OK, I thought long and hard on this, and I still feel this is not ethical, but I would value others opinions too. Now that I own photoshop, I have been exposed to a new medium that seems to use things (*resource photos and such) in ways I was trained to think wrong. 

This is a hypothetical example:

There is an artist, they used several photos of other artist's works they took photos of in a gallery,  to photoshop them together and create a montage picture that is listed as "*thier" art. Now back in the day when I first started using PSP(*baby step towards PS), and doing Sigs (*cut and paste pics to depict a theme or someone, simuliar to an avatar), so many artists were angry at the sig communities for "sampling" and "marrying/combining" thier art with anywhere from 1-4 seperate other artist's works, to make one sig.

So I was trained and learned early on to respect and not "borrow" others work to "create" my own. It was explained to me that that was copyright infringement.

So when this artist here does exactly the same thing, to create art... is it wrong in the eyes of the photoshop community?

I really would like to know because as some of you may know I am very much aware and involved in striking down the 'orphin works act' currently being examined in congress. It essentially gives others the right to "borrow" art from any artist not listed in one of 3 enities (*not int. copyright law) to use very much like this. I feel it is wrong and on many levels inappropriate, and unethical. But as I said it comes from learning what was right and wrong from other well known artist's points of view.

How does the photshop community as a whole feel about this? Part of the reason I learned Poser/Vue/etc, was to make my own resource art, so that I never was tempted to "borrow" from another inappropriately ever again. Just plain confused.

Hugs

Ariana

Is there water in your future or is it being shipped away to be resold to you?
Water, the ultimate weapon...
www.futurefantasydesign.com

It's wrong, period.

If this artist has obtained permission to use those photos the way he/she is using them from the original author it's fine.  Some photomanipulations are works of art...  Not all of them, but some are...  ;)   But that's besides the point, what is important here is:  Did the author(s) of the photos give permission for their photos to be used this way?  That's the key...  Best way to find out would be to ask those photographers if they have given such permission.

Lucie
finfond.net
finfond.net (store)

With permission (and sometimes the author would want a fee - paying for usage rights) - yes.

Without permission - big huge no-no. It's also up to a $100,000 per incident (use it in a magazine, and a catalog - that's 2 incidents for the same image) no-no if you've made money off of it.

-Lew

Well I read no disclaimer of having permission. But I fully understand that if permission is obtained and/or the artist is selling thier work for use as a resource to others to create derivitive works from it. It seemed odd because I have seen a few here that are like this. One used a Nene Thomas Unicorn, another was created from a classic famous artwork.

The reason I ask is that I almost went to work here locally with a print company, and the owner freely told me that he (*and added 'No One' who photoshops) ever "buys" any art, but just "borrows" what he (*they) need(s) on-line! Well I did not go to work there. I guess I brought this up because I see this only in PS works because of it's unique ability to isolate and merge images. And I agree with you Lucie, many are beautiful, or unique creations that result in true works of art. : )  And of course everyone raves about how outstanding the art is. So how do you ask without seeming just plain rude.

I just want to understand the rules and how it all works. Seems there are endless TOU's for poser and other programs. But I have never seen any TOU per say on PS rules. Is there a place where (*or could someone here) explain the rules of use on PS use, creations and products?

ThanX Bunches!

Hugs

Ariana

 

Is there water in your future or is it being shipped away to be resold to you?
Water, the ultimate weapon...
www.futurefantasydesign.com

I just comes down to legalities - as dumb as that sounds.

PS is just such a monumentally huge program it would take bigger bills than congress sees to label everything you can and can't do.

I've seen an image where someone put a Poser figure in front of an image that was painted by Rapheal Lacoste - and in their description they clearly said something like "I found this online and loved it - I have no idea who did it but it made a perfect background".

Did they make money off of it? No.

Did they get permission? No.

Could Lacoste sue over this...? Yes... But recouping money for an image where no money was made... It mostly comes down to, say here on Rendo, making images that make people come to RENDO to eventually buy stuff... In the long run, Rendo will make money off of people coming here to see THEIR image - of which an unauthorized use of Lacoste's image was used. But it would cost more to sue than to send them a note saying "please take the image down".

