Photo editing on influencers social media

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

With all the talk of curated content and seagulls and fake trees being photoshopped into photos, is it acceptable?

I'm not sure. On one hand, it's pretty harmless on the other hand I'm
Not convinced it's very professional.

idunno78

I think as long as they don't go changing there looks or body shapes to something completely outrageous it's grand! Sure no harm caused to anyone adding a few birds or a tree! But maybe change it up and do it right! Like do a good job!! Whoever went thru all those photos!!

retro:electro

I don't think it's a big deal, personally. If it's only a few birds etc it's harmless but if you're completely manipulating the picture it's a different kettle of fish.
But it's daft and you have to accept that people are going to acknowledge it's fake and maybe laugh at you. So maybe either don't do it or accept that people may point it out and rip the piss.
Or you could just overreact altogether and threaten people with legal action who out you for your skillz :cool:

miamee

Kaylani Spicy Fuzz wrote: »

With all the talk of curated content and seagulls and fake trees being photoshopped into photos, is it acceptable?

I'm not sure. On one hand, it's pretty harmless on the other hand I'm
Not convinced it's very professional.

Every photo you see in a magazine or newspaper or advertisement these days is photoshopped to some degree, every single one. I don;t see much value in inserting random trees or flocks of birds but I don't think there is much harm in it either. Photoshopping a product they were trying to market or advertise to their followers to look significantly different to how it is in real life would be a different story though and not something I'd agree with.

GingerLily

anna080 wrote: »

Or you could just overreact altogether and threaten people with legal action who out you for your skillz :cool:

Did she threaten legal action over the watch pic or the wedding pic? Because I thought it was the wedding one and I can understand why - my wedding photographer has given us very strict copyright instructions etc.

retro:electro

GingerLily wrote: »

Did she threaten legal action over the watch pic or the wedding pic? Because I thought it was the wedding one and I can understand why - my wedding photographer has given us very strict copyright instructions etc.

Oh yea good point. I'm not sure actually. Would copyright prevent you from posting them on social media though? Because they could literally end up anywhere and you wouldn't know.
It kinda came off as more of a spiteful move anyway, more than a justified one.

wolfmoon87

It was the wedding pic that she wanted taken down.

HeidiHeidi

I'm intrigued by this thread!

Can I ask who/what it's about???

GingerLily

anna080 wrote: »

Oh yea good point. I'm not sure actually. Would copyright prevent you from posting them on social media though? Because they could literally end up anywhere and you wouldn't know.
It kinda came off as more of a spiteful move anyway, more than a justified one.

Yes, I cannot share my original wedding photos on social media without the photographers watermark.

GingerLily

HeidiHeidi wrote: »

I'm intrigued by this thread!

Can I ask who/what it's about???

So sue me, she photoshopped some seagulls into a picture

spookwoman

GingerLily wrote: »

So sue me, she photoshopped some seagulls into a picture

Did she own the rights to the picture?

GingerLily

spookwoman wrote: »

Did she own the rights to the picture?

It was a sponsored post, she took the picture. Don't really know more than that - why do you ask?

spookwoman

GingerLily wrote: »

It was a sponsored post, she took the picture. Don't really know more than that - why do you ask?

Copyright. Just saw the thing about photoshoped birds. If she photographed the main picture with her camera she owns the rights. she can do whatever she likes with it including adding in the birds as long as she also took the picture of the birds as well. If she didnt take either picture with her camera, buy a license to use, it's not creative commons or get permission from the photographer who took it or the company then it's copyright infringement. I take it that took means she swipped it off the net without permission then I would be hunting down the owner and reporting it to them so they could send her a bill for unauthorised usage. 😀

GingerLily

No one said the pic she used for the sponsored post wasn't her photo?

ratmouse

A few seagulls inserted into a photo is harmless, daft but harmless.If Make Up Fairy edits her photos she looks unrecognisable to me to how she looks in photos taken by other people where she has not been edited.

njs030

ratmouse wrote: »

A few seagulls inserted into a photo is harmless, daft but harmless.If Make Up Fairy edits her photos she looks unrecognisable to me to how she looks in photos taken by other people where she has not been edited.

