a screencap, you're actually tinkering with the likeliness of Connor Trineer, who just happened to play the role of Trip for a time. So you're dealing with a very real person and he can well be offended, if you drop his face onto a half-naked body. That's two things that you cannot compare. Using Trip/T'Pol for fanfiction would be - interpreted in the most pedantic way - at worst a copyright offense, while using someones likeliness in shopped photos is an intrusion into privacy.

In germany, producing fakes could net you 1 year in jail because of §251a of the criminal offense law for something called Verletzung des höchstpersönlichen Lebensbereichs durch Bildaufnahmen (Violation of intimate privacy by way of image recording), so I think it is really a rather tricky line you're skirting with producing fakes.

Yeah, I see what you mean there - which is why I only do fakes of the fictional characters like Trip and T'Pol and not fakes of real living people like Connor and Jolene, I wouldn't do fakes of living people. Someone jumped on me once over that publically, but like I told her - look at the hairstyle, that's a fictional Trip Tucker there, not Connor Trineer - I wouldn't do real people.

[marchale]

Well either way comments should still be respectful.

Yes, I agree with you there wholeheartedly!

[Kotik]

Someone jumped on me once over that publically, but like I told her - look at the hairstyle, that's a fictional Trip Tucker there, not Connor Trineer - I wouldn't do real people.

Sorry to disappoint you, but that's a bit of a moot argument. Trip tucker is a human, so is Connor and a difference in hairstyle doesn't make it any less of a intrusion. The main thing here is the face. It is clearly identifiable as that of Connor Trineer, so you'd get into trouble, even if you shopped him to be bald. Same goes for Jolene - pointy ears or not, she's clearly identifiable as Jolene Blalock, you wouldn't even get away with Shran or Quark. The only viable thing would be using one of the face-mask wearing Coridans from "Demons", as their face is completely obscured. As soon as a real persons face can be identified in an image, you need to have the persons implied or expressed consent.

[marchale]

Someone jumped on me once over that publically, but like I told her - look at the hairstyle, that's a fictional Trip Tucker there, not Connor Trineer - I wouldn't do real people.

Sorry to disappoint you, but that's a bit of a moot argument. Trip tucker is a human, so is Connor and a difference in hairstyle doesn't make it any less of a intrusion. The main thing here is the face. It is clearly identifiable as that of Connor Trineer, so you'd get into trouble, even if you shopped him to be bald. Same goes for Jolene - pointy ears or not, she's clearly identifiable as Jolene Blalock, you wouldn't even get away with Shran or Quark. The only viable thing would be using one of the face-mask wearing Coridans from "Demons", as their face is completely obscured. As soon as a real persons face can be identified in an image, you need to have the persons implied or expressed consent.

I'm sorry to disappoint you as well, Kotik - but what you view as a moot argument, isn't "moot" to me at all. It is exactly the point I am trying to make here. When an actor puts on say pointy ears or wears their hairstyle as that character does, their face becomes their character's face for the duration of the time they are portraying them, and as such - it's Trip's or T'Pol's face and not Connor's or Jolene's as far as I'm concerned. Anyway, like I said - I don't do real people, only the fictional characters they portray; and as I only use screencaps from the show, I don't think anyone could argue they're not "in character" on the show itself

[Cogito]

I'm not sure whether real people have any legal right to control what you do to images of them. It would be difficult to define exactly what constitutes an image of a person. The restrictions I think all relate to the rights of privacy. I don't think you could claim that somebody using a publicity picture of you was breaching your privacy.

Fictional characters can be recognised as a trademark and if so you could get in trouble for publishing a recognisable image of a fictional character, if the person owning the trademark took exception to it.

What you do to previously published pictures is a different matter and I believe that you don't have the right to re-publish other people's work unless the publisher gives you that right. There's a big difference between 'having' and 'publishing', though. If you take somebody's published image, change it, and hang it on your wall, I don't think you're inherently breaking any laws. Hang it on your web site and you could be in trouble again, if the original publisher objects.

[Kotik]

As a private justification that might work, but legally they'd ground your behind. In legal terms, the rubber ears of Jolene or Jeffrey Combs antennae are classified as make-up. They don't suspend their personal privacy rights whenever they step into their roles. By your definition, I would have the right to photograph Jolene during a break on the set, while she still wears make-up, which I don't. When you see her on an image that depict her in a scene during the actual show, then she's shown in an image recording she has consented to by taking part in the filming. If you chop her head out of that photo and paste it onto the half-naked body of a busty bimbo you are violating the privacy of two persons, unless both have agreed on making that modification. Law might be a bummer, but that's how it works.

EDIT: Just looked something up: There's been a case here in germany, where a 12th grade youth took a normal photo of a female class mate, that she had consented to at a party. He shopped out her head, pasted it onto the naked body body of a teen-photo from a sleazy website and distributed print copies of it at school. He got busted for violation of intimate privacy by way of image recording and for copyright violations in regard of the naked teen photo taken from the interwebs.

[Cogito]

By your definition, I would have the right to photograph Jolene during a break on the set, while she still wears make-up, which I don't.

Normally that would be on private property, and you wouldn't have any right to photograph her there. But if said break occurred while Jolene was filming in a public location, it would not be inherently illegal for you to take her photograph. In fact, professional photographers can make a living doing exactly that, and selling their picture for publication, without breaking any law.