We may say out loud "the Rendo gallery is free" but the hosting site is a commercial entity. Wal-Mart sells most of their CDs at cost - to get you in the building, and once you're there you're likely to buy OTHER stuff - get it?

Was it bad judgment and lack of any legal knowledge on the person to have done this? Yes.

Can you teach common sense? No.

Came across a DVD in Best Buy having to do with an asylum horror story - on the back I immediately recognized Rochr's image! Sent him an IM - no, they didn't ask for permission, and he asked that I send him a scan of the DVD case - I've never seen that cover in stores again.

It happens more and more - until you make money off of someone else's image, it's this muddy area of  "very rude", really.

Hope this makes sense-
-Lew

We're not really talking about photoshop rules per say, it would be more like rules for stuff that can be used in photoshop (or paintshoppro, gimp etc for that matter) and of course copyright laws.  And it's pretty much the same as the rules for using stuff in Poser which are respect the terms of whoever offer resources for those programs (those can be brushes, photos, illustrations etc...), and if you want to use images that belong to someone else, always ask permission.  If you don't know who the original author is, don't use it, if you ask the author and he doesn't reply to your request, take it as a no...  It's simple really...  ;) 

How do you ask without seeming plain rude?  Well I personally wouldn't ask the person who made the photomanipulation...  If you suspect permission wasn't given to use certain images, the best thing to do is to contact the author of those images that have been used, these authors will know if if they gave permission and let them handle it.  And if they didn't give permission and don't do anything about it, well...  It's their work that is being abused and you've done your best to help... 

Lucie
finfond.net
finfond.net (store)

Both sage advice. It is odd that the more you learn the more complicated it all becomes!  : D

I think I have my answer. Boggles the mind how so many artists, do overlook other artists rights and/or properties. But I also am not the internet police. It just struck a chord in me to ask where the line is, or if it exists at all.

Hugs

Ariana 

Is there water in your future or is it being shipped away to be resold to you?
Water, the ultimate weapon...
www.futurefantasydesign.com

*Boggles the mind how so many artists, do overlook other artists rights and/or properties.

*It does, doesn't it?  And very often, those who overlook other artists rights and properties are the most vicious about protecting their own...  The number of websites I have seen where there are tons of pages filled with copyright infringements and stamped all over the place are big copyright warning with "don't steal my work!", "respect my copyrights!" etc...  It's all a bit disgusting... *

Lucie
finfond.net
finfond.net (store)

It is odd that the more you learn the more complicated it all becomes!

Yup. True dat - true dat!
-Lew ;-)

So true!

Well I am off to test computers for the local thrift store! They get dozens of donations and don't know if any of them even work! So I volunteered to come down today and test some of them for them! Be back in a few hours time!

Hugs

Ariana

Is there water in your future or is it being shipped away to be resold to you?
Water, the ultimate weapon...
www.futurefantasydesign.com

ariana, thanks for yer good work in volunteering there.
IMVHO there are two main reasons why image manips that ya describe are so common:

• the transformative defence
• the copyright owners of the originals haven't got time to hunt 'em down

Hi Ms.Nancy! ThanX... for the props.
 

As for the transformitive effect, well if it isn't radically changed, (*as in looks like it is lifted and pasted, no visable difference from the original) I would think that would not apply here. But I still don't know about that. As most artist's I have encountered mainly dispised being combined with other artist's as if to say that thier work alone was not sufficiant?! 

(*hmmm)... I do see that there is a strong need for a form of 'high end clip art' that is of a quality that would make a photoshop artist want to have it in thier resource library. That is where I plan to focus my work this year on these sorts of products.

Have a great day,

Hugs

Ariana

 

 

Is there water in your future or is it being shipped away to be resold to you?
Water, the ultimate weapon...
www.futurefantasydesign.com

Quote - If this artist has obtained permission to use those photos the way he/she is using them from the original author it's fine.

And how many times does THAT happen?  lol

Yup, lots of people don't bother asking, but believe it or not, some do, I know I've been asked a few times, and then I also posted some photos here that I also sell as high res stock photos that can be used in photomanipulations, I sure wouldn't want some well intentionned folks who may not know that I also sell those photos as stock to start accusing people of stealing my work when they have in fact paid to be able to use it this way.

