Copyright question...
Discussion
I have been talking to several artists over the last few months about the issue of creating a piece of artwork from seeing an image in a magazine, book or the net. There seems to be a split view in terms of copyright issues if you were to create copies of the artwork and sell them.
Some say that you must at all times get permission from the original source where you saw the photo, while others say only if the artwork is an exact copy of the photo do you need permission - the view being that by altering how the artwork looks to the original prevents it being classed as a copy...
The whole copyright thing seems to be a grey area. What are the rules with this?
Some say that you must at all times get permission from the original source where you saw the photo, while others say only if the artwork is an exact copy of the photo do you need permission - the view being that by altering how the artwork looks to the original prevents it being classed as a copy...
The whole copyright thing seems to be a grey area. What are the rules with this?
I think: If you create something new using soemthing published as an inspiration, then fine. If you recreate something, and do not try to "pass it off" as the original, then no copyright is broken. Using the published material, for example cutting photos out of a magazine to make a collage is, however, not on.
http://www.ipo.gov.uk/copy/c-other/c-infringe.htm
what is it you have in mind? or do you not want to share it, in case somebody steals it?
what is it you have in mind? or do you not want to share it, in case somebody steals it?
doodah said:
http://www.ipo.gov.uk/copy/c-other/c-infringe.htm
what is it you have in mind? or do you not want to share it, in case somebody steals it?
Take a look at my other thread here:what is it you have in mind? or do you not want to share it, in case somebody steals it?
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
You'll see what I'm experimenting with...
i'd be pissed off if you took one of my pics screen printed it and gave it a hand made feel.
if you are doing screen prints you need to use your own artistic impression as the start point - go take the picture that ends up as the print.
that or make a deal with the original image owner...
if you are doing screen prints you need to use your own artistic impression as the start point - go take the picture that ends up as the print.
that or make a deal with the original image owner...
The question boils down to whether you are "copying" a substantial part of the actual image, or meerly using the idea behind the image as an inspiration for your own creation. Stating with a photo and posterising it, playing with colouring and contrast etc means that you are still exploiting the original creation and work of the original artist. If you look at an image and then set about careting someting similar then you should be OK.
It can be difficult to draw the line exactly - which is one reason that copyright litigation is costly - as the line between using the idea rather than the expression of that idea is blurred.
As a non arty example creating a book about a wizard going to school for the first time is free for anyone to do. However, starting with the first Harry Potter book asking how much you need to change before it isn't copyright infringement would probalby result in the answer "everything".
Hope that helps.
Alex
It can be difficult to draw the line exactly - which is one reason that copyright litigation is costly - as the line between using the idea rather than the expression of that idea is blurred.
As a non arty example creating a book about a wizard going to school for the first time is free for anyone to do. However, starting with the first Harry Potter book asking how much you need to change before it isn't copyright infringement would probalby result in the answer "everything".
Hope that helps.
Alex
tog said:
Making a screen print of a photo is definitely an infringement of copyright if you do not have permission from the rights owner.
Is it though?I am only going on what some artists have told me, who use a photograph, sometimes a famous one, such as the shot of Mansell with Senna on the Williams at the GB GP. The photo is used as a reference to create a painting, which in turn is copied into prints for sale.
I would very understand a photographer getting pissed off if his'her photo was simply copied as is and then sold on to others.
But where do you draw the line (no pun intended!) to prevent an artist from using an iconic image as a reference point to create something different from the original.
Painting and design by its very nature has always been about using what is already around us as an influence on creating something new.
I think if you do create something new, then that's OK. What you seem to be suggesting though is more like taking a well-know existing image and then modifying it. This may be creative, but the result is not new.
Why do you want to use existing images? If it is because they are well-known, or just very good, then that is why the copyright on them is valuable and important to the owner. How about creating an original portrait (different expression, angle, background etc.) and using that?
If you think the well-known image would be more sucessful, then that's why people enforce their copyright. That an image becomes iconic may be out of the hands of the creator, but they still had to put the work in to create it and deserve the rewards.
Why do you want to use existing images? If it is because they are well-known, or just very good, then that is why the copyright on them is valuable and important to the owner. How about creating an original portrait (different expression, angle, background etc.) and using that?
If you think the well-known image would be more sucessful, then that's why people enforce their copyright. That an image becomes iconic may be out of the hands of the creator, but they still had to put the work in to create it and deserve the rewards.
This is probably why copyright lawyers are rich people. I seem to remember that the photographer that took the photo of Che Guevara that was turned into the iconic image managed to get recognition but only recently, although I don't know how long he was trying. On the other had I don't think the person who took the picture of Marylin Munro that Wharol used has ever had anything from that.
Factor into this that some artists have been succesful in getting reproduction payments for images that have appeared fairly incidentaly in film and photos and the whole thing quickly becomes a mess. Leading to more of the opening sentence.
Possibly comes down to whether the originator finds out it has been used and can afford to / be bothered to sue.
Factor into this that some artists have been succesful in getting reproduction payments for images that have appeared fairly incidentaly in film and photos and the whole thing quickly becomes a mess. Leading to more of the opening sentence.
Possibly comes down to whether the originator finds out it has been used and can afford to / be bothered to sue.
TheOriginalGT40 said:
tog said:
Making a screen print of a photo is definitely an infringement of copyright if you do not have permission from the rights owner.
Is it though?
It is the equivalent of making a translation of the text of a book - although you would own your own copyright in the new text (in your case the screen printed image) as you have employed time and effort to create it - you cannot sell the translations of the book as the basis for your creation was copying someone else's work and since you have copied it you have infringed their copyright.
As I said above, you can use the idea behind a photo - tennis girl scratching her bum - and create your own photo along the same lines from which you can create screen prints - you have only used the idea. However, if you start with a poster from Athena and make screen prints from that then you have copied the expression of that idea and that would be infringement.
The basic rule that if it is worth copying then it is probably protected. You only want to use particular images because they are good and the creator should be rewarded (or at least asked) if someone else is going to be exploiting his/her work.
Would you be upset is someone did the reverse and got a screen printed image that you had created from one of your own photos, took a digital photo of it, changed the colours and then sold limited edition prints? They have changed the style and colour of the image, but it is still a (modified) copy of your image.
Alex
TheOriginalGT40 said:
tog said:
Making a screen print of a photo is definitely an infringement of copyright if you do not have permission from the rights owner.
Is it though?Compare:
You have a photograph and reproduce it in a book; it is still the same photo but in a different medium. If you do this without permission of the rights holder it is an infringement of those rights.
With:
You have a photograph and make a screen print of it; it is still the same photo but in a different medium. This is exactly the same as the first example, and if you do it without permission of the rights holder then it is still an infringement of those rights.
You are reproducing the image, so if it ain't yours, you need permission!
OK it appears that this thread is not going the same way as my discussions with fellow artists
So if I found an image that I liked to use as the basis of a piece of artwork, what kind of price would be looking at, or would some photographers just be happy with the polite request to use the image as a basis to create something different. Maybe one of the limited edition final prints would keep them sweet...
So if I found an image that I liked to use as the basis of a piece of artwork, what kind of price would be looking at, or would some photographers just be happy with the polite request to use the image as a basis to create something different. Maybe one of the limited edition final prints would keep them sweet...
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff