Daistallia 2104
09-06-2006, 17:38
Something that came up elsewhere re NS - for manipulated photos, I had ubderstood the "rule" re copyright was at least 3 points of differeence. Can anyone point me to a legal type website that clarifies the fair use and digital manipulation issues for photographs?
Muravyets
09-06-2006, 19:13
For the US:
http://www.copyright.gov/
http://creativecommons.org/
And specific to Fair Use Doctrine:
http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html
Ashmoria
09-06-2006, 19:25
its my understanding that you can't alter a photograph and call it your own. no matter how different it ends up, if you started with someone else's work, its not yours.
proving the origins in court would be a different matter though.
Muravyets
09-06-2006, 20:03
its my understanding that you can't alter a photograph and call it your own. no matter how different it ends up, if you started with someone else's work, its not yours.
proving the origins in court would be a different matter though.
No, the Fair Use Doctrine allows for it under limited conditions. That's why Duchamp could paint a moustache on a copy of the Mona Lisa and have it listed as an original Duchamp work. This is how you have protections for parody and satirical art, and how you get found-image collage and montage artwork.
I had to learn this because I'm a collage artist. EDIT: For instance, if I want to use a photographer's image in one of my collages, I can use up to 3% of the other person's work without having to credit them or get their permission, but not more than that. My work is even safer if I alter the borrowed 3% even more, preferably in an obvious way, so as not to be implying that I took the original photograph. The idea is I have to walk a fine line between admitting I didn't make the original image, but not using so much of the other artist's work that it amounts to me making money off of his work.
But in general, one should avoid using an obviously copyrighted image without written permission because, if the copyright holder challenges you on it, you will have to defend your use of it in court. Nearly every year or so, some corporation like Mattel or Coca-Cola tries to sue satirical artists who use images of Coke or Barbie, and every one of those cases gets decided in the artist's favor, but it's very expensive and unpleasant.
Also, as you say, if the artist's use of the image is such as to imply that the artist is the original creator of the image, then there's no defense for that. Yo ass is sued, baby.