Lucie
finfond.net
finfond.net (store)

Yes and there is the problem. to know if and when or how to determine these things. I just look at some things and wonder where the line is drawn.

Lucie I have a suggestion for photos!!! I would love some deep woods that are straight on without fences, paths or water. If you got those sorts or plan to do some let me know! ; P Cause I think they would work great for imported background to build over!

Hugs

Ariana

Is there water in your future or is it being shipped away to be resold to you?
Water, the ultimate weapon...
www.futurefantasydesign.com

I'm not sure that I do have very many, but if not, I'll keep that in mind next time I go shoot some photos.  :)

Lucie
finfond.net
finfond.net (store)

: D

ThanX Lucie!

Hugs

Ariana

Is there water in your future or is it being shipped away to be resold to you?
Water, the ultimate weapon...
www.futurefantasydesign.com

I tend to get photos of what I need at Flickr, in which the majority of photos of the type I want are under creative commons licensing or outright free to use. And usually high rez. It's a great resource for materials. There are a couple of other sites like Flickr on line, but they don't always outright post the statement of use rights as Flickr generally does.

Talent is God's gift to you. Using it is your gift to God.

I wanted to say that I do do photography, and I am out in the desert... I thought to do some desert frames and wondered if anyone would like that sort of resource? We live very near the Paiute indian reservation and there are these tufa formations. Maybe I might do some of those... very unearthly and eerie looking!

Hugs

Ariana 

Is there water in your future or is it being shipped away to be resold to you?
Water, the ultimate weapon...
www.futurefantasydesign.com

You should do some, for many of us, the desert is very exotic and there can't be very many packs of desert photos out there...   :)

Lucie
finfond.net
finfond.net (store)

true true... When you live here, you see it and do love the beauty, but many think it is stark and too open. I go to a place by Lake Lahontan that has the wildest deadfall all over. And I would think, wow what a great idea for a background set.  So I guess I am going to go out this spring and put the old D-50 to work! It's too freakin' cold right now! 36 degrees! No snow, just butt chillin' frigid weather. : /

Hugs

Ariana 

Is there water in your future or is it being shipped away to be resold to you?
Water, the ultimate weapon...
www.futurefantasydesign.com

Go away!!!  You find that cold?  We're having -5 around here and that's without the windchill factor!  ;)

Lucie
finfond.net
finfond.net (store)

LOL! but it is a dry cold here...wait that's for heat... hmmm... I lived in Alaska and have seen -80 w windchill and a power outage! But I lived, and I guess I will survive this...  funny when you are younger the cold is pfft! LOL!

Hugs (*I'm off line for about 3 hours to do scan disk and anti virus...Be back Soon!)

Ariana

Is there water in your future or is it being shipped away to be resold to you?
Water, the ultimate weapon...
www.futurefantasydesign.com

Yup, I used to endure cold a lot better a few years ago, now I just can't wait for summer.  It's been one snowstorm after the other here for the past two weeks and I'm getting really sick of the cold and the snow.  My kids love it though, they missed 4-5 days of school because of the weather...  rofl

Lucie
finfond.net
finfond.net (store)

jeez! I hope y'all will be o.k.
it's been 60 or 70 F here.  no rain, no snow, no nothing.

Oh yeah MsNancy! be all warm and toasty while we freeze out collectives off! LOL!

Ha! Even the puppy doesn't want to go out to pee! :P

Hugs

Ariana

Is there water in your future or is it being shipped away to be resold to you?
Water, the ultimate weapon...
www.futurefantasydesign.com

Where do you live Miss Nancy?  I want to move somewhere around there!  rofl

Lucie
finfond.net
finfond.net (store)

The orginal question was,

"It is allowed to use several photos of other artist's works to photoshop them togetherand create a montage picture that is listed as "*their" art."

The answer is an resounding NO.

---

But I have another, more interesting question. What about using use several stock images to create a work, and then enlarge the resolution and replace all objects with your own materials, 3D generated or drawn by you or bought by you, whatever.

After that the finished composition contains no copyright material, but can say to have been "inspired" by the original images.

