Who owns the rights to a photochop? - GoFuckYourself.com

dropped9 · 04-15-2005, 10:17 AM

Simple question... Who owns the right to a photochopped image?

Like this one for example...

Meta Ridley · 04-15-2005, 10:18 AM

its illegal to photoshop a copyrighted image.

StuartD · 04-15-2005, 10:20 AM

I would imagine that the elements used within are still the property of the photographer/image creator.

Like, if I was to take a picture of a landscape.... it's my property. But you take a picture of yourself and photochop yourself into it, I can still claim that you're "using" my picture... but can't claim the photochopped picture itself. Just the element within.

dropped9 · 04-15-2005, 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NichePay - StuartD

I would imagine that the elements used within are still the property of the photographer/image creator.

Like, if I was to take a picture of a landscape.... it's my property. But you take a picture of yourself and photochop yourself into it, I can still claim that you're "using" my picture... but can't claim the photochopped picture itself. Just the element within.

Hmm interesting...

Seems the laws are very vague on this subject...

dropped9 · 04-15-2005, 10:23 AM

Is a photochop considered art thus governed by different laws?

Pete-KT · 04-15-2005, 10:31 AM

Hey headless Since i own the copyright to that image i ask you remove it

dropped9 · 04-15-2005, 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pete-KT

Hey headless Since i own the copyright to that image i ask you remove it

"I can still claim that you're "using" my picture... but can't claim the photochopped picture itself"

So fuck oFF! I own the copyright on the chop.

Pete-KT · 04-15-2005, 10:37 AM

I own the right to the picture you used to photochop in there, So why the hell do u have it out for me? since you always ignore when i ask that

sickkittens · 04-15-2005, 10:39 AM

I would say the original owner of the pic.

dropped9 · 04-15-2005, 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pete-KT

I own the right to the picture you used to photochop in there, So why the hell do u have it out for me? since you always ignore when i ask that

Yes you own the right to the pic used to make the chop... But I own the chop since i created it.

Who said I have it out for you?

If I did dont you think I would be bashing your ass left and right?

Pete-KT · 04-15-2005, 10:43 AM

Just asking so what with all the picking on me then? are you just having fun? if so then thats cool

i need some pics of you to photochop

dropped9 · 04-15-2005, 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pete-KT

Just asking so what with all the picking on me then? are you just having fun?

I cant resist poking a really noob nooby....

Pete-KT · 04-15-2005, 10:48 AM

Oh ok, hey headless what do u run?

dropped9 · 04-15-2005, 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pete-KT

Oh ok, hey headless what do u run?

A business.

Pete-KT · 04-15-2005, 10:51 AM

hehe what kind? paysites, tgp, traffic?

dropped9 · 04-15-2005, 10:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pete-KT

hehe what kind? paysites, tgp, traffic?

An internet based business..

TKoProductions · 04-15-2005, 10:53 AM

Copyright law is really a bundle of rights which someone holds exclusive ownership over. A few of those rights include the right of adaptation and public distribution.

If you were to photochop (or adapt) a copyrighted image, and thereafter distribute it over the internet via a forum, you've commited copyright infringement.

dropped9 · 04-15-2005, 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TKoProductions

Copyright law is really a bundle of rights which someone holds exclusive ownership over. A few of those rights include the right of adaptation and public distribution.

If you were to photochop (or adapt) a copyrighted image, and thereafter distribute it over the internet via a forum, you've commited copyright infringement.

Thanks for the great response!

TKoProductions · 04-15-2005, 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Headless

Thanks for the great response!

You're welcome!

Jakke PNG · 04-15-2005, 10:57 AM

Does anyone know where I can find celebrity pics which are free to use..and legal.
I have found a few non-really-celeb people who have pictures on their site for 'press' use and so forth.. could those be modified, say photoshopped into a nude picture of which I hold rights to?

I wanna do (legal) celeb fakes.

dropped9 · 04-15-2005, 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TKoProductions

Copyright law is really a bundle of rights which someone holds exclusive ownership over. A few of those rights include the right of adaptation and public distribution.

If you were to photochop (or adapt) a copyrighted image, and thereafter distribute it over the internet via a forum, you've commited copyright infringement.

Ok so lets take this pic for example... I googled it...

The photochoped head gave permission, but the body is a copyrighted image... So only issue is the body...

Juicy D. Links · 04-15-2005, 10:59 AM

I have done biz with Headless and take my word both he and I made good $$$ from our Ventures.

dropped9 · 04-15-2005, 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Juicy D. Links

I have done biz with Headless and take my word both he and I made good $$$ from our Ventures.

dropped9 · 04-15-2005, 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Headless

Ok so lets take this pic for example... I googled it...

The photochoped head gave permission, but the body is a copyrighted image... So only issue is the body...

Is something like this considered art? And if so can the person who chopped it claim the rights?

Pete-KT · 04-15-2005, 11:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Juicy D. Links

I have done biz with Headless and take my word both he and I made good $$$ from our Ventures.

kool thanks juicy

TKoProductions · 04-15-2005, 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TeenGodFather

Does anyone know where I can find celebrity pics which are free to use..and legal.
I have found a few non-really-celeb people who have pictures on their site for 'press' use and so forth.. could those be modified, say photoshopped into a nude picture of which I hold rights to?

I wanna do (legal) celeb fakes.

The Fair Use Doctrine permits the press/media to use copyrighted material for news reporting, criticism, and commenting.

You would need to receive licensing from both the photographer of the celebrity, and the photographer of the body which you intend to place the celebrity's face over.

Now whether or not you're violating the celebrity's right of publicity is a whole other matter. Many famous people hold a property right over their image, and you could be accused of missapropriation of their right of publicity.

TKoProductions · 04-15-2005, 11:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Headless

Is something like this considered art? And if so can the person who chopped it claim the rights?

No, it's not art, and the person who chopped it holds no rights. The original photographer of each of those pictures owns the rights. Without permission, each photographer could sue you for copyright infringement.

So lets say the person who owns the copyright over the face granted you permission. The person who owns the copyright to the body could still sue you.

borked · 04-15-2005, 11:15 AM

IANAL, but it seems pretty straight forward really - you simply don't have the right to chop it or take a head to place it on your own image. <-period.

cop·y·right n. The legal right granted to an author, composer, playwright, publisher, or distributor to exclusive publication, production, sale, or distribution of a literary, musical, dramatic, or artistic work.

dropped9 · 04-15-2005, 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TKoProductions

No, it's not art, and the person who chopped it holds no rights. The original photographer of each of those pictures owns the rights. Without permission, each photographer could sue you for copyright infringement.

So lets say the person who owns the copyright over the face granted you permission. The person who owns the copyright to the body could still sue you.

How can it not be considered art? If a designer uses photoshop to make a design, and a designer uses photoshop to make a chop wouldnt they both be considered art? Take into consideration the fact that for each the designer must use his artistic abilities to make the final product.

Its a very iffy subject if you ask me...

borked · 04-15-2005, 11:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Headless

How can it not be considered art?

It doesn't matter if what you produced is art (btw, anything that you create on canvas, whether it be a simple . dot is art), the fact is you reproduced part of a copyrighted image, which is not allowed.

Take for example music sampling - the risqué music sampler will sample music still under copyright, but it's very hard in sampled music to say the sampler used original music and just changed it in some way or whether they remade the sounds from the original work and resampled it (thereby getting around copyright, since they reproduced original work by them selves and then changed it by themselves, wherby the new sound is ALL their own work)

Nomatter how you photoshop an image, it is still the original image you took in the first place, and for that you have absolutely zero rights. Nomatter what you created was a new entity.

Let's say I own the domain goole.com and take the actual gif of google.com, yet remove the second 'g'. This is slightly a grey area, since I can easily reproduce goole.com using google.com font and colours and it would be my own work, but had I taken their original gif, and google could prove it I'd be way up shit creek long before the lawsuits for trying to rip off their trademark...

TKoProductions · 04-15-2005, 11:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Headless

How can it not be considered art? If a designer uses photoshop to make a design, and a designer uses photoshop to make a chop wouldnt they both be considered art? Take into consideration the fact that for each the designer must use his artistic abilities to make the final product.

