Copyright / image use
- Started
- Last post
- 14 Responses
- Atkinson
I've never been certain about this [UK].
Say you were making a poster, for example. And needed a photograph of a guy with a mohawk. Went on Google got an image, cut the head out, changed the colour and used it on your poster. Is that OK? Where does copyright 'start and stop' with this type of situation?
- powershot0
learn from history
http://artsociety.suite101.com/a…
- orrinward0
It's risky using any imagery that is not your own and you have not got a license for.
With people it tends to be more of an issue as well as what you are doing is using their likeness to promote a product that they may not endorse.
You are likely to be infringing copyright, but whether or not you'd get caught is what you might think about.
Last year I was creating a carousel image for a football article and I'd cut out an image of a football only to get chased down by my editor.
There was something recently where a Greek mans picture was used, without his permission, to promote a Turkish yoghurt and successfully sued the Swedish company behind it.
- http://news.bbc.co.u…orrinward
- kind of obvious use that!Atkinson
- detritus0
I'm not sure UK law is as specific as it is in the States..
I'd do it, first considering the source of the image (choose one from far away - i'd be wary of choosing a British punk image, for instance), then amend it enough to distinguish it from the source.
"Just don't take the piss" is, I think, the only advice relevant.
- I say this, presuming you're talking about artwork/small run of something. You're not a print designer, no?detritus
- cilence0
If you use images of Flickr, they are generally covered by Creative Commons licences. These are much more lenient than Copyright.
- Atkinson0
I'm actually asking on behalf of a student, and kind of hypothetically. He's making a 'spec' poster based on the word 'resistance' He's got a head from a pic of a punk, turned it b/w, upped contrast, added a green filter. It still looks like the guy but he's changed three major things as well as it's context.
- If it's for student work they have the godly protection of being a student. Being a student tends to cover everything but outright plagiarism of other peoples work.orrinward
- plagiarism of other peoples work.orrinward
- yes, I'm talking about when he is no longer a student thoughAtkinson
- when he's no longer a student, he probably wont want it in his portfolio.. and as long as its not public, he's fineProjectile
- orrinward0
As Detritus pointed out, it's also about the scale of the project and the intent.
If it's for art or small run commercial design stuff you should be fine. If it's for Vodafone's latest poster campaign then steer clear.
If the picture you've Google is the main focus and draw of the picture you're more likely to get nicked on it than if it's just another face in the crowd.
- Atkinson0
- I personally think that looks very risky. Especially when the quote at the top almost satirises and sours what being a Punk is about. It's sort of a fashion declaration isn't it...orrinward
- about. It's sort of a fashion statement isn't it.orrinward
- .. and just WFT do you tell your students when this issue comes up?SlashPeckham
- lukus_W0
Just read this at http://www.rightsforartists.com/….
"Can't I take an image and change it to make it mine?
No. Because one of the exclusive rights granted under copyright is the individual right of the copyright owner to create derivative works from their original copyrighted material.
Modifying or altering an image is infringing upon the copyright owner's rights unless expressed permission is granted or the modification falls under fair use (which is highly unlikely).
In a few court cases, a modified image was not considered infringement because the original image was no longer recognizable due to the extent and variety of the alterations.
Altering or modifying published works is strongly not recommended because most artists, writers, musicians, photographers, etc., can recognize their own work even through modifications.
Many people believe the "myth" that if they change an existing image a percentage (10%, 30%, etc.), then they can legally use the image. Be advised: that is not the law."
- Projectile0
yeah ffs even buying images off Getty doesn't fully cover you. I've been sued by Rammstein for using their image even though it was a getty image!!
but seriously, if it's just a studenty spec project, one that's never going into the public domain other than on a protfolio, then I say go for it. but then again.. the work consists pretty much of the photo and a bit of type.. so in a way he's kinda stealing that work. in the real world, however, he'd have a budget to buy the image.
If i saw a photo of mine in a student's design i wouldn't give a toss, personally
- No, I think it's ok for students although not good precticeAtkinson
- It's an "if you have no other option" kind of a choiceorrinward
- In the real world, he MIGHT have a budget to buy the image...duckofrubber
- vaxorcist0
You remember a certain Obama poster from last year... it was based on a news photo, the designer is still dealing with the legalities....
- ukit0
The answer is almost certainly no. But the next question is, will anyone care.
- vaxorcist0
Jeff Koons vs Photographer Art Rogers
http://www.law.harvard.edu/facul…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rog…
- SteveJobs0
you could morph the face and shape of the head and quite literally turn it into another person/image entirely to the point where no one could even recognize the original work. Kind of like how old video game box art was obviously inspired by action movie posters, etc. or just draw over it.