I had to ask recently if a photo was definitely her as she was so unrecognisable!
What I find strangest about her is how she edits her photos to look completely different on any given day, I'd walk past her on the street tbh because I wouldn't have a clue which of her many choices is actually her.

spookwoman

ratmouse wrote: »

A few seagulls inserted into a photo is harmless, daft but harmless.If Make Up Fairy edits her photos she looks unrecognisable to me to how she looks in photos taken by other people where she has not been edited.

Didn't know the full story unfortunately she can do what she likes with her own pictures. I dont know how it would go down with Consumer affairs on advertising though http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/consumer_affairs/consumer_protection/consumer_rights/consumer_advertising.html

GingerLily

A lot of confusing posts here......

miamee

spookwoman wrote: »

Didn't know the full story unfortunately she can do what she likes with her own pictures. I dont know how it would go down with Consumer affairs on advertising though http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/consumer_affairs/consumer_protection/consumer_rights/consumer_advertising.html

How is that relevant? I don't follow her but unless she is significantly altering the appearance of a product or goods she is advertising, I don't think consumer rights would apply.

GingerLily

miamee wrote: »

How is that relevant? I don't follow her but unless she is significantly altering the appearance of a product or goods she is advertising, I don't think consumer rights would apply.

Exactly what I was thinking!!

qxtasybe1nwfh2

The pic that the legal message was sent about was the wedding pic. I remember when she shared these pics originally, it had something like “Not to be replicated, property of Jenny McCarthy (?) photography” These were also the pics used “exclusively” in evoke. There was nothing to say that the legal message was on behalf of sue, I believe it just said “client” so it could have been evoke or the photographer.

I don’t know the legal rights of the photo or if the message had any standing btw

njs030

https://www.instagram.com/p/Babt1aFh9Y7/

This is a sponsored post about healthy food yet she's manipulated the photo so much her arm is completely out of shape and a different size to the other one.

ratmouse

notjustsweet wrote: »

https://www.instagram.com/p/Babt1aFh9Y7/

This is a sponsored post about healthy food yet she's manipulated the photo so much her arm is completely out of shape and a different size to the other one.

And her arm has a curve in it!! Why is this woman not being called out for the photoshop lies being presented day in day out?

Ray37

I think if anyone queries it they just get blocked, so I don't think anyone bothers. The thing that confuses me so much is, how do you not expect people to see the difference in you IRL? It's bizarre to me. I've seen photos of a blogger who is known for photoshopping that are not her own, and you'd honestly struggle to see that it's the same person. Do brands not care that they have someone totally unlike their pics promoting them? For example, skincare companies. If every pic is photoshopped to death, so they not have a probelm with this? Makes the brands look bad IMO. I know of course that this goes on in print advertising etc, but when even snapchats dont show the real skin, it hardly makes people wanna try the brand does it?? Adding 50 thousand filters and then showing off your 'great skin' doesnt really work tbh.

SusieBlue

notjustsweet wrote: »

https://www.instagram.com/p/Babt1aFh9Y7/

This is a sponsored post about healthy food yet she's manipulated the photo so much her arm is completely out of shape and a different size to the other one.

Her face also looks completely different in this to her other pics.

And to clarify, I'm not saying anything negative. I'm merely observing how glaringly different she looks from one picture to the next. Not better, not worse, just like a different person.
Its bizarre. She's a good looking woman there's no need for it at all.

miamee

ratmouse wrote: »

And her arm has a curve in it!! Why is this woman not being called out for the photoshop lies being presented day in day out?

I thought that at first but I think her hair is just covering the top part of her left arm (on the right of the pic)

La_Gordy

notjustsweet wrote: »

https://www.instagram.com/p/Babt1aFh9Y7/

This is a sponsored post about healthy food yet she's manipulated the photo so much her arm is completely out of shape and a different size to the other one.

That looks like a cardboard cut out has been placed between those lads.

idunno78

miamee wrote: »

ratmouse wrote: »

And her arm has a curve in it!! Why is this woman not being called out for the photoshop lies being presented day in day out?

I thought that at first but I think her hair is just covering the top part of her left arm (on the right of the pic)

Her forearm I think it is!

draiochtanois

This post has been deleted.

GingerLily

draiochtanois wrote: »

Yes because the photographer owns the copyright.

Yes she does, as does So Sue Me's wedding photographer!

ratmouse

miamee wrote: »

I thought that at first but I think her hair is just covering the top part of her left arm (on the right of the pic)

Its her forearm that has the curve.