A question for DU photoshop/cut-up artists:

[CanuckAmok]

Let's say you take an existing copyrighted image, for example GWB or Syd Barrett, and you "reinterpret" or otherwise manipulate it for your own means or to convey a new message of some sort.

When you publish your own "reinterpretation", do you copyright it?

And if so, are you serious, or are you drawing attention to the fact that you're attempting to invoke a Roman-age law for your own benefit, even though you clearly don't respect others' claim to the same protection?

What I mean is, are you being ironic?

Or is it something else?

[Ghost in the Machine]

1. my understanding was that photos of public figures such as Dumbya

and the rest of them were covered under public domain... I could be wrong though...

[CanuckAmok]

2. Not necessarily

It's more complicated than that.

Example: the Zapruder film is copyright, even though it's undeniably of a public figure and arguably in the public domain. You must pay the Zapruder estate if you use any of the footage in any public setting.

Like this:

[begin_within]

4. When a photo is taken, whoever operated the camera owns the copyright,

unless they are taking it under contract to someone else or to some organization, and there is a contract which stipluates that the other person or organization will own the copyright to it. If there is no such contract, the photographer owns the rights to the photo - even if it is a photo of a "public figure," the image is still copyrighted.

[CanuckAmok]

5. Are you sure?

I know it's true in Canada and Britain, and I'm pretty sure it's true in the US, that the human subject of the photo owns the rights to the image unless the subject specifically releases those rights to another party (ie the photographer). It's not the photograph that's copyrighted, per se, it's the image. That's why releases must be signed by the subjects of images, not the photographers (although photographers who claim copyright are usually required to sign a release when selling/licensing their claimed copyright to a third party). Most professional photographers will have their subjects sign a release to them if they are going to claim copyright.

I know this is true, at least here, because I deal with "likeness" (read: image) law at work.

I believe the only time that doesn't necessarily apply is when the subject is considered to be a "public figure", ie a politician or celebrity. In Canada it boils down to whether or not the subject's profession or notoriety specifically advances his public visibility. Basically, by becoming a public figure, he acknowledges that his image has become part of the public domain.

Of course this is all critically blurred when issues like "fair use" are argued (in the case of satire), or in the case of news/current affairs documentation, in which the public's right to know/freedom of the press is often argued.

For the record, that's how "COPS" gets away with taping and broadcasting all those people getting arrested without securing releases or compensating them; "COPS" claims to be a news show, and is therefore exempt from many aspects of copyright.

[ChavezSpeakstheTruth]

8. it is true. At my school they teach us that you can't even copy by hand

someone's photo without permission

[begin_within]

11. The model owns some rights to their "likeness" and in the case of posed

photographs there is always a contract between the model and the photographer, called a "model release" which usually gives all rights to that particular photo or session of photographs to the photographer. However the photoraph itself always starts out as being owned by whoever actually took the photo, unless it has been assigned in writing to an agerncy or corporation, and the photographer is doing a "work for hire" spelled out in the contract between the agency and the photographer. If you sit down and pose for a photograph for me, I can't publish it without your permiision in fhe form of a written model release that you sign, agreeing that your likeness can be used in that manner. However, the copyright to the photo is owned by me, unless I give the right to someone else in writing. You initially own the right to your own likeness, but I initially own the right to any photograph that I take. Anyone who wants to publish the photo, such as a magazine, has to make a written agreement with me. All of these relationships have to be spelled up in writing, or else everyone will end up in court later. There have been stories of famous people who have sued to stop the publication of photos that they posed for years earlier (and in which they appeared nude or whatever) but lost the case because they signed a model release at the time the photos were taken. There are rules about when a model release is not required, such as with public figures. For example, if GWB appears at a public event and you take a picture of him, you may not be required to get him to sign a model release before allowing that photo to be published. I do not know exactly what those rules are, somewhere it is spelled out though.

[ChavezSpeakstheTruth]

7. you are wrong

[begin_within]

3. It is always best to get written permission from the copyright owner of

the original copyrighted work you are using, whether it is words, pictures, sound, video, whatever. Somebody, somewhere owns the copyright to it, unless the copyright has expired (which takes decades). Get permission in writing from the owner and you will always be safe. If you don't, you run the risk of facing a copyright infringement lawsuit from the copyright owner. There have been cases of this, for example, someone sampling a few seconds of someone elses's recorded song and using it in their own recording. If you use a photo or a portion of a photo, you run the risk of whoever owns the rights to that photo suing you for infringement. There is such a thing as "fair use" when using copyrighted material without permission, but it is dangerous and it is possible to end up in court. You can do searches for the terms "copyright," "infringement" and "fair use" for more details. If you plan to distribute or make money off what you create, which uses in any way previously copyrighted material, it is always wise to cover your own butt legally first.

[ChavezSpeakstheTruth]

9. even if you use filters and distort it then put your own copyright on it

:thumbsup:

[CanuckAmok]

13. what about vomit?

Like, say I took a copyrighted image, puked on it, scanned the result, and posted the result?

[ChavezSpeakstheTruth]

14. Would you sell it?

Like on your website?

[CanuckAmok]

19. You mean start a website to sell my art?

First of all, I'm not an artist.

Secondly, how? Sounds interesting.

[ChavezSpeakstheTruth]

6. If you make money with it, like posting it on a website with payed ads

then you are breaking the original content makers copyrights. So it's illegal and silly.

[Hugin]

10. Who knows what the law is now... But, it used to be.

If an item was changed 90% from it's original it was considered a "New Work".

This rule was very common especially for software.

[asthmaticeog]

12. With software, there's code that can be compared.

For a creative work, especially a fair-use/derivative work, it's not exactly possible to determine what 90% means, though.

[begin_within]

15. I think the test is something like, "Would a reasonable person be able to

recognize the original work in the derivative work?" or something like that. I read about all this stuff when I worked at a newspaper 10 years ago, but I have forgotten most of it in the mean time. There is something about "Would a reasonable person" and all that.

[asthmaticeog]

16. That gets trickier with fair-use stuff, though.

Often, specifically in the case of parody, one *must* recognize the original or the point is entirely lost. But I may be going off-topic - I think the OP is referring more to internet Photoshoppers who freely take wire service photos, alter them to lampoon the subjects, and then post them with their own copyright notices. The thing here is that the works are being taken to lampoon their subjects, not the works or the works' original creators, which puts it on shaky legal ground, especially when the deriviatives are re-copyrighted (quite possibly illegally) by creators who didn't license the photos to begin with as per the reprint demands of their owners, and who then post them on websites that earn ad revenue.

On edit: I'm in the newspaper business myself, as a graphic artist. I've done my fair share of that kind of work, but I'm always careful to use freely-available pics of public figures, like the official portraits that USA taxpayers pay for, or to just suck it up and license the things. All that said, I think copyright law is a bit too onerous about this sort of stuff.

[begin_within]

17. If I was a professional photographer, I would not want anyone to use any

part of my photos for any purpose, without getting permission in writing from me first. And of the pro photographers I know and have know, I think they would all share the same sentiment. Certainly to take a copyrighted photo, and manipulate it in some way, and claim a new copyright on the result, is really stretching things - especially if you don't have permission from the original photo's owner.

[El Fuego]

18. The Copyright Office calls that a "derivative work"

You're supposed to have the permission of the original copyright owner to use their work. If you did, you could get a copyright registration for your "reinterpretation."

[billyskank]

20. You are asking: after infringing someone else's copyright

can you copyright the derivative? Are you serious? Not without licence from the original copyright holder, you can't.