Would it help to make the drawing look a little different than the original, like mirror image, or something like that? Lots of artists sell pop art based on famous images of celebrities and historical figures. Are they breaking copyright laws?
2006-07-08 16:52:56 · 9 answers · asked by martin h 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Copyright law grants the copyright holder the sole right to prepare derivative works based upon his or her original. If you create a second work based upon the original and it doesn't fall under fair use or parody, it is likely to be copyright infringement.
However, copyright law does not protect an idea, it does not protect a style and it does not protect anything other than the actual expression of the idea.
Certainly, the more different the second work was from the original, the less likely it would be to be found as infringing. The less and less of the original work that can be found in it, the better. However, something simply like mirroring it, converting it to a drawing or colorizing it is not going to work so long as the original work can still be identified in it.
As far as using the images of famous people, that is a completely separate tort called misappropriation of image. I can take your photo if you are in a public place, I can distribute it publicly if it is newsworthy but I can not distinctly sell it, you have the sole right to your own likeliness in that regard.
The same holds true for art. Many famous individuals give permission to artists to create works based upon them or openly tolerate it because it is seen as free promotion, however, that does not mean that one can't and won't sue over such an issue. It happens fairly regularly.
In the end, the best thing that you can do is focus on creating original works. You can get inspiration from third parties, as most do, but you can not reproduce the original works in any way.
That's exactly what copyright law protects.
2006-07-09 15:17:31 · answer #1 · answered by Jonathan Bailey 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Well, I hate to sound like a lawyer, but it depends. See, what you're talking about with copyright law is EXPRESSION. It depends if what you're copying is the other work's expression. For example, if you copied one of Andy Worhol's famous prints of M. Monroe, and your derived work looked a lot like it, I would say that you would have a major problem. It's the style that you have to be cautious of. You can't copyright your own image! However, you have to be careful because there are other laws that prevent you from using someone elses likeness to make money. For example- imagine if you started a T-shirt business and put Michael Jordan's face on the front of the shirt and called it the J-Tee or something like that. You are using someone elses likeness to make money and this is illegal. Rule of thumb: If the person is dead, that's pretty good b/c they probably can't sue you (although their estate might)
Also, you mentioned in your question that "lots of artists" are doing this. My friend, in the world of copyright law, a lot of people who break the law aren't prosecuted. Who is going to police all of these law suits?! I mean, every time you drive by a t-shirt or poster store that is obviously crossing the copyright line- are you going to contact a law firm and pay big $$ to bring suit. The only time you're really in danger is when you're making BIG $$ and/or hurting the image of the person in question. If someone was making big $$ with your face OR had your picture on a t-shirt that said "I'm a homo", etc., wouldn't you be mad? ha ha. Hope this helps :)
2006-07-09 00:03:36 · answer #2 · answered by Ihavenoidea 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's Legal only if it is a Parody.
In 1989 2 Live Crew did a remake of Pretty Woman by Roy Orbison but did some lyric changes such as adding in Hairy Woman.
Roy's record Label said no to the Parody (Roy died at the end of 1988) but 2 Live Crew released it anyways causing a Lawsuit which eventually wound up in the U.S. Supreme Court.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1994 that the 2 Live Crew version was a Parody and thus they did not need permission to record it cause it was protected under a Law called Fair Use (Comments, Criticisms and Parodies).
Weird Al Yankovic did record My Bologna without permission but The Knack got a copy and liked it too but eventually Weird Al decided to get permission to do Parodies (plus if ya have permission then you can have your own name added to the Credits for the Parody version).
Weird Al still gets Permission inspite of the 1994 Supreme Court ruling that allows him to record without Permission.
Weird Al's record Label did ask Coolio for permission on recording Amish Paradise but Coolio told the Label no.
The Label lied to Weird Al claiming he gave permission so Weird Al recorded it and later found out Coolio did not give permission and was unhappy about it.
However Coolio has never attempted to file legal action (he claimed he couldn't stop it from happening), plus Coolio did get Royalties from Weird Al's version.
2006-07-09 00:05:54 · answer #3 · answered by MrCool1978 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes. There is no way for the author of a photo or a movie still to have proof that you copied from the movie still or photo.
2006-07-08 23:57:20 · answer #4 · answered by Roseknows 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I am not sure but they let you sit & draw copies of the great masterpieces in our Art Musuem.
2006-07-08 23:56:43 · answer #5 · answered by Wolfpacker 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Unless it's for publication or money, yes.
2006-07-08 23:56:10 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
yes,private use only,sell it,go to jail.
2006-07-08 23:56:52 · answer #7 · answered by mak_nit_crimson 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
as long as you dont sell them i think its legal
2006-07-08 23:58:19 · answer #8 · answered by togasah 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
why not. just don't tell anyone. and don't get caught. live dangerously...
2006-07-08 23:56:19 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