Copyright

[cliveh]

Copyright

If I produce an image that is a combination of bits taken from several paintings/photographs/drawings that would normally be copyright if copied alone, am I infringing copyright with a compilation? I suppose the question is similar to a sound track produced by a compilation of sampling.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

Just my uneducated guess, but I think that if a work is copyrighted, then you can't use any portion of it - alone or in combination with anything else.

 

[nmp]

see bullet #2
____________________________

Section 106 of the 1976 Copyright Act generally gives the owner of copyright the exclusive right to do and to authorize others to do the following:

• reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords

• prepare derivative works based upon the work

• distribute copies or phonorecords of the work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending

• perform the work publicly, in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audio visual works

• display the work publicly, in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audio visual work

• perform the work publicly (in the case of sound recordings) by means of a digital audio transmission

 

[removed account4]

cliveh
its tricky
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Prince
http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/27/living/richard-prince-instagram-feat/index.html

 

[jim10219]

As with anything regarding the legal system, what is legal and what's not legal, largely depends on how much money you can pay a lawyer. The courts have ruled both ways on this one, so there's no easy answer. There's no hard and fast rules, so it's really going to be up to the judge's discretion. The safe road is to not use anything that's copyrighted. If you must, then talk to a lawyer specializing in copyright law and get their professional opinion on your specific circumstance. If it's not worth hiring a lawyer for, then I'd say skip it. Usually, if it's not for commercial gain, the worst you'll get is a C&D letter. But if the owner is a rich a-hole, then he/she might sue you on principle and not care that they'll pay more on lawyer fees than they'd ever win from you.

You might want to look up the "fair use" clause of copyright law. There are some loopholes in there you might be able to use or already fall into. I've done a series paintings that look almost identical to other people's paintings with only minute tweaks and am protected from suit because they are parodies of the copyright owner's work, which is allowable. I hired a lawyer to verify that for me before starting on them.

 

[Julie McLeod]

You might want to look up the "fair use" clause of copyright law. There are some loopholes in there you might be able to use or already fall into. I've done a series paintings that look almost identical to other people's paintings with only minute tweaks and am protected from suit because they are parodies of the copyright owner's work, which is allowable. I hired a lawyer to verify that for me before starting on them.

Though that doesn't prevent you from being exposed to defending yourself in a potential lawsuit, does it?

 

[rrusso]

I suggest you pick up a copy of The Copyright Zone, by Ed Greenberg and Jack Reznicki.

 

[Arklatexian]

Just my uneducated guess, but I think that if a work is copyrighted, then you can't use any portion of it - alone or in combination with anything else.

+1

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

At the very least, you are infringing on an intellectual idea, an original idea put down by others and which has been "lifted" by you into your work and then assigned as the work of yourself when it is not.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I think that you are needlessly exposing yourself to a legal risk.

 

[jim10219]

Though that doesn't prevent you from being exposed to defending yourself in a potential lawsuit, does it?

No, it doesn't. And it doesn't garuntee you'll win the lawsuit. But there are very few garuntees in life, and in my situation, it's a risk I'm willing to take. Besides, my lawyer is a good buddy and an excellent lawyer, so if he says I'm in the clear, then I'm not gonna give it a second thought.

I was just highlighting the fair use clause because it's something that artists and designers often use. Most know it well. And It may well be worth your time to become familiar with that section of the law if you're going to be doing stuff like that, especially since it's not nearly as verbose and complex as so many other parts of the law. Most software license agreements are harder to read and understand than the sections on copyright and fair use.

 

[AgX]

Here in Germany even making a painting, or even part of a painting, by depicting a certain photograph means an infringement on the copyright of the photographer.
The original has to be "weak" in relation to the new work to be no longer protected in the new surrounding.

This had lead to court cases...

 

[John Koehrer]

• Fair use allows someone to make another piece of art using segments of your art. Collage, multiple exposure/prints, Campbell soup cans and pictures of Norma Jean made in Andy Warhols factory..
• If I recall correctly you could make a billboard using an image. The original artist said he got paid for it and didn't care what happened later.

 

[AgX]

As hinted above, there are different legal systems. (The OP is located in the UK.)
And "fair use", "a weak position" etc. are terms that can be argued upon, including in court. This should not necessarily keep anyone from using work from someone else, but should be on ones mind.

 

[rrusso]

cliveh,

You weren't really clear whether you were just asking hypothetically, or if you were actually working on a project which may involve copyright issues, but...

I'll add to my first post by suggesting that you not even tempt fate, and just make your own art/images.

Copyright is something that, as photographers (pro or amateur), we should hold sacred.

 

[cliveh]

Point taken and will steer clear.