Its a very iffy subject if you ask me...

Copyright law exists to protect the product of ones intellect.

In the case of a designer using photoshop to create a design, he or she is independently creating an original piece of work.

In the case of a photochop, the person is knowling stealing copyrighted material to be used as a form of compiliation.

I understand where you are headed, but courts don't enforce what is called the sweat of the brow doctrine. They will not grant you a copyright simply as a reward for the time, effort, or skill you put into a works creation.

TKoProductions · 04-15-2005, 11:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Headless

How can it not be considered art? If a designer uses photoshop to make a design, and a designer uses photoshop to make a chop wouldnt they both be considered art? Take into consideration the fact that for each the designer must use his artistic abilities to make the final product.

Its a very iffy subject if you ask me...

In the case of a photochop, you've reproduced the photographers copyrighted work by means of adaptation. Violating one of their exclusive rights.

Regardless of the fact that you've created a new image, your piece of "art" lacks originality. There was no independent creation because you started with someone elses copyrighted images.

gdog · 04-15-2005, 12:04 PM

Look forward to the next Pete photo chop Headless. It seems from this thread that Pete is OK with you using his pics and has granted you use of them.

"are you just having fun? if so then thats cool "

Pete whats the link to all your Phoenix pics so that Headless can add to his gallery?

blackmonsters · 04-15-2005, 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Meta Ridley

its illegal to photoshop a copyrighted image.

Yep, it sure is and in New York, which is very protective of artist work, you can actually face criminal charges. It's called defacement.

blackmonsters · 04-15-2005, 01:20 PM

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.

Pete-KYJELLY · 04-15-2005, 01:22 PM

Hiiiiiiiiii I am PEte

Xplicit · 04-15-2005, 01:31 PM

Copyrighted material can be used in parody or criticism, even to make a profit.

An example would be like how Saturday Night Live will use logos of other shows/products in parody, and still sell advertising with it.

TKoProductions · 04-15-2005, 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xplicit

Copyrighted material can be used in parody or criticism, even to make a profit.

An example would be like how Saturday Night Live will use logos of other shows/products in parody, and still sell advertising with it.

I didn't want to bring up the parody exception because it can get quite involved, however I had a feeling someone might mention it.

In this case, the paradoy defense would only apply if you were making fun of the photographers work, and not him himself or the agency he works for.

In order for the paradoy defense to apply in the case of a photochop, you would have to be making fun of the photographers style, i.e. exposure, lighting, angle, setting, position, pose, etc. Otherwise, if you're using his work to make fun of a 3rd party, its would still likely be considered copyright infringement.

borked · 04-15-2005, 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blackmonsters

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...

Copyright on work produced before 1978 runs out 95 years after it was first produced. As da Vinci did the Moan Lisa some time early on in the 16th Century before he died, I think I'm safe from plastering his work all over my own

borked · 04-15-2005, 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xplicit

Copyrighted material can be used in parody or criticism, even to make a profit.

An example would be like how Saturday Night Live will use logos of other shows/products in parody, and still sell advertising with it.

Interesting point, but do they recreate the logo themselves? Or maybe film (video or 35mm) it and reproduce the film of the logo? Or do they scan in the logo from a letterhead or download it from a website? Reproduction is not necessarily the same as copying.

I've never seen Saturday Night Live, so I've no idea.

04-15-2005, 10:17 AM	#1
dropped9 Registered User Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Your moms box Posts: 26,727	Who owns the rights to a photochop? Simple question... Who owns the right to a photochopped image? Like this one for example...

04-15-2005, 10:18 AM	#2
Meta Ridley Confirmed User Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: The land of ruleface and kickass Posts: 3,433	its illegal to photoshop a copyrighted image. __________________ [email protected]

04-15-2005, 10:20 AM	#3
StuartD Sofa King Band Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Outside the box Posts: 29,903	I would imagine that the elements used within are still the property of the photographer/image creator. Like, if I was to take a picture of a landscape.... it's my property. But you take a picture of yourself and photochop yourself into it, I can still claim that you're "using" my picture... but can't claim the photochopped picture itself. Just the element within. __________________ This is me on facebook This is me on twitter

