Copyright Issues on Manipulated Images

In news:MArtin Chiselwitt typed:

Hello All,

I would really value links to information on the use of ‘original’,
i.e. copyrighted photographs in heavily manipulated imagery.
For example, I am currently using Photoshop to montage some people onto the bodies of famous movie stars from a coffee-table book called "Celebrity" which i borrowed from my local library. The resulting images are of course quite radically different from the original scans. Does this mean I am able to use the image source without copyright permission? A lot of my work involves scanning from books as I cannot afford to join an expensive image source such as the Getty Archive… But, I am also unable to use mush of this work as I am scared of potential litigation.
I am actually finding it very hard to find very clear info about this on the web, thru Google etc… So, any help or advice from you guys would be appreciated,

thx

m.c.

This would qualify as "derivative work" and wouldn’t come under the "fair use" defense in my opinion. But try googling for "derivative work" in Google and you’ll find a lot of information, and add your country name after for more specific.

—
www.odysea.ca

This would qualify as "derivative work" and wouldn’t come under the "fair use" defense in my opinion. But try googling for "derivative work" in Google and you’ll find a lot of information, and add your country name after for more specific.

Many thanks for that. It is at least much clearer to me now where I can start looking for info.
I have no doubts that I will have to seek permission for most of this stuff… It also means that a huge amount of what I’ve done in Photoshop may never see the light of day!… 🙂

Thanks again,

m.c.

In news:MArtin Chiselwitt typed:

Many thanks for that. It is at least much clearer to me now where I can start looking for info.
I have no doubts that I will have to seek permission for most of this stuff… It also means that a huge amount of what I’ve done in Photoshop may never see the light of day!… 🙂

Thanks again,

m.c.

You are probably the best judge to decide if your artwork would fall under the fair use defence or not, just remember that’s it’s a line of defence to be argued in court and not a law, and certainly not a right. When in doubt, I would suggest not to use the material commercially. But asking for permission is not that bad, in many case I was surprised by the response I’ve got from politely asking, and explaining what it would be used for, the right to use material. On many occasion I was sent higher resolution file and offer for more, and all form of payment refused. There’s nothing to loose by asking.

—
www.odysea.ca

Can I echo deco_time’s comments?

I have emailed website to seek permission to download and view images using something other than my internet browser.

On every occasion permission has been granted – I added the condition that any images I download will be removed within 24 hours and that my request is not on commercial grounds and any info I find will be purely for personal use.

On the other hand: law & lawyers. Do you really want to play an expensive game of poker and loose?

I hope this is helpful

Arts

"deco_time" wrote in message

In news:MArtin Chiselwitt typed:

Many thanks for that. It is at least much clearer to me now where I can start looking for info.
I have no doubts that I will have to seek permission for most of this stuff… It also means that a huge amount of what I’ve done in Photoshop may never see the light of day!… 🙂

Thanks again,

m.c.

You are probably the best judge to decide if your artwork would fall under the fair use defence or not, just remember that’s it’s a line of defence to be argued in court and not a law, and certainly not a right. When in doubt, I would suggest not to use the material commercially. But asking for permission is not that bad, in many case I was surprised by the response I’ve got from politely asking, and explaining what it would be used for, the right to use material. On many occasion I was sent higher resolution file and offer for more, and all form of payment refused. There’s nothing to loose by asking.

—
www.odysea.ca

Arty Phacting wrote:

Can I echo deco_time’s comments?

On the other hand: law & lawyers. Do you really want to play an expensive game of poker and loose?

NO!

lol… absolutely not. I will be seeking permission from the book publishers forthwith.
and i agree, that i expect most people to be kind and generous and not threaten to take me to court etc. however, the job I am currently doing is ultimately commercila and I fear that may induce a different response… Still, as has been stated, there’s no harm in trying!!

thanks guys

Coo-el I hope they agree without asking for a percentage of the action 🙁

Arts

"MArtin Chiselwitt" wrote in message

Arty Phacting wrote:

Can I echo deco_time’s comments?

On the other hand: law & lawyers. Do you really want to play an

expensive

game of poker and loose?

NO!

lol… absolutely not. I will be seeking permission from the book publishers forthwith.
and i agree, that i expect most people to be kind and generous and not threaten to take me to court etc. however, the job I am currently doing is ultimately commercila and I fear that may induce a different response… Still, as has been stated, there’s no harm in trying!!
thanks guys

MArtin Chiselwitt wrote:

Hello All,

m.c.

not only are you up against the owner of the copyright here, you could have trouble from the Subjects of the images you are copying. most model releases have disclaimers about "intent".

And along with what James says, you are scanning images out of a copyrighted book. You will probably find a disclaimer in the book about copying images from it.

"James Connell" wrote in message

MArtin Chiselwitt wrote:

Hello All,

m.c.

not only are you up against the owner of the copyright here, you could have trouble from the Subjects of the images you are copying. most model releases have disclaimers about "intent".

