Question about interaction within the community

[marchale]

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.

Yes, I'm very glad I live in America - actually my Grandmother's parents on my father's side of the family left Germany and came here because they preferred the way of life we have here (and I can appreciate why they did).

[Kotik]

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.

So let me get this straight. If I consent to have my picture taken, like Connor Trineer did, when he participated in the filming of ENT and someone legally aquires this picture. He is still within the law, when he then takes his head out of the picture by way of image editing, integrates it into a picture of a completely different male, who's naked or semi-naked to make it appear as if it was a picture of trineer in a state of partial undress and publishes it on the interwebs?

Well, if that's the case, thank the heavens that I live on the correct side of the pond

[CX]

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.

So let me get this straight. If I consent to have my picture taken, like Connor Trineer did, when he participated in the filming of ENT and someone legally aquires this picture. He is still within the law, when he then takes his head out of the picture by way of image editing, integrates it into a picture of a completely different male, who's naked or semi-naked to make it appear as if it was a picture of trineer in a state of partial undress and publishes it on the interwebs?

Well, if that's the case, thank the heavens that I live on the correct side of the pond

Right back at you as far as I'm concerned.

[Kotik]

Well then consider this case. There's an actress, who does decline any offer that whould have her shown in a naked situation, because she's uncomfortable with it.
Now any person might go ahead, take a publically available photo of her in a clothed state, cut out the head and paste it on the body of a naked female and float them on the net - how's that not pissing all over her dignity and privacy? You consider that morally and legally acceptable ???

[Distracted]

I would not personally consider it morally acceptable, but I don't think it's against the law in the US unless the photos are copyrighted. Of course, she could always sue the person who did it for her pain and suffering. If she could prove that she did indeed experience mental anguish she'd likely get a pretty nice settlement, provided the person who did it had any money.

[Kotik]

Guess that's the basic difference between German and American law there. The american law always had a feel of granting more freedom to people but making them much more liable to damages that result from them abusing them, while German law is more prohibitive.

In short, American law allows you to do a fake without consent of the pictured people, but they'll kick your behind into the middle of next week if any of the persons involved suffers from it, while German law prohibits it right away, so that you don't even get the chance to hurt anyone. Darn, we're really playing it safe, aren't we

[WarpGirl]

Actors and actresses can sue when people use their images are manipulated. They do.

As for whether it's moral or not. I think it's very immoral to put a person's face on a sexually explicit image they never consented to. I can see why some people think using a "character image" is different, but frankly I think the area is way too grey to be considered a good idea. Especially when one of the character's only trait is a hair style.

Hey now KINDNESS! Don't forget KINDNESS!

[marchale]

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

Well, as I stated earlier (repeatedlly) I only fake fictional characters, not real living actors - and as a fan, I think I have as much of a right to portray Trip and T'Pol as I see fit to do so in my type of artwork as what any other artist would in any other artistic format they wish to use. I am not violating any living actor's right by doing that because I don't deal with real living actors in my work, just fictional characters who don't exist in the real world. And as far as the rights of the real person who posed for the body, hey - they were the ones who chose to pose so suggestively, so no, I don't feel like their privacy has been invaded either. (Actually, they'd never even know I body snatched their body anymore than what Trip or T'Pol could know about it. I'm sorry if I find this a bit amusing here, but I'm talking about fictional characters and you're talking about real life actors I am not dealing with in my art anymore than you are in your fanfic stories, Kotik.

[marchale]

Regarding the last few posts made about doing fakes of real life people - we're talking apples and oranges here because I don't do real people in my artwork, nor do I approve of those fakes where real people are used, I strictly deal with fictional characters only.

[WarpGirl]

Natalie Portman sued a porn company that used her face when she played "Amidala" in the SW's prequal and won. So did Alyssa Milano, when people used her pictures from her role in a movie called Poison Ivy. These are legal cases on public record. All you have to do is type them into google. So I'd say it's an ethically grey area.

[Kotik]

It's not such grey an area. When you see Jolene Blalock strutting her stuff, while wearing pointy rubber-ears, she's still Jolene Blalock in an art performance with her role being named "T'Pol". She doesn't turn into a fictional character, she merely plays one. So the statement "I'm doing only fictional characters" is a major case of self-dellusio, because fictional characters can't have their picture taken - they don't exist. That's the very definition of a fictional character.

[marchale]

Natalie Portman sued a porn company that used her face when she played "Amidala" in the SW's prequal and won. So did Alyssa Milano, when people used her pictures from her role in a movie called Poison Ivy. These are legal cases on public record. All you have to do is type them into google. So I'd say it's an ethically grey area.

Well, it may be a grey area in some respects, but I've often turned down requests to do real people because I'm oppossed to the idea of violating any privacy issues real people could face, so I make sure I stick to fictional characters - and it's not a grey area for me that way. Believe me, nobody hates fakers who do mean artwork involving real people more than someone like me who wouldn't do that. We get a bad rap for things we hate and would never do and I don't like that one damn bit.

[marchale]

It's not such grey an area. When you see Jolene Blalock strutting her stuff, while wearing pointy rubber-ears, she's still Jolene Blalock in an art performance with her role being named "T'Pol". She doesn't turn into a fictional character, she merely plays one. So the statement "I'm doing only fictional characters" is a major case of self-dellusio, because fictional characters can't have their picture taken - they don't exist. That's the very definition of a fictional character.

Well, if you show most fans a picture of a pointy eared individual wearing a Vulcan haircut, they'd say it was T'Pol, not Jolene.

[WarpGirl]

But the examples I used were "supposedly characters" Natalie Portman was Done up as Amaidala. Alyssa Milano was done up as a "character" they still sued and WON. So from a civil law standpoint it is not a good idea. You can be sued and their is legal precident that would make you lose a court case. We americans are experts at law suits.

[Kotik]

Well, if you show most fans a picture of a pointy eared individual wearing a Vulcan haircut, they'd say it was T'Pol, not Jolene.

You're missing the point there. Most non-fans will tell you, "it's a hottie with ridiculous ears and a hairdresser, who should quit his job" and the best you can hope for is a judge with a Star Trek fixation. Most fans will still know that there is no T'Pol, but a Jolene, who played her. You still violated her personal rights, no matter how you twist it. How do you ask T'Pol whether or not you may take her face and plant it on the busty bulk of a blonde bimbo? If you can't - well...

Admin note: Please agree to disagree about the ethics of faking and move on, guys. Both sides of the debate have been presented and everyone is entitled to their own opinion. If you must continue this, please take it to pm's. Thanks.- Distracted