BILDMANIPULERING

More documents

Recommendations

Info

able to judge for themselves what has happened before or after the moment a photograph was taken. Nor do they know what occurred in proximity to the situation in question. Using modern computers and graphics processing programs, one can, in principle, make any conceivable change in drawings and photographs as well as in moving pictures on film and video. For a person with the necessary skills and access to the right equipment, there are almost no limitations. Thousands of pictures of various standard backgrounds and foregrounds – depicting different types of landscapes, city environments, people, plants, animals, etc. – can be combined to form an endless number of entirely or partly new picture motifs. In this context, naturally, interesting ethical questions arise, which are neither trivial nor in any way easy to answer. Digitally manipulated photographs began to appear in the daily press in the mid-1980s. The introduction of digital pictures and electronic transmission of pictures has had a radical effect on how pictures are dealt with at various stages of production as well as on how readers perceive these pictures. Technical developments have fundamentally changed our presumptions concerning credibility in photographs. Photos need no longer have natural ties to the film-based original. Today, one can, in principle, make changes in a picture at any point, from the very moment the photograph is taken until it is published. The reader is no longer able to detect whether a published picture has been manipulated or not. The law relating to photography ceased to be in effect on 1 July 1994, at which point regulations concerning the right to photographs were subsumed under the copyright laws. The financial and idealistic interests of photographers, authors, draughtsmen, songwriters and other originators of creative works are protected by the copyright law relating to literary and artistic works (Copyright Act, URL, SFS 1960:729). Since 1 January 1996, artistic works are protected for the originator's entire life plus an additional 70 years. Thus, many works are protected for more than 120–130 years. This protection is international. The economic right implies the sole right of the originator to determine duplication of the work – the making of copies and presentation of the work in public. For "picture theft" occurring intentionally or through gross negligence, the penalty is fines or imprisonment for up to two years. The ethical rules for the press, radio and tv clearly take exception to manipulation or falsification of picture content through trimming, montage or misleading captions. Presenting inauthentic pictures as though they were real documentary material is forbidden. The party purchasing the pictures is responsible for their proper use. Despite these rules, clear violations occur all too often. Photographers and draughtsmen as well as their organisations stipulate in their terms of delivery that published pictures shall be correct. Those purchasing the right to publish the pictures may not use them in a misleading manner. Nor may they make a picture montage or retouch electronically such that the results can mislead or delude the reader or viewer. Today, one does not have the right to change the content of any picture without the express permission of the holder of the right to that picture. It is obvious that technical developments have fundamentally changed conditions for our ability to use pictures in different contexts as well as for the credibility of all pictures. In practice, individual newspaper readers and tv viewers no longer have any real opportunity to discover whether a published picture has 87
een manipulated. We can hardly count on this situation improving in the future. Computer technology is developing rapidly. With each passing year, it becomes easier for anyone to create and revise pictures, and to then make them accessible to others on the Internet. The present study has shown clearly that difficulties, as well as mistakes and deception, exist within news reporting. But the study cannot help us to answer the questions: "How can we best 'protect' ourselves from being manipulated through, for example, news reporting? Can we trust the pictures we see? How can we expose deception?" We can, of course, hope that the established media actually assume their responsibilities and live up to their own rules. Rules and ethical norms are already in place, but it is evident that all people working in media are not aware of the great responsibility they bear. In the long run, this lack of responsibility could lead to a credibility crisis for the news media. If we become accustomed to deception, our trust in the media will diminish. Good rules and norms, however, are not enough. What is also needed is that people working in media learn them, and that readers and viewers adopt a critical approach to 88 media. To achieve this, pictorial communication, critical analysis and source criticism must become a real and natural feature of teaching in the schools. It is our hope that the present study can be used in this important educational effort as well as to help increase general awareness of the problem of picture manipulation. It is conceivable that future generations – growing up with increasingly advanced computers and learning to use them early in life – will develop a freer and more independent approach to pictures and pictorial communication than that characterising adults of today. Children who learn to work with pictures on computers should find it easier to understand what can be done. When these children are grown, pictures will no longer have any "natural credibility" for them. They will not expect, for example, that advertisement pictures even attempt to reflect any form of objective reality. At this point, we know little about how pictures function as communicative expressions. There is a great need for research, development work and education regarding the role of pictures in various types of communication. Thus, much is left to be done.
Page 1 and 2:
Styrelsen för PSYKOLOGISKT FÖRSVA
Page 3 and 4:
Utgiven av Styrelsen för psykologi
Page 5 and 6:
Fiffel ............................
Page 7 and 8:
FÖRFATTARENS FÖRORD Det finns bil
Page 9 and 10:
Men genmodifiering är inte heller
Page 11 and 12:
I journalistiska och dokumentära s
Page 13 and 14:
faran i okontrollerad användning a
Page 15 and 16:
Numera är det vanligt att bilder s
Page 17 and 18:
tar en tavla av till exempel Vincen
Page 19 and 20:
lev det område som var representer
Page 21 and 22:
Bildpunkter. Det går lätt att än
Page 23 and 24:
Pixelbilder. Det är lätt att för
Page 25 and 26:
använd inom utbildning, samt inom
Page 27 and 28:
nosen per telefon. Detta kallas tel
Page 29 and 30:
I mitten av juni år 2001 stod Sver
Page 31 and 32:
ga gör anteckningar, sen jobbar vi
Page 33 and 34:
Tolkning 1. Det var svårigheter at
Page 35 and 36:
dagstidning också en mängd andra
Page 37 and 38: det gäller benämningar av sina se
Page 39 and 40: Bilder i skolböcker har under åre
Page 41 and 42: inte är särskilt bra. Redaktören
Page 43 and 44: är bearbetade och manipulerade på
Page 45 and 46: na finns det bilder som snarast är
Page 47 and 48: De bilder som finns att tillgå fö
Page 49 and 50: sak där bilderna är använda, hel
Page 51 and 52: påpekar Svensson, Stenlund, Brink
Page 53 and 54: nen tillvaratar upphovsmännens int
Page 55 and 56: formationer i flera olika färger p
Page 57 and 58: 56 Beskärning 3. Här är den utva
Page 59 and 60: halverats (från nitton till tio pr
Page 61 and 62: 60 Ändring av projektionsplan. Hä
Page 63 and 64: 62 Borttagning av bildelement 1. De
Page 65 and 66: Anderberg påpekar att även när e
Page 67 and 68: kroppen. Arbetarbladet valde att pu
Page 69 and 70: Vilseledande rubriker Tidningen iDA
Page 71 and 72: Vilseledande retuschering Manipuler
Page 73 and 74: kunde det inte vara riktigt att pub
Page 75 and 76: Fotomontage Fram till för något d
Page 77 and 78: Jag var chefredaktör på Expressen
Page 79 and 80: Det här är en sammansatt bild. I
Page 81 and 82: Under våren 2000 medverkade studen
Page 83 and 84: Det är uppenbart att den tekniska
Page 85 and 86: ningar som fotografier och även i
Page 87: There are pictures almost everywher
Page 91 and 92: Evans, M. A. , Watson, C. , och Wil
Page 93 and 94: Pettersson, R. (1998). Image Functi
Page 95 and 96: Hur väljer man bilder till en nyhe
Page 97 and 98: mindre utrymme i lokal/regionalpres
Page 99 and 100: SPFs SENASTE MEDDELANDEN 160 Bennul
Page 101: 100
show all

BILDMANIPULERING

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?