[marchale]

I'm not sure whether real people have any legal right to control what you do to images of them. It would be difficult to define exactly what constitutes an image of a person. The restrictions I think all relate to the rights of privacy. I don't think you could claim that somebody using a publicity picture of you was breaching your privacy.

Fictional characters can be recognised as a trademark and if so you could get in trouble for publishing a recognisable image of a fictional character, if the person owning the trademark took exception to it.

What you do to previously published pictures is a different matter and I believe that you don't have the right to re-publish other people's work unless the publisher gives you that right. There's a big difference between 'having' and 'publishing', though. If you take somebody's published image, change it, and hang it on your wall, I don't think you're inherently breaking any laws. Hang it on your web site and you could be in trouble again, if the original publisher objects.

Yeah, if anything, I think using that which Paramount owns is a copyright issue - but anyone who uses their property in the creation of fan created works runs that risk, regardless if they're writing fanfic, making music videos, creating fakes or whatever form of art their fan appreciation takes. And frankly, I think the point at which "when does a creation become your own?" falls into a real mess when it involves a copyrighted property you do not own. Kind of like a blind man looking for a black cat in the dark that isn't there - I really don't want to go there for obvious reasons

Actually though, fakes (at least those made here in America anyway) are protected by law under what's considered "Fair Use" not to mention artistic expression being protected under Freedom of Speech as well too. Ah, the copyright thing is an issue as I don't own the rights to Trip and T'Pol - but I definatly think it's them I'm playing with and not the real life actors portraying them

[marchale]

As a private justification that might work, but legally they'd ground your behind. In legal terms, the rubber ears of Jolene or Jeffrey Combs antennae are classified as make-up. They don't suspend their personal privacy rights whenever they step into their roles. By your definition, I would have the right to photograph Jolene during a break on the set, while she still wears make-up, which I don't. When you see her on an image that depict her in a scene during the actual show, then she's shown in an image recording she has consented to by taking part in the filming. If you chop her head out of that photo and paste it onto the half-naked body of a busty bimbo you are violating the privacy of two persons, unless both have agreed on making that modification. Law might be a bummer, but that's how it works.

EDIT: Just looked something up: There's been a case here in germany, where a 12th grade youth took a normal photo of a female class mate, that she had consented to at a party. He shopped out her head, pasted it onto the naked body body of a teen-photo from a sleazy website and distributed print copies of it at school. He got busted for violation of intimate privacy by way of image recording and for copyright violations in regard of the naked teen photo taken from the interwebs.

BTW, Kotik - I am sorry to hear that happened to that poor girl. I don't approve of fakes which are made of real people at all, and especially not those made in a harmful or derogatory fashion, and I am as appalled by that as you are. (And as far as what's legal to do in America, please see my post above that I wrote in response to Cogito. I don't think I have anything to worry about there legally outside of the copyright issues (as I am depicting fictional characters, not real people), but 'potential copyright issues' are a risk anyone who creates fan art has to deal with, regardless if its fakes, fanfic, music videos, etc)

[Cogito]

He got busted for violation of intimate privacy by way of image recording and for copyright violations in regard of the naked teen photo taken from the interwebs.

I can understand why he would be liable for copyright violation for pictures he took from the website, but I'm not familiar with the term 'violation of intimate privacy'. Does it mean they essentially treated him as if he had published genuine nude photos of her without her permission?

[Kotik]

He got busted for violation of intimate privacy by way of image recording and for copyright violations in regard of the naked teen photo taken from the interwebs.

I can understand why he would be liable for copyright violation for pictures he took from the website, but I'm not familiar with the term 'violation of intimate privacy'. Does it mean they essentially treated him as if he had published genuine nude photos of her without her permission?

Yes. German law does not make a distinction between publishing a genuine nude photograph and a faked one. After all, the primary identification measure, her face, was on the picture. Since it is assumed that persons do not regularily show up naked in public, the people seeing this photo have no measure to see that it is not her body, displayed on the image. The full legal term of the offense is Verletzung des höchstpersönlichen Lebensbereichs durch Bildaufnahme - in legalese english: violation of the supreme right of privacy by way of image recording. That does include, videos, photographs and even painted pictures. You can't go ahead painting a naked picture of you neighbour, without his/her consent and then publish it. Those trials usually include experts, who determine wether the person on display is clearly identifiable beyond reasonable doubt. So you'd probably get away with a Slvadore Dali painting.

[CX]

Good thing we're not dealing with German law here then, huh? You keep arguing about something that is either covered under the first amendment or fair use here in the US, and I can tell you that you're wasting your breath there.

[Kotik]

Good thing we're not dealing with German law here then, huh? You keep arguing about something that is either covered under the first amendment or fair use here in the US, and I can tell you that you're wasting your breath there.

I'm surprised. You talk about Fair use. Is it really fair to photoshop someone's head out of a photo and dropping it on a random half-naked body of someone else and then showing it off on the interwebs? That's pretty dang unfair to both of the persons in question

[CX]

Fair Use as it applies to copyright law, as in the use of images and characters from Star Trek. It's the same reason we can write fan fiction. As far as doing shoops, that's where the first amendment comes in. Frankly refraining from doing "real people" vs. characters is more something someone only has to do out of their own sense of politeness or morality. Sure, someone might find something offensive, but here in this country, we do not have the freedom to not be offended. Again, this is where the freedom of speech comes in, because if someone expresses themselves in a manner you find offensive, well you're free to express yourself right back. So like I said before, it's a good thing we aren't operating under German law here.