Learn how to rescue details, remove flyaways, add volume, and enhance the definition of hair in any photo. We break down every tool and technique in Photoshop to get picture-perfect hair, every time.
how can I remove text from photoshop with not egal backgroundCan you ask your question in away that people can understand? Remove text from what? A document? Is it live text or rasterized, etc.? Not at all sure what you are after.
fanadobe wrote:
how can I remove text from photoshop with not egal backgroundCan you ask your question in away that people can understand? Remove text from what? A document? Is it live text or rasterized, etc.? Not at all sure what you are after.
On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 09:28:49 -0500, edjh wrote:
fanadobe wrote:
how can I remove text from photoshop with not egal backgroundCan you ask your question in away that people can understand? Remove text from what? A document? Is it live text or rasterized, etc.? Not at all sure what you are after.
Want to bet that he’s removing the text stamp from a copyrighted photo?
Also betting that "egal" is a typo for "equal". Just like "away" is a
typo for "a way".
—
Tony Cooper
Orlando, FL
how can I remove text from photoshop with not egal background
…what does "egal" mean?It’s a large bird.
"Tony Cooper" wrote in message
On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 09:28:49 -0500, edjh wrote:
fanadobe wrote:
how can I remove text from photoshop with not egal background
Want to bet that he’s removing the text stamp from a copyrighted photo?
On Tue, 19 Dec 2006 22:26:42 -0500, Tony Cooper
wrote:
Want to bet that he’s removing the text stamp from a copyrighted photo?
Could be, but sometimes that’s not a bad thing. It’s a shame that the laws are designed to protect the rich, because they are not always fair.
In two separate cases, I have seen this unfairness. One was a photo of a co-worker who was working at a second job when the president stopped in for a photo-op. It ended up with my co-worker being photographed with the president. When my co-worker saw his picture in the paper, he called the paper and asked if he could have a copy of this picture, since he was in it. The newspaper told him it would cost him $20 for a copy. This newspaper sold a million copies of their paper, using my co-worker’s picture to help generate profits, yet he had to pay the newspaper for the picture that helped them sell this many copies.
The second case was an acquaintance who asked that the copyright be removed from a picture. The picture was of his son holding up a trophy that he won by winning an international championship. The picture was used to sell millions of copies of a certain newspaper, yet the father was unable to obtain a copy of his own son holding up the trophy. The newspaper made a lot of money from this picture, but refused to let the father have a copy of the picture.
This is absurd, and needs to be rectified, but for now, simply removing the copyright in certain situations isn’t necessarily wrong.
On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 02:22:58 -0500, Talker wrote:
On Tue, 19 Dec 2006 22:26:42 -0500, Tony Cooper
wrote:
Want to bet that he’s removing the text stamp from a copyrighted photo?
Could be, but sometimes that’s not a bad thing. It’s a shame that the laws are designed to protect the rich, because they are not always fair.
In two separate cases, I have seen this unfairness. One was a photo of a co-worker who was working at a second job when the president stopped in for a photo-op. It ended up with my co-worker being photographed with the president. When my co-worker saw his picture in the paper, he called the paper and asked if he could have a copy of this picture, since he was in it. The newspaper told him it would cost him $20 for a copy. This newspaper sold a million copies of their paper, using my co-worker’s picture to help generate profits, yet he had to pay the newspaper for the picture that helped them sell this many copies.
The second case was an acquaintance who asked that the copyright be removed from a picture. The picture was of his son holding up a trophy that he won by winning an international championship. The picture was used to sell millions of copies of a certain newspaper, yet the father was unable to obtain a copy of his own son holding up the trophy. The newspaper made a lot of money from this picture, but refused to let the father have a copy of the picture.
This is absurd, and needs to be rectified, but for now, simply removing the copyright in certain situations isn’t necessarily wrong.
We disagree. What is being protected is the applied talent of the photographer. The photo is a result of his effort, and he should be compensated for it.
In most cases similar to what you describe, the photographer will furnish the person in the photo a free print of the photo. The person asking, though, has to contact the photographer and not just ask through the switchboard. Newspaper photos always have the photographer’s name under the photo, and the asker should email or snail mail the photographer.If the photographer is a salaried employee of the newspaper, the photo belongs to the newspaper not the photographer.
