I work at an large investment bank, doing graphics. Guess what one of the analysts' favorite images is? The final designs never are confused with the real thing (although there is occasionally the guy who wants something modified for an internal joke). For one thing, we almost always end up using small portions of bills in collages, and they are printed off-color and off-size to avoid snagging on the fair-use copyright law.
But we still have to start from the base root-of-all-evil image. And using portions of the bills means scanning them in at higher resolution as the fragments are used larger than normal. I just tried pasting the image somebody posted into a new copy of Mac version of Photoshop CS (this jpeg has "specimen" written on it twice). PS CS pops up dialog: "This application does not support the unauthorized processing of banknote images."
Can we still copy little fragments? How about taking high-res photos and pasting in? Our department haw always used common sense regarding fair use and never had a problem; we do high-volume output, and don't have time to screw around with this stuff. Thanks for making our life harder, Adobe! You just lost one upgrade sale, because I will make sure we keep a copy of PS 7 specifically to circumvent this hassle.
I do prepress for a living, with a fair amount of retouch. Over the years, I have had to fill in bald spots, change hair color, get rid of wrinkles, move or eliminate people (digitally!), move or change backgrounds, etc. I would say 80% of the retouch I do is to directly or indirectly appease people's vanity. The unwritten law seems to be that it's OK if it's NOT pertinent to whatever's being presented -- story, brochure, conference, etc. The second major category is fashion, where it IS pertinent but there's already a built-in "caveat emptor" factor (the retouching standards for fashion are much higher than anything else, maybe because everyone is always looking for it). Third category is product "enhancement" -- sweat on Coke can, color shifts, etc. People seem to anticipate and expect this in advertising, although there are ways to get into trouble.
Judicious cropping, burning and dodging alone can completely alter perceptions, so the issue is not "digital" per se. It's the intent that counts. Nobody I know would do what this photographer did and think it's OK, same as the OJ cover and the National Geographic cover (where a pyramid was moved (whew!) to make it fit the vertical format). What is being presented both never happened and is pertinent to the stories. They lied. And anyone good enough to do the work will know the difference -- it's not that slippery a slope. (Newsweek initially proclaimed its innocence over the OJ cover, saying it was inadvertent. Call BS on that -- the time spent fussing over regular covers is ridiculous, let alone one with high-profile racial overtones.)
Interesting article along these lines (sorry, can't get rid of space): http://www.bjphoto.co.uk/cms/words/specia list_sect ors/23.shtml
Microsoft® today announced that George W. Bush, the former Governor of Texas, has joined the Company's Board of Directors.
"George brings incredible privilege and connections to Microsoft from having been born into a wealthy family. George is also an avid PC proponent whose assistants have long used Microsoft Office®. As a strong proponent of the death penalty, George is going to be a terrific Director, and we're excited and honored that he has chosen Microsoft as his first post-campaign springboard to power."
President Gore declined to speculate what effect Bush's appointment could have on Microsoft's antitrust case currently before the Supreme Court.
If someone gives you a contract in.001 font size, no it is not illegal. It is up to you to say "I won't sign this, and I won't use your product."
FWIW, in certain circumstances there are specific laws governing font sizes. For printed corporate prospectuses and financial materials I have formatted, our legal department doesn't allow us to make footnotes smaller than 7 points because it is illegal.
Slashdot Mirror
I work at an large investment bank, doing graphics. Guess what one of the analysts' favorite images is? The final designs never are confused with the real thing (although there is occasionally the guy who wants something modified for an internal joke). For one thing, we almost always end up using small portions of bills in collages, and they are printed off-color and off-size to avoid snagging on the fair-use copyright law.
But we still have to start from the base root-of-all-evil image. And using portions of the bills means scanning them in at higher resolution as the fragments are used larger than normal. I just tried pasting the image somebody posted into a new copy of Mac version of Photoshop CS (this jpeg has "specimen" written on it twice). PS CS pops up dialog: "This application does not support the unauthorized processing of banknote images."
Can we still copy little fragments? How about taking high-res photos and pasting in? Our department haw always used common sense regarding fair use and never had a problem; we do high-volume output, and don't have time to screw around with this stuff. Thanks for making our life harder, Adobe! You just lost one upgrade sale, because I will make sure we keep a copy of PS 7 specifically to circumvent this hassle.
I do prepress for a living, with a fair amount of retouch. Over the years, I have had to fill in bald spots, change hair color, get rid of wrinkles, move or eliminate people (digitally!), move or change backgrounds, etc. I would say 80% of the retouch I do is to directly or indirectly appease people's vanity. The unwritten law seems to be that it's OK if it's NOT pertinent to whatever's being presented -- story, brochure, conference, etc. The second major category is fashion, where it IS pertinent but there's already a built-in "caveat emptor" factor (the retouching standards for fashion are much higher than anything else, maybe because everyone is always looking for it). Third category is product "enhancement" -- sweat on Coke can, color shifts, etc. People seem to anticipate and expect this in advertising, although there are ways to get into trouble.
a list_sect ors/23.shtml
Judicious cropping, burning and dodging alone can completely alter perceptions, so the issue is not "digital" per se. It's the intent that counts. Nobody I know would do what this photographer did and think it's OK, same as the OJ cover and the National Geographic cover (where a pyramid was moved (whew!) to make it fit the vertical format). What is being presented both never happened and is pertinent to the stories. They lied. And anyone good enough to do the work will know the difference -- it's not that slippery a slope. (Newsweek initially proclaimed its innocence over the OJ cover, saying it was inadvertent. Call BS on that -- the time spent fussing over regular covers is ridiculous, let alone one with high-profile racial overtones.)
Interesting article along these lines (sorry, can't get rid of space):
http://www.bjphoto.co.uk/cms/words/speci
Microsoft® today announced that George W. Bush, the former Governor of Texas, has joined the Company's Board of Directors.
"George brings incredible privilege and connections to Microsoft from having been born into a wealthy family. George is also an avid PC proponent whose assistants have long used Microsoft Office®. As a strong proponent of the death penalty, George is going to be a terrific Director, and we're excited and honored that he has chosen Microsoft as his first post-campaign springboard to power."
President Gore declined to speculate what effect Bush's appointment could have on Microsoft's antitrust case currently before the Supreme Court.
If someone gives you a contract in .001 font size, no it is not illegal. It is up to you to say "I won't sign this, and I won't use your product."
FWIW, in certain circumstances there are specific laws governing font sizes. For printed corporate prospectuses and financial materials I have formatted, our legal department doesn't allow us to make footnotes smaller than 7 points because it is illegal.