Freedom Creators
Photoshop or any picture editing program expands our creativity. However, laws and regulations such as Creative Commons prevent us from using our creativity to its fullest potential. Depending on the license, some photos/ media cannot be edited and distributed legally. For example, something with a CC BY ND license is allowed to be used however one may like, but the medium itself cannot be altered. As for using Photoshop, most people use the software to enhance pictures. There are filters and other features that also allow the user to distort pictures. I own a picture editing program, and think it is amazing. It allowed me to do so much with my pictures. I used to us this program a lot back in high school. It was a very valuable tool when having to get rid of red-eye pictures as well as sharpen or increase color saturation.
Photo-editing programs are used by many. Photographers use it all the time for shoots. They take their pictures then edit them to transform the person or object into whatever they envisioned. An example would be removing blemishes from ones face in order for the model to appear flawless. If the flawless photo is released and someone else edits, distributes and tries to call it their own work, they could be charged. Photoshop programs are sometimes used to deceive. It’s all about the image. For example, if a magazine wanted to promote fitness, they would find a fit model, and if he or she had any “problem areas,” they would “fix” them using the software. This is misleading to the reader and could also be a reason behind low self-esteem issues. (Sorry this kind of went off on a tangent)
Although having too strict laws and regulations is a problem, not having enough of them could also be a hindrance to creativity. Without licenses and laws to protect ones works, no one would get ahead. In this case, photographers would lose profit, and their name would not mean very much. An example would be Steve McCurry’s “A Life Revealed” picture. If there were no laws to protect this picture, and the rights of its creator, other magazines could take the photo, edit it, and then run it in their magazine without crediting or compensating the original photographer.
http://www.sodahead.com/fun/what-is-your-favorite-eye-colour/question-2855503/?page=2&link=ibaf&q=&imgurl=http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-j-boRqVQfzU/TiB8gkF0rwI/AAAAAAAACLM/Vn5S6Ea5I5o/s1600/national-geographic-100-best-pictures-cover.jpg
Changes that I would impose would be to allow all one to build on top of someone else’s work, but give credit to the original. So in other words get rid of the CC BY ND, but if profit is made, a cut would go to the original creator. Another change would be to allow the editor to distribute their work, but again, give credit where credit is due. Another change would be, whatever pictures are edited should be tagged, and if someone else wanted to build/ edit it, their tag would be added onto the original tag. It would work something like watermarking, but it would be more like a digital tag rather than a tag that distorts the picture itself.
In conclusion, I believe that everyone should have the freedom to be creative, even if it means using the work of someone else for inspiration.
