Over The Easter Break.

[mic]

I was in a conversation with a person at a family gathering over Copyright of an Image, but this was the example,

Say you took an image off the internet and changed it, meaning a photograph say of a nude, it's not your picture but you changed it, took it and it is now not the same.

Altered in PS to something completely different & then you sold it in a shop for money.

I said it would be like taking a song and re hashing it and you would probably have to pay a royalty to the original artist ? or at least get his or hers permission ?

What would you say ?

Hope you all had a safe & happy easter.

Mic

[Hybrid]

If you were selling the picture then you'd most definitely need to get permission or work out a deal with the original artist.

I'm sure if you changed it enough you might be able to get away without permission but it certainly wouldn't be right. As for the actual law, I'm not really sure what the story is. I vaguely remember something from my uni days (I studied Multimedia) where you could use 10% without needing permission. That might just have been for music though... Or maybe that was just for lazy uni students

[gstark]

It's really very simple: Who owns your starting point?

[shutterbug]

you took an image off the internet.........

Illegal

[Hybrid]

Unless of course it is under Creative Commons or similar...

[foonji]

I vaguely remember something from my uni days (I studied Multimedia) where you could use 10% without needing permission. That might just have been for music though... Or maybe that was just for lazy uni students

yeah i remember that, for music only im sure.

[Matt. K]

Depends on how much you changed it. If the original creator couldn't recognise it then you would have no problems.

[macka]

I vaguely remember something from my uni days (I studied Multimedia) where you could use 10% without needing permission. That might just have been for music though... Or maybe that was just for lazy uni students

yeah i remember that, for music only im sure.

No, it is for all "works," where "work" means a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work.

Here is a link to the copyright act.

Edit: and those "fair use" provisions only apply in certain situations, such as for research, educational, parody purposes, etc.

[mic]

Hmmm interesting, and what Matt K says as well, very interesting.

Thanks for all your comments,

Mic

[mic]

So,

If I was to get and image off say a porn site, say of a tastefull nude for my transformation and apply heavy PS and change it so it really does't look like the original but now looks like a real piece of art.

Do I have to track down some Porn Photographer overseas and ask him can I do this to his piece of work ?

Mic

[macka]

So,

If I was to get an image off say a porn site, say of a tastefull nude

That would be problem number one right there.

so it really does't look like the original but now looks like a real piece of art.

The issue is not whether you make it look better. The issue is whether the original is recognisable.

I think you are bringing something else into this discussion, which is the issue of high vs low art. A producer of the latter is not any less entitiled to protection from copyright law.