Re: Historical Intent of the Image Maker? *PIC*

>If you or your dad or anyone else with the rights
>to your dad's photos wants to modify them, go
>ahead. When someone else uses them, changed or
>not, and then sells them or uses them to their
>advantage somehow... what then? ...
Greg has secured and paid for the rights from the owner of the image to use the photos in question. He has secured permission to modify them through colorization and use them on a commercial product. He has carfully selected a photo of the same train that is portayed in the video. He has carefully used the color video and historical data as a source to accurately colorize the photos.
Whether you care for the modificaiton or not, Greg has done _nothing_ legally, morally or ethically wrong here. He is just trying to accurately represent a COLOR video with a COLOR photo on the cover, a very sensible thing to do. Truth in advertizing if you ask me, a rare thing to see.
Now, artistically you can argue that altering the original image degrades it in some way or alters the original artist's vision. As where the original artist has passed on it will remain forever subjective and we each should hold our opinion and leave it at that.
Personally I like Greg's idea, although I would not necessarily like it under different circumstances. I do think he should make note on the video sleeve that it is a colorized picture and may not be 100% accurate.