Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Headless
Hmm interesting...
Seems the laws are very vague on this subject...
|
Actually the law is not vague at all; however the rulings in real life cases have created the impression of the laws being vague.
This happens because of jury trials.
The jury is usually not very sophisticated when it comes to copyright laws.
After all, most of the illegal action being challenged is stuff that regular people do all the time; so they have a tuff time figuring out what is "right".
Basically is goes like this:
If the photoshopped piece does not resemble the original then you clear hurdle number one.
"Resemble"...not vague but subject to human error.
So if you photoshop my work and I can't even tell that it was originaly my
work then I wouldn't even know to persue it.
If none of the source pieces(ie collage) are recognizable as from a particular work then you clear hurdle number two.
For example: You can't paste the entire face of the Mona Lisa in your photo but you could definately place her nose or one eye etc...
Then there is reality...It depeneds on who's work you photoshop.
If you photoshop a pic that already included hardcore porn then the case will never be heard; the court simply doesn't give a shit, unless the original pic was done by Maplethorpe...then you fucked up.