Several years ago an aspiring actor, Cleo Berry, participated in a simple photo shoot with Morten Smidt. Years later, and without his knowledge, the photos from that photo shoot were sold to a stock photo company, ImageSource, who sold the photos to New York City's Department of Health, who then digitally removed one of Berry's legs for an anti-diabetes campaign. The actor was shocked and upset upon seeing his mutilated photo on a massive New York City billboard but, prior to the shoot, he did sign a waiver allowing for the digital alteration and distribution of his photos. The NYC Department of Health stands by their choice to photoshop Berry's leg out of the photo in the name of diabetes awareness, but Berry remains concerned that the billboard could negatively affect his acting career. The photo was rightfully utilized, but perhaps they should have contacted Berry and alerted him as to how his photo was going to be used. What are your thoughts?
Colorizing black and white photos is not exactly a new "thing" (Think Ted Turner's colorization of Casablanca). But, while browsing through the colorized images of some extremely famous photos, I noticed that many people feel it's a betrayal of historical record; some even consider it to be copyright infringement. A Swedish artist named Sanna Dullaway did a particularly spectacular job restoring photos like V-J Day in Times Square and Migrant Mother, much to the chagrin of others. Is colorizing historical photos wrong? Should the famous black and white images be left alone? Or, are people being too sensitive? Personally, although I think the black and white versions of the photos are beautiful, I was excited to see light and life shed on these photos - to me, it makes the subjects in the photos seem more tangible. If you're interested in seeing the other colorized photos by Dullaway, you can find them on Gizmodo.com.