On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 02:40:40 -0500, Tony Cooper
wrote:
On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 02:22:58 -0500, Talker wrote:
On Tue, 19 Dec 2006 22:26:42 -0500, Tony Cooper
wrote:
Want to bet that he’s removing the text stamp from a copyrighted photo?
Could be, but sometimes that’s not a bad thing. It’s a shame that the laws are designed to protect the rich, because they are not always fair.
In two separate cases, I have seen this unfairness. One was a photo of a co-worker who was working at a second job when the president stopped in for a photo-op. It ended up with my co-worker being photographed with the president. When my co-worker saw his picture in the paper, he called the paper and asked if he could have a copy of this picture, since he was in it. The newspaper told him it would cost him $20 for a copy. This newspaper sold a million copies of their paper, using my co-worker’s picture to help generate profits, yet he had to pay the newspaper for the picture that helped them sell this many copies.
The second case was an acquaintance who asked that the copyright be removed from a picture. The picture was of his son holding up a trophy that he won by winning an international championship. The picture was used to sell millions of copies of a certain newspaper, yet the father was unable to obtain a copy of his own son holding up the trophy. The newspaper made a lot of money from this picture, but refused to let the father have a copy of the picture.
This is absurd, and needs to be rectified, but for now, simply removing the copyright in certain situations isn’t necessarily wrong.
We disagree. What is being protected is the applied talent of the photographer. The photo is a result of his effort, and he should be compensated for it.
I agree that the photographer should be compensated for his work, but his work wouldn’t exist without the subject, so shouldn’t the subject be compensated also? Why is it okay for a photographer to make money off of someone’s image that he didn’t get permission for?
If I took a picture of a celebrity walking down the street, then made posters of it and tried to sell them, the celebrity could sue me for using his likeness to make money, so why is it any different if I take a picture of you and use it in my newspaper to sell thousands of copies?
The same applies to TV news stations….they stick their cameras in your face and put you on TV against your will, just so they can attract more viewers, which will turn into ad revenue. In both situations, they are using your likeness to generate revenue.
In most cases similar to what you describe, the photographer will furnish the person in the photo a free print of the photo. The person asking, though, has to contact the photographer and not just ask through the switchboard. Newspaper photos always have the photographer’s name under the photo, and the asker should email or snail mail the photographer.If the photographer is a salaried employee of the newspaper, the photo belongs to the newspaper not the photographer.
My daughter works as a staff photographer for the government, and anything she photographs at work belongs to the government, not her. I appreciate your comments TC, and understand where you’re coming from, since my daughter also photographs weddings. It’s just that there are some situations that I think are wrongly biased against the subjects in the pictures.
Anyway, Happy New Year to you and your family.
Talker
On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 02:40:40 -0500, Tony Cooper
wrote:
On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 02:22:58 -0500, Talker wrote:
On Tue, 19 Dec 2006 22:26:42 -0500, Tony Cooper
wrote:
Want to bet that he’s removing the text stamp from a copyrighted photo?
Could be, but sometimes that’s not a bad thing. It’s a shame that the laws are designed to protect the rich, because they are not always fair.
We disagree. What is being protected is the applied talent of the photographer. The photo is a result of his effort, and he should be compensated for it.
I agree that the photographer should be compensated for his work, but his work wouldn’t exist without the subject, so shouldn’t the subject be compensated also? Why is it okay for a photographer to make money off of someone’s image that he didn’t get permission for? If I took a picture of a celebrity walking down the street, then made posters of it and tried to sell them, the celebrity could sue me for using his likeness to make money,
so why is it any different if I
take a picture of you and use it in my newspaper to sell thousands of copies?
The same applies to TV news stations….they stick their cameras in your face and put you on TV against your will, just so they can attract more viewers, which will turn into ad revenue. In both situations, they are using your likeness to generate revenue.
In most cases similar to what you describe, the photographer will furnish the person in the photo a free print of the photo. The person asking, though, has to contact the photographer and not just ask through the switchboard. Newspaper photos always have the photographer’s name under the photo, and the asker should email or snail mail the photographer.If the photographer is a salaried employee of the newspaper, the photo belongs to the newspaper not the photographer.
Give your photos a professional finish with sharpening in Photoshop. Learn to enhance details, create contrast, and prepare your images for print, web, and social media.
Nice and short text about related topics in discussion sections