Is that ethical? (that it is legal can be in no doubt)
 

What about if a replacement can still be recognized even if it is painted anew in another medium? Like using PainterX to reproduce a photograph of a person?

?

I know, originally what promted the question was the use of a photo of a picture by an artist in a museum gallery. I am really new to the PS end of things, and what I think, seems to be not what a lot of PS users do. So that promted the question.

I know one of the reasons I have not been around DA, is the atmosphere is so harsh there. But also because of the use of "iffy" stock photos in works for sale or to be honest even viewing. "Free" is a touchy word w/o exact defining TOU's. I have seen what was promoted as "free stock photos" as long as you put the photographers name on the image, most don't do that, so is it still legal? So getting a clear answer to this and other ethics questions is important to me. I know I can trust the  people here because I know them, and can trust thier answers. 

Funny the main reason I learned poser was to create my own tubes, back when I used to do sigs. Settled the question of if it was legal and what I could do with it~!!! 

But that is what promted the question.

Hugs

Ariana

 

Is there water in your future or is it being shipped away to be resold to you?
Water, the ultimate weapon...
www.futurefantasydesign.com

Attached Link: Derivative Works

Vintorix,

I posted a thread in the Copyright Laws and Ethical Standards forum here at Renderosity which discussed a court case very similar to the example you described.  

http://www.renderosity.com/mod/forumpro/showthread.php?thread_id=2758488

The artslaw article refered to in my thread involved the recreation of a photograph into a painting and a photograph into a sculpture.  Direct link to this article is at the head of this post (Derivative Works).

My Renderosity Store
Virtual Furnishing
My Portfolio

An example to illustrate what I mean, is this ok?

 

Keppel,

Thanks for the links, but  I quote,  "he projected the image on canvas, sketched and painted it with very little modification". That was not what I meant.. Please look at the painting I posted above, the painting to the left, the reference image to the right, and tell me if you think it is ok or not.

It is late in Sweden, I have to go to bed. I will be interesting to read your comments and opinions tomorrow.

Is there clear originality injected into the painting above and not an infringing on the copyright holder of the  reference image?

That's the question. I can reveal so much, that I have a facit, sort of.

I looked at this pic and the main issue is

A) Are you the person who took this picture?

then...

B) Do you have permission to alter it? Or is there a written TOU, from the site you found it at? Did you follow that TOU? if so it would be fine.

Vintorix,
I think you may have misunderstood my comment, and question here. I do know it is not right to use this art, and I wanted to know from PS artists what thier opinion and take on things are. I say if you take the photo, or you sell the photo for a resource, or you post the photo with a very clear TOU for others to use it... it would be fine. But have a copy of that TOU always! To go into a museum and take a photo, to "borrow" from a site, or to otherwise obtain it without express permission to alter and sell/show/or otherwise utilize it is not.

I know of many sites with free resource photos/or resource backgrounds/art. I have honestly never found one that did not have a TOU that required the name of the site and/or the photographer to be on that resource photo for free. Most sites are a fee based site. You pay a membership, or buy a CD. As for legitimate free offers, I personally always write the vendor/artist and ask for permission, keep a copy in the folder the pic(s) is in. And one in a folder that has all my TOU's and Permissions. In other words, CYA...always.

When I post something free, my policy is to always give commercial permission. Why not? But many post free resource/photo's/textures and have no intention of letting anyone use the item commercially. And they state that (*or not). That happens all the time. So check first, and get it in writting! 

Hugs

Ariana 

 

 

Is there water in your future or is it being shipped away to be resold to you?
Water, the ultimate weapon...
www.futurefantasydesign.com

Keppel, that is a good article...I am glad you put the link here.

Thank you!!!

Hugs

Ariana

Is there water in your future or is it being shipped away to be resold to you?
Water, the ultimate weapon...
www.futurefantasydesign.com

lucie, we're in california.  but if ya really like it hot, it's twice as hot in queensland (down under)
right now.  no snow there either. :lol:

vint, on that photo reference and painting, IMVHO the painter should get permission from
the photographer before selling the painting, but it would come under the transformative
defence if the painter didn't get permission.  then a judge and/or jury would hafta decide
the case, hence we don't know if it's o.k. without a trial. I ain't a lawyer.