She wrote:

And along with what James says, you are scanning images out of a copyrighted book. You will probably find a disclaimer in the book about copying images from it.

Yes. I did. That’s what led me to post on the forum. D’oh!…

I have no intention of using this book. But there are areas of the work i do where the copyright issues aren’t clear-cut at all. I guess the only rule I can draw from this is, ALWAYS ask permission wherever possible.

MArtin Chiselwitt wrote:

Hello All,

I would really value links to information on the use of ‘original’,
i.e. copyrighted photographs in heavily manipulated imagery.
For example, I am currently using Photoshop to montage some people onto the bodies of famous movie stars from a coffee-table book called "Celebrity" which i borrowed from my local library. The resulting images are of course quite radically different from the original scans. Does this mean I am able to use the image source without copyright permission? A lot of my work involves scanning from books as I cannot afford to join an expensive image source such as the Getty Archive… But, I am also unable to use mush of this work as I am scared of potential litigation.
I am actually finding it very hard to find very clear info about this on the web, thru Google etc… So, any help or advice from you guys would be appreciated,

thx

m.c.

try these sources:

http://www.wixenpolin.com/copywrong.htm
http://www.publaw.com/parody.html
http://digital.library.upenn.edu/books/fairuse-explain.html

—

Chris Mork
Owner CCG Sales / Small Business Links
http://smallbizlinks.blogspot.com/

try these sources:

http://www.wixenpolin.com/copywrong.htm
http://www.publaw.com/parody.html
http://digital.library.upenn.edu/books/fairuse-explain.html

Thanks for that. A lot of useful information there.
However, it is now clear that what i am doing does not even qulify for the ‘fair use’ defense. Specifically I am creating what the law calls ‘derivative works’. ‘Fair Use’ also seems to me to only be applicable to strictly non-commercial ventures. The project I am involved with is very clearly for some financial gain, allbeit a quite limited amount. I have been in contact today with the two main image banks and the very minimum payment appears to be £75 per image. Now, that isn’t actually a terrible price to pay, truth be told. The fact that the people I know probably won’t meet it is neither here nor there [it does mean some very good work is scuppered, but that’s my problem!]. It does however raise many questions for me as to what I can and cannot use for source material. In my eyes what I create bears little relation to the ‘original’ material, if any at all. But the law says that the ownership of the picture remains with the copyright holder, whatever. It’s almost like copyrighting the colour blue and then trying to do a painting with blue in it. It isn’t really possible to work in those circumstances. I don’t know, i guess I’ll keep researching the subject, but I think I have to re-evaluate the arena I have chosen to work in.

On Mon, 02 Aug 2004 23:05:38 GMT, MArtin Chiselwitt
wrote:

try these sources:

http://www.wixenpolin.com/copywrong.htm
http://www.publaw.com/parody.html
http://digital.library.upenn.edu/books/fairuse-explain.html

Thanks for that. A lot of useful information there.
However, it is now clear that what i am doing does not even qulify for the ‘fair use’ defense. Specifically I am creating what the law calls ‘derivative works’. ‘Fair Use’ also seems to me to only be applicable to strictly non-commercial ventures. The project I am involved with is very clearly for some financial gain, allbeit a quite limited amount. I have been in contact today with the two main image banks and the very minimum payment appears to be £75 per image. Now, that isn’t actually a terrible price to pay, truth be told. The fact that the people I know probably won’t meet it is neither here nor there [it does mean some very good work is scuppered, but that’s my problem!]. It does however raise many questions for me as to what I can and cannot use for source material. In my eyes what I create bears little relation to the ‘original’ material, if any at all. But the law says that the ownership of the picture remains with the copyright holder, whatever. It’s almost like copyrighting the colour blue and then trying to do a painting with blue in it. It isn’t really possible to work in those circumstances. I don’t know, i guess I’ll keep researching the subject, but I think I have to re-evaluate the arena I have chosen to work in.

It’s simple really. A photographer takes a picture – she has the copyright unless she is taking the picture as part of her employment, in which case the picture belongs to her employer.

The simple solution is – take your own pictures 🙂

—

Hecate – The Real One

veni, vidi, reliqui

The simple solution is – take your own pictures 🙂

—

Hecate – The Real One

veni, vidi, reliqui

If I had the ability to time-travel, specifically in this instance to the 1966 world cup, I would….

🙁

In news:MArtin Chiselwitt typed:

The simple solution is – take your own pictures 🙂

—

Hecate – The Real One

veni, vidi, reliqui

If I had the ability to time-travel, specifically in this instance to the 1966 world cup, I would….

🙁

Theses images could be public domain depending on country of origin and of use. From what I understand, when published work enter the public domain it becomes free to use as long as the source is cited. I believe work published in 1963 and earlier is now public domain in the US, unless the copyright has been specifically renewed, but my own research on regulation in coutries other than US (Canada in my case) as been fruitless so far. I might not be using the proper search terms, and you could get luckier than I if you try.

