copyrite question

[AdamBall]

i was just wondering if you used a photo off the internet as reference for an image youve produced and you are going to have it published, would it infringe on any copyrite laws.

[Elwell]

Maybe.
http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/ (http://copyright.gov)

[AdamBall]

lol thanks

[Mungus]

It might be ok if you contacted the person who took the photo, they may be ok with the idea, a bit like someone doing a cover version of a song. Lots of artists dont mind.
Could you show us your painting and the original? We'd have a much better idea of how inspired you were, also any info on how you made the picture would be useful.

btw....only in America...
http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-protect.html#elvis

[Jason Manley]

www.conceptart.org/copyright has some info too...precise info regarding how the lawyers see it...

it is this simple...if the basic person on the street can see SUBSTANTIAL SIMILARITY then u are up a sheet creek.


J

[Mungus]

"Fair Use" rules.......from the same webbie

"One of the rights accorded to the owner of copyright is the right to reproduce or to authorize others to reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords. This right is subject to certain limitations found in sections 107 through 118 of the Copyright Act (title 17, U. S. Code). One of the more important limitations is the doctrine of “fair use.” Although fair use was not mentioned in the previous copyright law, the doctrine has developed through a substantial number of court decisions over the years. This doctrine has been codified in section 107 of the copyright law.

Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered “fair,” such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:

the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

the nature of the copyrighted work;

amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The distinction between “fair use” and infringement may be unclear and not easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission. Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission.

The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have regarded as fair use: “quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author's observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported.”

Copyright protects the particular way an author has expressed himself; it does not extend to any ideas, systems, or factual information conveyed in the work.

The safest course is always to get permission from the copyright owner before using copyrighted material. The Copyright Office cannot give this permission.

When it is impracticable to obtain permission, use of copyrighted material should be avoided unless the doctrine of “fair use” would clearly apply to the situation. The Copyright Office can neither determine if a certain use may be considered “fair” nor advise on possible copyright violations. If there is any doubt, it is advisable to consult an attorney.

FL-102, Revised July 2006 "


...which reinforces my advice that you should approach the originator of the photo for permission to reproduce their work in your chosen style, unless you think that there is little resemblence in the finished piece.

Just my 0.00002 riels

[AdamBall]

thanks for all the great replies

umm i dont know if i should show you guys the image. my boss might not like it

[Seedling]

Sounds like you and your boss need to have a talk about copyright laws and non-disclosure agreements. You need to know this stuff better so that you and your boss can protect yourselves against mistakes that could result in lawsuits.

[egerie]

Personally, I prefer to play it safe ; getting your own references is worth taking the time to get off your ass and grab the camera than spend days (months?) in court.

[MarkBehm]

On a related note - I'd love to know if this is true:
If you are asked by your supervisor or employer to "make it look like this" then you share equal responsibility for the infringement. I once saw a modeler refuse to comply with his director after he decided that the character looked way too much like another famous character and he as the modeler would be held responsible. The director caved but I never heard if it was true or not.

[AdamBall]

wow thanks guys. youve been great help.

now to find an attractive girl that wants to be photographed naked :)

[Mirana]

Or pratice drawing naked chicks from various references and do the final project based on that learning. It's an especially good call to nix total referencing from one photo if it's erotica art anyway...that type of art tends to look totally swiped and static. :/

[Professor Az]

Personally, I prefer to play it safe ; getting your own references is worth taking the time to get off your ass and grab the camera than spend days (months?) in court.

I was wondering when someone would mention this. There's a lot more to life than just poking around the Internet to get your reference material. I have around 30 CDs worth of photos I took myself while out and about, some digital photos, some scans of older photos we took before digital came about. Sure, it's a bit of extra work, but they belong to me, and that keeps me out of trouble.

Best of luck with your project. :confident

[_Mario]

I was wondering when someone would mention this. There's a lot more to life than just poking around the Internet to get your reference material. I have around 30 CDs worth of photos I took myself while out and about, some digital photos, some scans of older photos we took before digital came about. Sure, it's a bit of extra work, but they belong to me, and that keeps me out of trouble.Just to add to this: It doesn#t always work that way. If you, for example, take a photo of a apple ipod and then use this photo as reference for the styling of your portable audio player you can get in trouble because no matter how many photos you take, some things are still copyrighted (different types of creative work), trademarked (logos), or patented (some designs).

[otis]

I always wondered about collages and decopages. You see paintings where the artist will put in a little photo or page from a book etc. into their painting (for texture, composition, etc whatever) Is it ok to put things torn out of magazines, books, photos, etc inot a painting or sculpture?

I see this kind of work all the time, but the copyright law does not address this.

Anybody have an answer on whether collages are even legal?

[Ilaekae]

Collages are almost always legal under the Fair Use clause because they are used as elements in another piece that could be considered an opinion/editorial parody, especailly since the art of collage by its nature, involves assembling "Pieces" into a gretaer whole. The exception would be if the originals are used in a manner that the original image in its entirety could still be considered a recognizable self-contained unit. Does that make sense?

MM's lips on a piece that contains maybe 100 sep pieces is okay. A full head, torso, or body shot of MM, lips and all, used in a piece other than in an editorial, parody or educational example manner would almost certainly violate copyright, no matter what else you added to the image (say...as a border or background...)

[krowe]

On a related note - I'd love to know if this is true:
If you are asked by your supervisor or employer to "make it look like this" then you share equal responsibility for the infringement. I once saw a modeler refuse to comply with his director after he decided that the character looked way too much like another famous character and he as the modeler would be held responsible. The director caved but I never heard if it was true or not.

From "Legal Guide for the Visual Artist", by Tad Crawford, page 36

WHO IS LIABLE FOR INFRINGEMENT-

"...the limited liability normally provided by corporations may not prove a shield against individual liability in a copyright infringement lawsuit. Particularly if a corporate officer participates in the infringement or uses the corporation for the purposes of carrying out infringements, he or she can have personal liability. Likewise an employee who, in exercising discretion, commits or causes the employer to commit an infringement can be liable."

and

"Another deterrent for infringers is that personal liability is usually, in legal terms, joint and several. This means that all of the defendants are liable for the full amount of the damages. If one defendant flees the country or goes bankrupt, the damages owed to the plaintiff will not be lessened. So four defendants who owed damages of $500,000 might each pay $125,000, but, if one of the defendants could not be found, the remaining three defendants would still be liable for the full $500,000. In one case, for example, the publisher and the printer were jointly and severally liable for the damages when they infringed the copyright in a book (Fitzgerald Publishing Co. v. Baylor Publishing Co., 821 F.2d 800).


Now that's one smart modeler ;)

[artforprofits.com]

Generally, yes except if the copyright has expired for the artist or it is in the public domain for some other reason.

http://www.copyright.org.au/information/G033.pdf