04-15-2005, 10:39 AM	#9
sickkittens I am a meat popsicle. Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 25,100	I would say the original owner of the pic. __________________ HIGHEST PAYOUTS FOR NO-CONSOLE TOURS IN THE ENTIRE INDUSTRY! THIS SIG CAN BE YOURS FOR $200 - ICQ: 78881543

04-15-2005, 10:57 AM	#20
Jakke PNG ex-TeenGodFather Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Suomi Finland Perkele Posts: 20,306	Does anyone know where I can find celebrity pics which are free to use..and legal. I have found a few non-really-celeb people who have pictures on their site for 'press' use and so forth.. could those be modified, say photoshopped into a nude picture of which I hold rights to? I wanna do (legal) celeb fakes. __________________ ..and I'm off.

04-15-2005, 10:23 AM	#5
dropped9 Registered User Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Your moms box Posts: 26,727	Is a photochop considered art thus governed by different laws?

04-15-2005, 10:31 AM	#6
Pete-KT Workin With The Devil Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: West Bloomfield, MI Posts: 51,532	Hey headless Since i own the copyright to that image i ask you remove it

04-15-2005, 10:37 AM	#8
Pete-KT Workin With The Devil Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: West Bloomfield, MI Posts: 51,532	I own the right to the picture you used to photochop in there, So why the hell do u have it out for me? since you always ignore when i ask that

04-15-2005, 10:43 AM	#11
Pete-KT Workin With The Devil Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: West Bloomfield, MI Posts: 51,532	Just asking so what with all the picking on me then? are you just having fun? if so then thats cool i need some pics of you to photochop

04-15-2005, 10:48 AM	#13
Pete-KT Workin With The Devil Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: West Bloomfield, MI Posts: 51,532	Oh ok, hey headless what do u run?

04-15-2005, 10:51 AM	#15
Pete-KT Workin With The Devil Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: West Bloomfield, MI Posts: 51,532	hehe what kind? paysites, tgp, traffic?

04-15-2005, 10:53 AM	#17
TKoProductions Confirmed User Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 673	Copyright law is really a bundle of rights which someone holds exclusive ownership over. A few of those rights include the right of adaptation and public distribution. If you were to photochop (or adapt) a copyrighted image, and thereafter distribute it over the internet via a forum, you've commited copyright infringement.

04-15-2005, 10:59 AM	#22
Juicy D. Links So Fucking Banned Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: N.Y. -Long Island -- Posts: 122,992	I have done biz with Headless and take my word both he and I made good $$$ from our Ventures.

04-15-2005, 11:15 AM	#28
borked Totally Borked Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 6,284	IANAL, but it seems pretty straight forward really - you simply don't have the right to chop it or take a head to place it on your own image. <-period. cop·y·right n. The legal right granted to an author, composer, playwright, publisher, or distributor to exclusive publication, production, sale, or distribution of a literary, musical, dramatic, or artistic work. __________________ For coding work - hit me up on andy // borkedcoder // com (consider figuring out the email as test #1) All models are wrong, but some are useful. George E.P. Box. p202

04-15-2005, 12:04 PM	#33
gdog Confirmed User Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: San Diego Posts: 1,550	Look forward to the next Pete photo chop Headless. It seems from this thread that Pete is OK with you using his pics and has granted you use of them. "are you just having fun? if so then thats cool " Pete whats the link to all your Phoenix pics so that Headless can add to his gallery? __________________ Busty Amateurs is Back - Meet the Girls \| Read the BLOG \| See the UPDATES High conversions and high retention, almost 1000 hosted galleries 995 PAYS Samples Big Boobs \| Busty Babes \| Strap Ons \| Hardcore \| Amateurs \| Videos

04-15-2005, 01:22 PM	#36
Pete-KYJELLY So Fucking Banned Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Detroit, ICQ 285-458-749 Posts: 67	Hiiiiiiiiii I am PEte

04-15-2005, 01:31 PM	#37
Xplicit Confirmed User Join Date: May 2003 Location: █◄►█ Posts: 3,558	Copyrighted material can be used in parody or criticism, even to make a profit. An example would be like how Saturday Night Live will use logos of other shows/products in parody, and still sell advertising with it.