Copyright Question for the Pro Artists & Designers

[Jim_Campbell]

I'm a bit unsure on this one and was wondering whether any of our illustrious board could provide something resembling definitive answer ...

At what point does a derivative work become sufficiently different from the original to be independent of the original's copyright?

For example: lightboxing. As I understand it, if you do a pretty much straight trace off a photograph, then you're copying the original work and need the copyright holder's permission to use the image.

However, given the common use of lightboxes, there must surely be a point where derivation becomes merely reference and copyright ceases to be an issue.

The reason I ask is because I came across some old digital artwork on some archive disks a while ago and wondered whether it could be repurposed on t-shirts or posters to make a couple of quid via Cafepress or someone.

One of these images is a collage, in which some twelve or so separate Photoshop layers are used. Eleven of them are either original creations by me, or confirmed royalty-free at source.

The twelfth is a pen and ink drawing of a face I made from a photo that I did not hold the copyright to. It's NOT a trace but it is - I suppose - a swipe since you could clearly identify the reference photo if the layer was pulled out of the montage and placed side-by-side with the original.

Given the length of time that has passed, and the obscurity of the original material, it's unlikely that this would come back and bite me, but I've been on the receiving end of some blatant copyright theft over the years, and I don't want to now be the one doing it to someone else.

Cheers!

Jim

[Wils]

Aieee! Copyright! An area that none shall tread lightly (or with much true understanding)!

I'm a bit(#) hazy on the subject, but I think you'd be ok. Although you've taken the photo as a basis for the drawing, you're not actually using the photo itself, or even a tracing and as you've produced it yourself (reference or no), I'd reckon on the copyright of the actual drawing being *yours*.

Someone with a better memory than me will now come along and prove me wrong!


I just hope your drawing's not from that photo of Fish with his cock out. ;)






(#)lot

[The Enigmatic Dr X]

SHORT ANSWER: It's hard to say if there is a problem.

LONG ANSWER: There are various issues to be balanced.

1) If you created the drawing then the copyright in it belongs to you. BUT, if it is a duplicate of another copyright picture then you could be infringing the copyright in it by duplciating it.

2) Have you actually duplicated it? Simply because two things look similar, it doesn't follow that they are copies of each other.

3) Even if it is a copy, if it forms part of a larger work then you might be able to claim some kind of exemption (dunno)

It strikes me that what you are doing is analagous to sampling old music to put into a new track, and that is certainly open to attack.

The FAQ below is quite useful.

Link: http://ahds.ac.uk/copyrightfaq.htm" target="_blank">Useful guide/ starting point

[pauljholden]

Would it not be simpler to replace that image with something new.

In regards to copyright: it's pretty complex and all falls to interpretation and how willing people are to put up a fight for their images. But it sounds like you'd have a decent chance of making the case that what you're doing is a new work.

- pj