Rights to Modify a ClipArt Image for Resell?

It depends on what you mean by resell it. No you can’t combine them in to a new clipart package and sell them as clipart. You could however do say a dozen of them for a clients project and sell them to the client as part of the project.

On the other hand depending on how much you change the clipart and what it is you could probably get away with it as long as it isn’t very unique. You won’t get in to trouble doing this with an apple, a bluejay or some other ordinary object. However, if the image is quite unique then you could get in to trouble.

John

(calbear81) wrote in news:a873632d.0407131002.6c7a9187
@posting.google.com:

Hi,

I have a few of those hundred thousand clipart CDs and most of the art on there is pretty bad. However, I’m pretty good with coloring/inking and I was thinking of taking some of the clipart and completely redoing them in different colors and modifying some of the content. I know that this is permitted under the license, but once I modify it, am I allowed to resell it as my own work since it’s gone through my own creative processes?

Any help on this matter is appreciated!

Legally it’s muddy water, depending on the degree of alteration, it’s highly unlikly anyone would ever take you to court on this unless you happen to be very rich or making a lot of money from them which is also very unlikly.

However, I’m pretty good with coloring/inking

and I was thinking of taking some of the clipart and completely

redoing them in different colors and modifying some of the content. I know that this is permitted under the license, but once I modify it, am I allowed to resell it as my own work since it’s gone through my own creative processes?

No.

This is not a muddy area of the law. There is no ambiguity in this part of the law. It’s crystal-clear.

This is called a "derivative work." Copyright law (Title 17 of US code) specifically and explicitly states that copyright on a derivative work belongs with the original copyright holder.

I strongly, strongly suggest you do what I did–talk to a qualified intellectual property lawyer about this.

—
Art, literature, shareware, polyamory, kink, and more:
http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html

Kinda like tracing?? lol

"calbear81" wrote in message

Hi,

I have a few of those hundred thousand clipart CDs and most of the art on there is pretty bad. However, I’m pretty good with coloring/inking and I was thinking of taking some of the clipart and completely redoing them in different colors and modifying some of the content. I know that this is permitted under the license, but once I modify it, am I allowed to resell it as my own work since it’s gone through my own creative processes?

Any help on this matter is appreciated!

(Tacit) wrote in
news::

However, I’m pretty good with coloring/inking

and I was thinking of taking some of the clipart and completely

redoing them in different colors and modifying some of the content. I know that this is permitted under the license, but once I modify it, am I allowed to resell it as my own work since it’s gone through my own creative processes?

No.

This is not a muddy area of the law. There is no ambiguity in this part of the law. It’s crystal-clear.

This is called a "derivative work." Copyright law (Title 17 of US code) specifically and explicitly states that copyright on a derivative work belongs with the original copyright holder.
I strongly, strongly suggest you do what I did–talk to a qualified intellectual property lawyer about this.

It is not crystal clear at all, it’s a very muddy area of law that could cost a fortune in legal fees to resolve.

ok lets try this for clear cut legal opinion, A has a piece of his own work hed decides will combine with B’s work which he then sells. B takes legal action and it transpireds that A’s work was produced years prior to B’s work and represents 90 of the finished work.

Is this a clear cut case? When B goes to the lawyer, the lawyer will start by telling him it’s a clear cut case but the lawyer gets paid by the hour.

"Kingdom" wrote in message

It is not crystal clear at all, it’s a very muddy area of law that could cost a fortune in legal fees to resolve.

ok lets try this for clear cut legal opinion, […]

Let’s not.

ok lets try this for clear cut legal opinion, A has a piece of his own work hed decides will combine with B’s work which he then sells. B takes legal action and it transpireds that A’s work was produced years prior to B’s work and represents 90 of the finished work.

If. You. Use. Somebody. Else’s. Copyrighted. Work. You. Are. Breaking. The. Law.

It does not matter if their work is 99% or 50% or 10% or 1% or one-one hundredth of one percent of the final.

If. You. Use. Somebody. Else’s. Copyrighted. Work. You. Are. Breaking. The. Law. Period.

Gah. To my dying day, I will *never* understand why people don’t get that.

—
Art, literature, shareware, polyamory, kink, and more:
http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html

Because. They. Don’t. Want. To.

"Tacit" wrote in message

ok lets try this for clear cut legal opinion, A has a piece of his own work hed decides will combine with B’s work which he then sells. B takes legal action and it transpireds that A’s work was produced years prior to B’s work and represents 90 of the finished work.

If. You. Use. Somebody. Else’s. Copyrighted. Work. You. Are. Breaking.

The.

Law.

It does not matter if their work is 99% or 50% or 10% or 1% or one-one hundredth of one percent of the final.

If. You. Use. Somebody. Else’s. Copyrighted. Work. You. Are. Breaking.

The.

Law. Period.

Gah. To my dying day, I will *never* understand why people don’t get that.
—
Art, literature, shareware, polyamory, kink, and more:
http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html

If. You. Use. Somebody. Else’s. Copyrighted. Work. You. Are. Breaking.

The.

Law.

Unless you have a license from the owner of the copyright to do so and stay within the terms of that license. The license may require acknowledgement of the source of the copyrighted work. If in doubt, don’t do it.

Andrew

Tacit wrote:

ok lets try this for clear cut legal opinion, A has a piece of his own work hed decides will combine with B’s work which he then sells. B takes legal action and it transpireds that A’s work was produced years prior to B’s work and represents 90 of the finished work.

If. You. Use. Somebody. Else’s. Copyrighted. Work. You. Are. Breaking. The. Law.

It does not matter if their work is 99% or 50% or 10% or 1% or one-one hundredth of one percent of the final.

If. You. Use. Somebody. Else’s. Copyrighted. Work. You. Are. Breaking. The. Law. Period.

Gah. To my dying day, I will *never* understand why people don’t get that.

Kingdom, Tacit is correct, the only problem that could arise from your example would be for B to prove his work was used.

Stuart