Maximilian said:
Never trust any picture you haven't photoshopped yourself! :
Very good advice, LOL!
Maximilian said:
Everybody is allowed to do whatever they like with camera and PP software - as long as it's legal.
Exactly. Fine art photographers are known to modify images, sometimes heavily - just, they are clear about it. Gursky's "Rheine II", which was sold for millions, is known to have been modified. But he doesn't pretend it's a true representation of the river. Henry Peach Robinson's famous "Fading Away" (1858, so nothing really new) is a photomontage.
Other photographers appropriate someone's else image - but again they are open about the process.
Maximilian said:
BUT they shouldn't claim to do "pure" work, esp. when they are into news, journalism or any kind of documentation.
And this is really were the issue was. The images also started a debate about ethical issues - how far photojournalists and editors can go - because of the contents of some images. Are they a true "j'accuse", or simply a way to tickle the worst morbidness of some actual media?
Maximilian said:
I hope that he wasn't convicted on this issue but committed it of his own accord.
No, he was caught. Petapixel raised the issue first, when they were contacted by a person who knew the work of Mary Ellen Mark, and found striking similarities in one of his photo. Later other images were found to have been modified, and other taken from other people's work. Only then, in the Time interview, he admitted his wrongdoing. If these are sincere apologies, or only damage control, time will tell.
Anyway, it's a warning that "what the Internet gives, the Internet takes"... appropriating may be easy, but also there's a good chance someone somewhere will notice.
