I think that the point was visual indicator that they'd been removed, not textual. If you said in the caption "we removed these two people" it would be something but it would be an entirely different impact than, say, a censor bar over the faces of the two. The point of a picture is the picture. A lot of people who are skimming take in the pictures a bit of text, mostly what is prominent in the first paragraph. The altering of the photo would have been a lot more clear if visual indication was made in the photo itself or else if they had simply used a different photo that did not include any women.
As one side note, I don't believe that this is actually an issue of copyright violation. If I understand correctly, the US Government cannot hold copyright, everything they produce is automatically entered into the public domain. This is more of a journalism ethics issue. Cheers, Judah On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 4:59 PM, Michael Dinowitz <[email protected]> wrote: > > Exact. As long as it has been noted that the person has been removed. We > don't know what was said in the article, only what the picture shows and a > blog post about it. Context, context, context. It has been removed. > > >> not, removing individuals from a photo without acknowledging that they >> have been removed is note really a legit move by any media outlet. >> >> -Cameron >> > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:337590 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
