Would this be stealing?
- Started
- Last post
- 16 Responses
- wrongtest
Work such as possibly http://www.andy-potts.com and http://www.richard-may.com where the designer's seemingly drawn + painted over existing photos...
If the original photos were found in magazines or books or something, would this be illegal? I'm not too clear on the point at which it becomes removed enough from the original.
Any thoughts?
- UndoUndo0
if used without permission, yes
- wrongtest0
I'm pretty confused about it, as often you hear designers mentioning that they used 'found images' but surely any images you find belong to someone, and whatever you do to them, they are still the photographer's or whoever owns them...
Do you think people just take a chance or would you speculate they get permission for all these images?
- UndoUndo0
it boils down to what would happen it court.
if the "benefit" you have recieved or the damage you have caused is of a higher value than the cost to go to court then they will see you there!
it happens alot with images etc with google list 8.5 billion sites you can see there is a very slim chance of being caught unless you are really successful but then you would obviously pay. if you do do it always state that the copyright of the image belongs to the owner!!
- wrongtest0
I can see what you're saying...it seems very logical.. It just appears to me that there is a whole raft of illustrators out there who seem to use treated 'found imagery' with little fear.
I could be wrong and perhaps they do get permission. Looking at the Andy Potts site he says he treats 'found imagery'... Could someone really have the time or will to chase after every photo they find in a travel brochure or something...
I'm just wondering if with work like this, generally people just go for it without worrying.. http://www.xtrapop.com is another with possibly the same kind of issues..
And then what if you trace around an image in say Illustrator - is it now yours?
- Mimio0
Depends on how much you alter it.
It's a gray area of the law.
- wrongtest0
Thanks for the responses so far...
Here's an example of what I'm trying to get at:
http://www.scene360.com/intervie…
..if the image of the old car and the woman was from an old magazine feature, would it be illegal to use it in this way. Is it changed enough?
And what if you were to merely publish it on the web like this and not for a commercial piece of work - would that make a difference?
- UndoUndo0
worrying only makes you grey and old. risk is more exciting! go 4 it!
- wrongtest0
Ha...thanks!...
Maybe I should specifically ask the folks who do these kind of illustrations.. I'm guessing people generally just go ahead... They're probably using really old stuff most of the time, not the latest Photodisc catalogue or anything...
I guess that's the deal.
- kelpie0
if it's non-commercial stuff I can't see anyone giving a monkeys, even if they did, it wouldn't get further than a terse e-mail I reckon...
- wrongtest0
Yep, that's what I would have thought... However quite a few people seem to use the same type of images in commercial work.. In those cases I guess either they got permission (which seems unlikely) or the images or so old and so remote they just take a chance.
- stewardez0
i know that Joost Overbeek (graphic designer) bought (very) old photoalbums on a flea-market. He sometimes uses those pictures in his work.
http://www.joostoverbeek.nl/doesn't have anything to do with your question, but i just thougt it was nice to mention...
enfin
- wrongtest0
Stewardez... no that's interesting...guess that's a way of getting hold of some images that you can definitely use... Why would people sell their photo albums though?
- stem0
I guess it's the same sort of argument with 'samples' on records.
I guess in most cases you can go ahead and use it without permission, however, the minute someone sees that you are making money from it, the 'owners' of the original artwork want their share.
That whole question of how much the work has been altered is a huge grey area. And I guess if you don't wish to be fined then you have a responsability to either credit the original artist, or stop being lazy and tight and go find some original images or buy some.
Good point stewardez, family photo albums are a great archive.
- stewardez0
wrongtest
Sometimes when people die and have no relatives, teir whole possetion will be sold. incl personal stuff... rather sad.I heard the albums (Joost bought) were really old. In the albums are family and holidaypictures etc.
He bought an album where you can see happy-family photo's on the first pages, then there are photo's of the kids in some kind of camp, then you see photo's of the father in a nazi-uniform. (Pictures from the war-period) After that you see pictures of the family on holiday again. Like nothing ever happened. Those were taken after the war.
- wrongtest0
Stem, yeh I guess that may be how people view it. It always seems to me (looking at the kind of work I'm talking about) that it is often extremely complex, involving a large number of images, which would clearly take a long time to seek permission for.
The difficulty also is that often people seem to be looking for images from a different time and place, so it's impossible to go and take similar ones yourself.
- wrongtest0
Stewardez, I see what you mean about people who've died and have no one. It's a shame that memories will get lost like that.
Like you say, it's strange what story a photo album can tell.. I wonder how common it is to find old albums being sold off.