Photoshop & The (Virtual) Body of Models
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The topic explored by the authors is an important and timely one--unfortunately, it is too broad in its scope to be adequately explored by an essay of this length. A typical law review article, for example, exploring the concept of the personal image with respect to a single legal jurisdiction will usually be five to ten times the length of the article the authors have submitted to Laws (which ostensibly takes the multiple legal jurisdictions of the entire world as its subject). There is good reason that articles exploring the law of the personal image are so long--the law is incredibly complicated and currently in a state of flux. There is also good reason why articles typically focus on only one legal jurisdiction (or, in some comparative anlayses, two): the law differs rather substantially between different nations, states, and regions. Even within the United States, there are the fifty states (each with their own set of laws), the 12 appeals circuits, and the federal courts. Different bodies of law within these systems likewise impinge upon the personal image in different ways: copyright, trademark, right to privacy, etc. It is thus functionally impossible to offer a general account of how the law regards the personal image from a global perspective in a 10-page article.
Perhaps because the authors have so much ground to cover, their essay does a poor job of situating itself within the existing scholarship. The essay is missing a lit review. It is also silent upon its own method. (Indeed, I was curious as to how the authors went about surveying the laws of the globe--what process did they follow?)
I am not an expert on the laws of every country in the world, so cannot speak to the accuracy of the authors' discussion of them. I do, however, know U.S. law--particularly as it applies to intellectual property and media--very well. And in this regard, the account this essay offers is overly simplistic to the point of inadequacy. To be fair, this is in part because the authors devote such little time to discussing how the law works in the U.S.--or anywhere.
I should also note, in conclusion, that the writing needs a good deal of copy editing. Right now there are numerous grammatical errors, instances of awkward phrasing, and some structural peculiarities. It is particularly strange, for instance, for scholarship in English to have paragraphs that consist of only one sentence.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Dear Reporter,
Thank you very much for your remarks and suggestions, which have helped me reconsider and adjust my work.
Point 1 and 3:
The topic explored by the authors is an important and timely one--unfortunately, it is too broad in its scope to be adequately explored by an essay of this length. A typical law review article, for example, exploring the concept of the personal image with respect to a single legal jurisdiction will usually be five to ten times the length of the article the authors have submitted to Laws (which ostensibly takes the multiple legal jurisdictions of the entire world as its subject). There is good reason that articles exploring the law of the personal image are so long--the law is incredibly complicated and currently in a state of flux. There is also good reason why articles typically focus on only one legal jurisdiction (or, in some comparative anlayses, two): the law differs rather substantially between different nations, states, and regions. Even within the United States, there are the fifty states (each with their own set of laws), the 12 appeals circuits, and the federal courts. Different bodies of law within these systems likewise impinge upon the personal image in different ways: copyright, trademark, right to privacy, etc. It is thus functionally impossible to offer a general account of how the law regards the personal image from a global perspective in a 10-page article.
I am not an expert on the laws of every country in the world, so cannot speak to the accuracy of the authors' discussion of them. I do, however, know U.S. law--particularly as it applies to intellectual property and media--very well. And in this regard, the account this essay offers is overly simplistic to the point of inadequacy. To be fair, this is in part because the authors devote such little time to discussing how the law works in the U.S.--or anywhere.
Response 1 and 3:
Firstly, I have narrowed my work to Photoshop as instructed, since personal image is to be dealt with as an additional topic, by making reference to the different legal systems since it has actually been proved that this is per se a wide and complex issue that requires for separate investigation, just as you have mentioned.
I have deepened the investigation and the results and conclusions have been clarified.
I choosed four countries to analyse.
Point 2:
Perhaps because the authors have so much ground to cover, their essay does a poor job of situating itself within the existing scholarship. The essay is missing a lit review. It is also silent upon its own method. (Indeed, I was curious as to how the authors went about surveying the laws of the globe--what process did they follow?)
