This is my favorite piece from the show. In fact, I liked it so much, I kept it and it hangs in my living room, which is just as well. Janelle, the dancer in the piece, I was never able to contact for a model release (yes, I know, its even questionable that I should post it on the internet without a model release, but I feel that blogs should be considered media similiar to magazines, which don't need model releases, but that is another debate all together...), also, some of the Photoshop brushes I used in this piece are from Obsidian Dawn. Stephanie/Obsidian Dawn is pretty good about the usage of her brushes though. She has a creative commons license on them and requests that she simply be credited somehow and that if it is a commercial piece and it is impossible to credit her that you contact her and purchase the rights from her instead. I think that is pretty reasonable. On the other hand, though, I also have a love-hate relationship with that idea.

See, for those of you who don't know (and I was one of those people until pretty recently, its only due to my friend and fellow photographer Josh Durr who introduced me to this), these flourishes and designs all over this image are Photoshop brushes. They can be found all over the internet, particularly at deviantart.com. I found these Obisidian Dawn brushes there. The way they work is you can download the already created brush files (they are .abr files) and load them into your Photoshop brush palette. From there you can manipulate and use them the way you would any other Photoshop brush. And see, this is where I get all "I don't know about that".

In photography and art there are rights to protect creators from people stealing their creations. We've all heard of it, its called copyright. Now, if you take a photograph, you own the copyright. Most of the people who make Photoshop brushes take their own photographs from which they make their brushes. That's all fair and good. However, the copyright law says that if you take something and manipulate it extensively that you no longer would be violating copyright if you called it your own or did not give the original author credit for their work because it falls under "fair use". In a different type of artwork under the same subject there is a battle going on between Shepard Fairey (who created the Obama "Hope" poster) and Associated Press (click here for article). So, the thing for me is, do I really have to credit people who make Photoshop brushes?

In this case I chose to because I like Obisdian Dawn brushes and I think that other people should find her stuff. Also, and more importantly to me, I did not manipulate her brushes very extensively. The only thing I did was maybe change their size and flip them. But, even still, does that mean I have to give her credit?

To put this into context: I also am a painter. This is more of a hobby of mine than a money making thing, but anyway. If I buy a Winsor & Newton series 7 Red Sable (fox tail is *kiss* magnifique for painting, especially oil) (yes, I am a snob) brush, one of the finest brushes you can buy, am I then obligated to credit them on my paintings? That just seems silly. And the thing is, aside from that, I automatically am manipulating the Photoshop brush from its original state everytime I use it. So, how is this a copyright violation if I don't credit them?

I am very interested in hearing what anyone has to say about this. I don't know all there is to know about this subject and would like to find out if there is another side to this story.