This is another question from a pre-existing question I have asked. They say you can't take a random photograph and use it as a template in a paint program which I don't think is right. The person may own the picture and it's copyright but if the end product of said change only resembles the pre-existing picture in shape and nothing else, how can they have copyright over a shape? All of an artist work derives from something. May watch a show and get an idea that derived from it. Therefore since your new idea is based on it only in the resulting context that it inspired you, does that mean you can't then use that idea. An exact cloning of the work in question I agree is wrong and deserves protective but if you change it so much that it doesn't resemble the work outside of the similarity of shapes and pose then what? Can someone thereby copyright shape and pose? Can I thereby copyright a shade of love that no one can use? Oh wells. Thanks for looking.
2007-12-17 17:35:02 · 3 answers · asked by Aintitthetruth 3 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Visual Arts ➔ Drawing & Illustration
Generally, a work that is free hand drawn or brushed and not mechanically reproduced, is not a "copy" under the copyright law. for example it is not infringement to sketch a "location map" based on looking at a printed (and copyrighted) map. another way of thinking is this, does the new replication somehow harm the commercial value of the item that was used as the inspiration. If the answer is no, then it probably falls under fair use doctrine.
Remember there are other laws beside copyright that apply to commerce, such as unfair practice and trademark. An item that does not infringe copyright per se could conceivably be put to use in an illegal manner.
2007-12-18 04:19:20 · answer #1 · answered by lare 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
A shape and pose? How about Bugs Bunny? The Thinker by Rhodan? Mona Lisa? Statue of Liberty?
If it's recognizeable, then it's the original artist's work. If you can no longer recognize it then that puts it into a different category
But why not take your own photographs? That way you can alter then as you like and not worry about problems.
2007-12-18 13:37:43 · answer #2 · answered by hudsongray 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
an exciting question and one that in all probability falls on that nice line between criminal and unlawful. i will assert even with the incontrovertible fact that that it continues to be copyright infringement to repeat even a factor of the image. Stealing component of a vehicle is in simple terms as undesirable as stealing the finished vehicle... theft is theft. some extra common photos such as you stated would in all probability not be as lots a controversy as different photos could be. to illustrate, if the main concern of a image is extremely diverse, then even a factor of it used someplace else would be very needless to say infringement. So i don't think of you're able to ever make a blanket fact that "in simple terms" taking a factor of a image is any much less copyright infringement as using the finished image. steve
2016-10-11 12:31:00 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