October 2003
In the view of most people, a photograph consists of the assembly of many individual pieces of information. Therefore, according to this perception, one can freely disassemble it and create a new combination of information. This view has long been fully embraced by graphic designers. They see the photograph as an amorphous set of elements, from which they draw whatever helps them in the form and style they want to give to their own final work, demonstrating complete indifference and utter contempt for the fact that they are using someone else's work. It is doubtful whether such disdain has been shown towards any work of human expression as much as it has towards a photograph. If any text, from a school essay to a literary work or a journalistic article, were cut in such a barbaric manner, the author and all the defenders of human rights and dignity would stand up in protest. If a part of a painting were presented in any book without special mention that it is an excerpt, all experts would condemn such behavior. If a portion of any film were cut, everyone would talk about censorship, or about an unacceptable interference in the creator's work. However, when one considers that most published photographs on book covers, posters, magazines, and newspapers have been altered or cut without the creator's permission and without causing the slightest reaction from those aware of their mutilation, the extent of the contempt towards photography becomes apparent. A photograph, however, is nothing else (but this is already very significant) than a free and personal proposition of an individual, who made his own choice in front of the world's information and gave us his view on the reality that surrounds us. Any third-party intervention constitutes theft or forgery. Respect for freedom of expression demands condemnation of this widespread practice
Plato Rivellis