For example, The CRICKETher Weekly "intro" uses stylised (ie. digitally manipulated) stills of players, like this one of Megan Belt.
Under current English law, as long as we have clearance to use the original photo (we do - kindly granted by photographer @donmiles13.bsky.social) this is fine.
For example this Cricinfo social media post uses a pic which has been digitally manipulated to make the players stand out more. Again, this fine fine as long as they've paid their 2c to Getty or whoever.
Collages and montages, like this, which "cut out" different pictures and put them in a new image? As long as you've bought the rights to use the photos (I assume they did) then it's ok - you don't need to ask the permission of the person in the photo - just go to Getty and get your credit card out!
I've seen some suggestion that it only applies to "AI" manipulation, but with something like Photoshop these filters are already likely using AI, and even if the filter isn't, the underlying code probably is - software like Photoshop is AI all the way down now!
Furthermore, even if this isn't the INTENTION of the proposed law, you can bet that e.g. top footballers (or rather, their lawyers!) will be eyeing up a payday by suing under it - creating new precedents and extending their image rights.
I want to stress that my Danish is not good enough to be parsing legal stuff (neither is my English, I suppose...) *but* fwiw I am looking at the proposed amendment and I don't think it could be used this way.
Mainly, their phrasing is "digitalt genererede", which is not the same as "manipulated".
I know the pictures are eye-catching, but I read (and listen to) quality journalism because of the words, not the images.
Is this really such a big deal?
Comments
Under current English law, as long as we have clearance to use the original photo (we do - kindly granted by photographer @donmiles13.bsky.social) this is fine.
For example this Cricinfo social media post uses a pic which has been digitally manipulated to make the players stand out more. Again, this fine fine as long as they've paid their 2c to Getty or whoever.
I've seen some suggestion that it only applies to "AI" manipulation, but with something like Photoshop these filters are already likely using AI, and even if the filter isn't, the underlying code probably is - software like Photoshop is AI all the way down now!
Mainly, their phrasing is "digitalt genererede", which is not the same as "manipulated".
Is this really such a big deal?