—
www.odysea.ca

In news:MArtin Chiselwitt typed:

The simple solution is – take your own pictures 🙂

—

Hecate – The Real One

veni, vidi, reliqui

If I had the ability to time-travel, specifically in this instance to the 1966 world cup, I would….

🙁

Theses images could be public domain depending on country of origin and of use. From what I understand, when published work enter the public domain it becomes free to use as long as the source is cited. I believe work published in 1963 and earlier is now public domain in the US, unless the copyright has been specifically renewed, but my own research on regulation in coutries other than US (Canada in my case) as been fruitless so far. I might not be using the proper search terms, and you could get luckier than I if you try.

—
www.odysea.ca

On Tue, 03 Aug 2004 14:57:04 GMT, MArtin Chiselwitt
wrote:

The simple solution is – take your own pictures 🙂

—

Hecate – The Real One

veni, vidi, reliqui

If I had the ability to time-travel, specifically in this instance to the 1966 world cup, I would….

🙁

LOL!

—

Hecate – The Real One

veni, vidi, reliqui

On Tue, 3 Aug 2004 11:00:07 -0400, "deco_time" wrote:

In news:MArtin Chiselwitt typed:

The simple solution is – take your own pictures 🙂

—

Hecate – The Real One

veni, vidi, reliqui

If I had the ability to time-travel, specifically in this instance to the 1966 world cup, I would….

🙁

Theses images could be public domain depending on country of origin and of use. From what I understand, when published work enter the public domain it becomes free to use as long as the source is cited. I believe work published in 1963 and earlier is now public domain in the US, unless the copyright has been specifically renewed, but my own research on regulation in coutries other than US (Canada in my case) as been fruitless so far. I might not be using the proper search terms, and you could get luckier than I if you try.

Copyright = 75 years. Public domain only occurs if the owner of the image specifically states so.

—

Hecate – The Real One

veni, vidi, reliqui

In news:Hecate typed:

On Tue, 3 Aug 2004 11:00:07 -0400, "deco_time" wrote:

In news:MArtin Chiselwitt typed:

The simple solution is – take your own pictures 🙂

—

Hecate – The Real One

veni, vidi, reliqui

If I had the ability to time-travel, specifically in this instance to the 1966 world cup, I would….

🙁

Theses images could be public domain depending on country of origin and of use. From what I understand, when published work enter the public domain it becomes free to use as long as the source is cited. I believe work published in 1963 and earlier is now public domain in the US, unless the copyright has been specifically renewed, but my own research on regulation in coutries other than US (Canada in my case) as been fruitless so far. I might not be using the proper search terms, and you could get luckier than I if you try.

Copyright = 75 years. Public domain only occurs if the owner of the image specifically states so.

http://www.unc.edu/~unclng/public-d.htm

—
www.odysea.ca

On Tue, 3 Aug 2004 23:26:45 -0400, "deco_time" wrote:

In news:Hecate typed:

On Tue, 3 Aug 2004 11:00:07 -0400, "deco_time" wrote:

In news:MArtin Chiselwitt typed:

The simple solution is – take your own pictures 🙂

—

Hecate – The Real One

veni, vidi, reliqui

If I had the ability to time-travel, specifically in this instance to the 1966 world cup, I would….

🙁

Theses images could be public domain depending on country of origin and of use. From what I understand, when published work enter the public domain it becomes free to use as long as the source is cited. I believe work published in 1963 and earlier is now public domain in the US, unless the copyright has been specifically renewed, but my own research on regulation in coutries other than US (Canada in my case) as been fruitless so far. I might not be using the proper search terms, and you could get luckier than I if you try.

Copyright = 75 years. Public domain only occurs if the owner of the image specifically states so.

http://www.unc.edu/~unclng/public-d.htm

That is incorrect at 2. Copyright in the US is covered by the Berne Convention to which the US (and most other countries with the notable exception of China last time I checked) is a signatory.

Under the Berne Convention, the very act of creation is all that is required to secure copyright.

Here is a link that covers the subject accurately:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/treaties/berne/overview.html

—

Hecate – The Real One

veni, vidi, reliqui

She wrote:

And along with what James says, you are scanning images out of a copyrighted book. You will probably find a disclaimer in the book about copying images from it.

duh?!
that’s why i posted in the first place.
it may please you to know that the projcet is now scrapped.. hoorah thanks for stating the bleedin’ obvious

Integrity ain’t cheap MArtin

I is sure u did the right thang

Arts

"MArtin Chiselwitt" wrote in message

She wrote:

And along with what James says, you are scanning images out of a

copyrighted

book. You will probably find a disclaimer in the book about copying

images

from it.

duh?!
that’s why i posted in the first place.
it may please you to know that the projcet is now scrapped.. hoorah thanks for stating the bleedin’ obvious