It was impossible to sleep. :)

DarkPhazeGraphix, "I think you may have misunderstood my comment"

Your orginal question was answered load and clear, but then I posed another question.

MY question was: "Is it okay to use several images to create a composition if you recreate/repaint all in a different medium?"

And the answer is that it is allowed if
"there are clear originality injected into the product"

Therefore the case I quoted above is OK, and the artist doesn't have to ask for permission.

Brian Rice: "This photo and painting show how I use a reference but I am not being a slave to the photo. You will see that I just used the photo as an idea."

http://painting.about.com/od/paintingforbeginnersfaq/ig/Painting-Problem-Solver/BrianRice-WellHouse.htm

So, by United States laws, it allowed to use several images (=anything) to create a composition if you recreate/repaint all in a different medium and inject clear originality into the product.
 

Well I have to say that on this I disagree. If you use anothers work, you need permission. Weither reworked or not, the original image is the property of the original artist. So you must ask before altering anything. I also call that professional courtesy. And good busines/life ethics.

Hugs

Ariana

Is there water in your future or is it being shipped away to be resold to you?
Water, the ultimate weapon...
www.futurefantasydesign.com

DarkPhazeGraphix,  "Well I have to say that on this I disagree."

Disagree with what? I agree with:

1. professional courtesy, yes
2. being ethical, yes

So what do we disagree upon? 

There can be a little impractical to get hold of 4-5 different photographers found on the internet for permission to use a little tree or whatever. IMO this thing has gone too far. Copyright was invented to protect real works of art, like Turner or Monet.

By the laws of United States, it is allowed to use several copyrighted images to create a composition if you recreate/repaint all in a different medium and inject clear originality into the product. You don't have to ask permission.

I hope this is sorted out now.

Ya know, this would make for a really good debate...  What if the one who painted the image just happened to have been at the same location and painted the shed from the same angle the photographer took his photo?  Ok, the odds of that happening would be very slim, but still...  Just this week I was looking at photos entered in a contest and saw one that looked extremely familiar, I actually thought my husband had posted it but it wasn't him.  It turns out the two photos, hubby's and the contestant's were slightly different, but they were of the same place, same POV, very similar compo, they were similar enough that I had to look closely to notice they were different.  So what if instead of a photo, this person would have done a painting, this painting would look very very much like it was based on my husband's photo, what then?  What does the painter do to prove he hasn't used the photo at all? 

Lucie
finfond.net
finfond.net (store)

it is allowed to use several copyrighted images to create a composition if you recreate/repaint all in a different medium and inject clear originality into the product. You don't have to ask permission.

I think that's what makes the difference DPG, you're mostly talking about photomanipulations where the copyrighted images actually end up in the artwork, in a photomanipulation, the images are not recreated in a different medium or painted, they're pasted and manipulated into the artwork.  In the case of the shed up there, the photo was only used as a reference, but no parts of the actual photo have actually been used, the painter started with paint on a white canvas only looking at the photo to recreate it and this I don't think is illegal. 

Lucie
finfond.net
finfond.net (store)

A list of 10 sites which all have high resolution photos (2000-3000 pix)
for free download.

www.morguefile.com
www.everystockphoto.com
www.imageafter.com
www.nationsillustrated.com
www.openphoto.net
www.pixelio.de
www.stockvault.net
www.unprofound.com
www.photogen.com
www.sxc.hu

There are literaly millions of photographs, there is even a site that finds the
right image for you, photorogue.com. There is no need to ever buy a photograph.

Notice that you will not find any site on internet where
you can download art for free.
 

Vintorix,

What I was trying to show was that it is not the method or the medium but the similarity with the original work that is important.

My Renderosity Store
Virtual Furnishing
My Portfolio

Yes I understand that keppel, and you are quite correct in this.

But if the new work shall show clear originality, it is a little easier if it is recreated/repainted in a new medium don't you think? If we shouldn't allow this, half of the western art/music masterpieces could be ditched. Actually you don't have to change a thing. It may be enough to ADD to show enough originality. Like with Ave Maria.

