is it stealing if.....
 

my graphic design instructor at internet school told me that if you take an image an alter it 20% (filter, creative additions, etc) than its ok to use it on your site.

what are your thoughts?

How would you determine that it is altered 20%?

Was just about to say the exact same thing :)

20% of the image area is not the same as the original.... lol

copy cat, make your own shit

:1orglaugh

I thought it was 40%, I know that if you change a writing 40% you could use it as yours. I thought it was just common everything had to bechanged 40%

I was always told something like that, or school told me that! Who knows, I stick to creating my own shit!

jDoG

I think this law varies from state to state as well as from country to country (obviously) the lowest percentage i have heard of is 15% difference and the max is 45% difference.

Copyright includes all rights to make derivative works.

Your instructor may be a rockin' designer, but should check out law school before giving advice like that which could get students in trouble. Whether the copyright-holder cares enough to pursue you, they definitely would have the legal right to do so and statutory damages on that can be grisly, even if you have made no money whatsoever off of your derivative work.

It is more fun to make your own stuff anyway.

I swear I heard 10% somewhere.

It doesn't matter what he told you. If he knew anything he wouldn't be teaching it. He'd be out actually doing it full time.

Does changing the logo count towards the 20%? :)

I know its better to make your own stuff, but I have seen one or two models that I think are just amazing, and well I want it primarily for design work. for banners. if I take one model, cut it out, smooth, feather, add drop shadows, filters, logos, creative writing ect. is it cool to use this for a main banner on my site?

http://grab.nastydollars.com/we/images/wlt-3girls.jpg


for example, if I cut out the girl on the far right and then modified it?

Depending on what sort of site you have, you can probably just ask whoever's pic it is and a lot of webmasters will let you do stuff like that for a photog credit and a link. Then you have permission and you won't either be at risk or piss anyone off.

:1orglaugh

wowww.. do you own the content? if not then hell no

just get it from newsgroups and you dont have to change it at all, newsgroup stuff is all 100% public domain.

kewl

from my experience of "fair use" and this board ...
you will be fucking hammered over and over and over ...
don't do it ...

Nope it is not.
And LadyMischief will be quick to correct you on this.
I will provide you some of the links she provided me.
stand by

Wouldn't matter much either way.. The fact that they could sue for Moral rights would pretty much completely negate the attempt at sidestepping the law by altering the image to that extent. Even someone who SELLS their copyright can sue for moral rights.


Tough luck, eh? :P

http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html

if you continue down this path you face the wrath that I have faced ...

Uhhh..the use he's talking about wouldn't fall under fair use anyways, so I don't know wtf you are talking about.

Quicker then I thought ...lol

BULLSHIT.. The only time that something is considered public domain is in ONE OF TWO instances.

1. The material in question was produced by the government. Material produced by the government is automatically public domain.

2. The copyright holder has ABANDONED the copyright, and has actually made a statement saying as much. This is EXTREMELY rare.. Even in the case of a copyright holder being dead, it does NOT nullify the copyright. That falls to their next of kin.

Hope you weren't depending on all that "public domain" content for anyhting.

So are you now telling me I can take any graphic ...change lets say 30% and I can use it?

Say for example - use a real graphic and filter it using "line art" ?

Copyright ignorance never ends.....

:(

sorry ...
now we are on the same wavelength

Last time I checked the text of the Rosetta stone was public domain as well. You forgot about the REALLY REALLY old material case.

Either way, I'm sure the original comment was a joke.

I've heard that in some states all you have to do is change the filename for pics or font for written work to make it legal.

:1orglaugh

No.. depends on the laws where you are.. And no matter HOW much or how little you change it, you are still subject to the possibility of legal action concerning the moral rights of the original artist/creator. They have a legal right to maintain the integrity of their original creation, even if they no longer own the copyright.

I've heard the same EXACT thing from someone that took art class.

Really really old material doesn't neccessarily mean copyright free, as long as there is a family member who bears the weight of copyright. Ancient things generally aren't copyrightable... :P And copyrights can also have a limitation on them, dependant on how they were issued and to whom, and the conditions of issue.

Uh.. No.

Tell you how to answer this question. Take a well known Photographers image , say J Stephen Hicks alter his image and then publish it on the web or in a magazine. Call him up tell him what you did and sit back to see what happens. If he doesn't sue your ass i guess its ok to alter ? images ?

Cindy xx

We may have our differences ...
but she knows her shit ...

I'll let LadyMischief handle this thread.

Cease and Desist or face the wrath of GFY ...

I heard you can right click + save as on any TGP gallery image set and if you only use 16 of 20 pics then its not stealing. :2 cents:

Yep..it pretty much boils down to the fact that theft is theft, no matter how pretty a face you paint on it. Just like a pig is a pig, no matter how much makeup you slop on it. Finding new and interesting ways to justify theft is apparently an ongoing thing. I'm not really that surprised :)

? in Europe extends 75 years after the death of the original ? holder Its at least 50 years in the USA as well

Cindy xx