"[wrong if] it looks like the original"

Actually that is not correct. The court is going to look for clear originality, not if the copy is recognizable or not. By the way, a copyright infringement is not a crime, the original author can only sue for damages, an injunction against the publication. If the court rules against you, you may end up paying your opponents court costs so if you are just a bit unsure, it is better to be generous.

Quote - By the way, a copyright infringement is not a crime

If it is not a crime, what is that FBI / Interpol warning (at the beginning of most of my DVDs telling me I may go to prison and face enormous fines) all about?

There are many other laws of intellectual property, for instance Trade Mark law. But but for our purpose, if one artist 'steal' from another artist that it is a copyright infringement: a civil case. There are one exception though. If the value is over value over $2500, then it is a felony. This change was introduced in USA in the 90s.

Sounds reasonable, but it is my understanding that virtually everything is copyrighted, i.e., I could write a poem, or a short story, or perhaps even a letter and claim copyright on it, but would it matter if I couldn't prove any damages?

And suppose someone creates a derivative work based on the work of other artists. Is that derivative work now protected by copyright law, too? Even if it was done without the consent of the other artists? If so, wouldn't the law then be protecting the copyright of someone who did not respect the copyrights of others and who is guilty of infringement?

And what about this: If a friend of mine drew a picture and it was our verbal understanding that I would turn it into a painting, and before the painting was finished, I and the friend then lose track of one another, and sometime later I complete the painting that is based on the drawing the friend did, and I cannot locate said friend in spite of my best effort, if I then post that, or sell it, or use it or allow anyone else to use it in any other way, would that be copyright infringement?, i.e., it is my painting, but his drawing, but we had a verbal agreement, but ...

(the above situation actually happened to me)

donquixote, I have explained to the best of my knowledge. If you want to know more, you must consult a lawyer. Someone specialized in intellectual property law. Theory is one thing - practice is another. That real artists steal from other artists is very uncommon, it is really not a problem, It is photographs that is the problem.

Sense of proportions is the most important thing in life. –Winston Churchill.

In juridical terms there is a concept called "natural law", = what people thinks is right and wrong. The legislative powers strive (ideally) so that written law and natural law coincidence. All photographers like to think of themselves as artists. And the modern law tend to agree with them. But in practice the "natural law" does not agree.  If all copyright infringements of photographs not registered and with no commercial value should be taken to court they would have nothing else to do for the next 1000 years or so. One simply cannot sue for $10. In addition there are million of millions of free photographs on dozens of sites on internet. Demand and supply rules.

Then I have a question I don't have answer too. I have won two or three times in competions by Photos.com in Graphics.com website. The price allowed me to download how many of their photos I wanted during a period of once 1month and twice 3 months. of course I downloaded a lot. There are no notions of any kind who the photographer is, just a number on every stockphoto.
I have understood it so that I don't have to every time I use something in a painting or a manipulation write that this I won in a competition from photos.com.
We have discussed it in 2D forum but not come to any clear result. Tne best is of course to mail photos.com and ask. When I got my price there were nothing written about copyrighr or that I should mention photos.com when I used the photos.

gunsan,

First I congratulate you for winning not one, but two prizes! Heja Sverige!

I would say that in your case, the general rules in effect for Photos.com and/or Graphics.com must be valid. Every reasonable person understands that a photo manipulation consisting of 4-5 (part of) images or even up to 10-11 or more, can not credit every living soul. The credit is only necessary if you use the whole picture.

I often use stockphotos from Deviantart.com. When I do that I always credit the photographer, plus that I have a gallery at Deviantart where I publish my creations, so the photographer can see how I used their photo. In almost every case they are curious to see how their photos, so generously given are used. (http.//gunsan.deviantart.com)

Anyway I found it a little different with the photos.com photos. First, it is almost always textures I am interrested in, and them I change so there often is no similarity with the texture I downloaded.

Another question follows naturally after this. if I buy a CD with stockphotos, have I still to mention from where I bought it??

This surely is a jungle!!!!

gunsan, "This surely is a jungle!!!!"

You are soo right. The law doesn't mention "part of a photo in a photo manipulation", so one has to retort to common sense. One thing I know for sure. It is more serious to go across the street against red light than not to credit the author of PART of a picture you otherwise have the right to use.

The terms of use for photos.com look very complicated...  On the first page of the site it says:  "no credits required" but on their terms page it says:  "JUPITERIMAGES requests the copyright notice "© [insert current year] Jupiterimages Corporation" appear adjacent to the Image(s) or on a credit page."

They also have this in their terms that would make me nervous a bit:

"JUPITERIMAGES reserves the right to (i) not permit use of any Image(s) for any reason whatsoever; and (ii) notify you that certain Image(s) are no longer available for use. Upon such notification, the license to use such Image(s) shall automatically and immediately terminate.

JUPITERIMAGES reserves the right to replace Image(s) with an alternative Image for any reason. Upon notice of such replacement, the license for the replaced Image(s) immediately, and automatically, terminates for any use of the Image(s) that does not already exist, and this Agreement shall automatically apply to any replacement Image(s). You agree not to use any replaced Image(s) with future products or services and you shall take all reasonable steps to discontinue use of the replaced Image(s) in existing products or services."

Does that mean that you download an image, use it for some project, put many hours of work in it but then they turn around and decide that nobody is permitted to use that image anymore, you have to flush all your work?

I have not heard of Jupiter images. Oh it goes round in my head!!!!

I am not going to do anything of images I have made, because I am of that sort that making an image is the main thing, Then I kind of forget it and loose interrest in it. Anyway, I have not posted anywhere else than here at RR. I don't even have a homesite outside here.
I have galleries with anmal paintings, but that is quite another thing, often made for customers.

If I am honest i really dislike most of the photos.com photos, so as I said I have most textures. i dont like their photos of people or other items. So I have not used them so much.
Also I have very hard to go back in my own steps because I work intuitively. Many have asked how I make an image, and I cannot even answer to that. I am not so much for working systematically.

JupiterImages is photos.com (I think)...  lol  Those quotes up there are copied from the terms of use on photos.com anyway so I assume they're the same...

Also I have very hard to go back in my own steps because I work intuitively. Many have asked how I make an image, and I cannot even answer to that.

I'm very much like that too...  :)

By the way Gunsan, your paintings are fantastic, your image "I believe in angels" blew me away. 

Thanks Lucie!

Copyright law is not more difficult or convoluted that other law. Is is just that it isimpossible (in all laws not just copyright law) to cover every conceivable case into tiniest detail. Therefore it is unavoidable to use sense of proportions and common sense. That is what the courts do. Most people understand that it is neither practical or even desirable to credit every photographer in a photo manipulation composition, the effect would be that of ridicule -the opposite of what is wanted. But there will always be rigid and inflexible people in the world, it is called "paragrafrytteri, swedish for "pettyfoggery".
I understand your reaction but don't despair. Jupiterimages and photo.com's preposterousclaims can never be made to hold in reality.

A low resolution picture taken by an amateur photographer is not a "work". The credit for a beautiful landscape scenery belongs to the landscape architect or nature itself.

The credit for a beautiful landscape scenery belongs to the landscape architect or nature itself.

I dare ya to go and repeat this in the photography forum...

The rules for works of art are straightforward it is photographs that’s muddles the issues.

...the European Visual Archive report on copyright issues [EVA] lists no less than five differing expert opinions on when photographs are covered by United Kingdom copyright and by whom.

:)

http://www.chin.gc.ca/English/Intellectual_Property/Virtual_Display_Case/obligations.html

Eventually the judicial system will lift common photographs from the burden of copyright (Remember that you read it here first) but it will take looong time.