"Written by French Romantic composer Charles Gounod in 1859, Ave Maria consists of a melody superimposed over the Prelude No. 1 in C major from Book I of the Well-Tempered Clavier (BWV 846), composed by J. S. Bach some 137 years earlier. The result is a remarkable juxtaposition of these short works by two unrelated composers that fits perfectly as a melody and accompaniment."

Regarding myself I often use photomontage to inspire what I do. But I always recreated/change it so much that it is unrecognizable. But the thing is, at one stage in the development ( before it is finished as a preliminary sketch or preparatory work), it may still be recognizable, so it was useful even if the final work look nothing like it.

Most photographers have a too high opinion of themselves. The thing is, very few photographs count as a real work of art in the legal sense. You have yourself shown, if not enough originality is present in the original work, you can not sue anyone for making derivative compositions from it.

There is a famous high profile court case in USA, where a museum tried to claim that their photographs of the paintings in the museum, in their own sense was a work of art and should have copyright protection. But they lost. It was ruled that the photographs did not contained enough originality.

So, photographs do not enjoy the same protection as a work of art. Except in the few cases that the photograph itself counts as a work of art. Very few Photographs do.

"How do you know so much about copyright? You are not a lawyer".

That is true, but I have written a thesis about copyright laws and I have published copyrighted works through my life (although not digital images -yet).

In practise photographs can actually be divided into 3 categories.

1. Normal photographs, protected but by a different law.

2. Photograph that classes as work of art and are protected like work of art.
   (But very few photos fall into this class)

3. Photographs that does not have any protection at all, like when you take a picture of a painting. Such photographs can be used freely in USA. 

P.S.
For education there are lots of exceptions, called "fair use".
 

"Such photographs can be used freely in USA". 

Provided the orginal painting is in public domain of course!  :)

You probably know more about copyright law than I do given your studies/thesis.  I am not a lawyer, I  am only offering my opinions based on my reading.   In cases other than a photo of an existing copyright protected piece of art the "content" of a photograph is not really relevant insofar as being judged a "work of art".  The copyright law is there to protect the rights of the photographer to the image captured.  A photographer who captures the assassination of a political figure, the knockout punch in a historic boxing match or the latest escapades of Paris Hilton has rights to the image.  None of these would count as a work of art.  Art critics have declared a piece of art a work of genius only to find it was painted by a chimpanzee so art is completely subjective but none of that changes the right to copyright protection.  Although I don't know if a chimp can own the rights to its painting:)

In your example of the photos of the works of art, I would suggest that it is not the fact that it was a photograph but that the "image" did not contain any originality.  If I painted the Mona Lisa as a reproduction then I would expect that the ruling would have been the same.

There is nothing wrong in using photos as inspiration but in relation to copyright infringement I don't think that it matters the "medium" if the image is recreated/repainted/reproduced so that it looks like the original.  Many matte paintings that are used in movies begin as a photo that gets manipulated, painted over, then has additional cgi elements and light effects added in.  At certain stages of the matte the original source material may still be recognizable but in the end the image bears no resemblance to the source images.

The question you have to ask yourself is if someone looked on the source/reference photo and your painting do they see substantial similarities between the two images?

My Renderosity Store
Virtual Furnishing
My Portfolio

keppel,

I agree to everything you say! The only thing that needs to be added is Sense Of Proportions.

"While copyright law makes it technically illegal to reproduce almost any new creative work (other than under fair use) without permission, if the work is unregistered and has no real commercial value (= 99.9 % of all photographs ), it gets very little protection."

What I have to say at last is not applicable to me, because I always change into unrecognizable and use free databases anyway.

But if a young student approach me and ask "I want to borrow this insignificant little plant from this photograph, I know I don't have to ask permission but should I do it anyway to be courteous and polite?" Then I would advice against it. The reason?

Because the photographer who invariable has a inflated opinion over himself would only become even more unbearable, transcending the know limits of the universe.  I am sad to say, that is my experience.

"[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?

Lucie
finfond.net
finfond.net (store)

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...  :)

Lucie
finfond.net
finfond.net (store)

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

Lucie
finfond.net
finfond.net (store)

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...

Lucie
finfond.net
finfond.net (store)

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.