Response 2:
As the issue of Photoshop is related to other topics, such as copyright, trademarks or privacy rights, as you have stated, these have been considered for instrumental purposes only in order to put the focus on the question at issue, especially covering aspects of advertising models.
The methodology used has been explained.
Point 4:
I should also note, in conclusion, that the writing needs a good deal of copy editing. Right now there are numerous grammatical errors, instances of awkward phrasing, and some structural peculiarities. It is particularly strange, for instance, for scholarship in English to have paragraphs that consist of only one sentence.
Response 4:
I have conducted a revision of my use of English with the aim of correcting mistakes, incorrect sentences, and structural errors.
Again, thank you for your contributions and assessments.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper has an interesting premise - but needs further development and refinement. At the moment, the paper reads like a survey rather than a sustained argument. The author/s should be encouraged to work through some further iterations of this paper.
The title of the paper lacks a clear context. If this paper is about publicity rights, that should be in the title/ subtitle of the work. If this paper is about privacy rights, that should be in the title/ subtitle of the work.
This paper would benefit from restructuring. At the moment, the history of photography is in the middle of the paper. It should come at the beginning, rather than the middle.
This paper needs to divide its material by jurisdiction.
The US approach to publicity rights is quite distinctive, and needs its own section. At the moment, the discussion reads like a survey. There needs to be a further elaboration of some key case studies. Jane Gaines is a key writer in this field - and her work needs to be cited.
The EU approach needs elaboration. There have been many privacy actions taken in respect of photographs in the UK (eg Naomi Campbell, JK Rowling, etc), and the EU. There needs to be an expansive discussion of key case studies.
If the paper is also looking at other jurisdictions like Argentina, that needs to be made clear.
This paper is far too short - 10 pages - given its subject matter. Given the nature of the topic, I think the expectation would be that a research paper would be a longer piece of work.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Dear Reporter,
Thank you very much for your remarks and suggestions, which have helped me reconsider and adjust my work.
Point 1:
This paper has an interesting premise - but needs further development and refinement. At the moment, the paper reads like a survey rather than a sustained argument. The author/s should be encouraged to work through some further iterations of this paper.
Response 1:
I have worked on it so as to include a strong argument in the document, just as you have suggested.
Point 2:
The title of the paper lacks a clear context. If this paper is about publicity rights, that should be in the title/ subtitle of the work. If this paper is about privacy rights, that should be in the title/ subtitle of the work.
Response 2:
I have narrowed my work to Photoshop, especially with a focus on advertising models, as instructed; this is why I have kept the same title, making the issue explicit.
Point 3:
This paper would benefit from restructuring. At the moment, the history of photography is in the middle of the paper. It should come at the beginning, rather than the middle.
Response 3:
I have completely redesigned my work and added the picture in the first part, as suggested.
Point 3:
This paper needs to divide its material by jurisdiction.
Response 4:
The jurisdictions referred to have been identified,
Point 4:
The US approach to publicity rights is quite distinctive, and needs its own section. At the moment, the discussion reads like a survey. There needs to be a further elaboration of some key case studies. Jane Gaines is a key writer in this field - and her work needs to be cited.
Response 4:
I separated US approach
Point 5:
The EU approach needs elaboration. There have been many privacy actions taken in respect of photographs in the UK (eg Naomi Campbell, JK Rowling, etc), and the EU. There needs to be an expansive discussion of key case studies.
Response 5:
Naomi Campbell and JK Rowling have been added. I separated UK approach. About Gaines I involve research on other authors who take her ideas at present.
Point 5:
If the paper is also looking at other jurisdictions like Argentina, that needs to be made clear.
Response 5:
I separated Argentina approach.
Point 6
This paper is far too short - 10 pages - given its subject matter. Given the nature of the topic, I think the expectation would be that a research paper would be a longer piece of work.
Response 6:
I have deepened my research and the results and conclusions have been clarified.
I have conducted a revision of my use of English with the aim of correcting mistakes, incorrect sentences, and structural errors.
Again, thank you for your work and assessments.
