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

Here's a little lesson for those who have no idea what Moral rights are or how they can affect you.

An artist makes a bronze statue of a duck. He sells the statue, along with the copyright, to Joe Blow. Joe Blow takes the duck and puts it in his front yard. Then, in a creative mood, Joe Blow puts a ribbon around the bronze duck's neck. The artist goes by one day to admire his work and sees that Joe Blow has altered it, thereby destroying the intention the artist had in creating the work of art (at least in the artist's opinion).

Now, legally, you would think, Joe Blow paid for the copyright, the artist is shit out of luck. WRONG. He still has something called Moral rights. He believes that the integrity of his work has been destroyed, and dispite the fact that he sold the copyright to his duck, he may STILL sue AND pursue and possibly WIN damages because of the desecration of his beautiful duck.

Changing something, even if it negates the copyright where you live, does NOT negate the artists moral rights to sue your ass off if you destroy the integrity of his work. And these are artists we're talking about. It could be something as simple as a ribbon on a bronze duck. Are you ready to lose your shirt over it?

Yep, but sometimes the artist will have terms dependant on their situation :)

One doesn't even need to go back to ancient times, to find public domain material. According to the US copyright office the maximum duration is the life of the author plus 95 years or 120 years in the case of work for hire. In practicle terms, that means most anything older than 200 years is fair game (with the usual caveats).

It is my understanding that in most other countries copyright durations are shorter. For example in Canada its life of the author plus 50 years.

http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-duration.html
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap3.html
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-42/37792.html#rid-37875

It also depends on what your intent is and whether the content is used for the same purpose as used by the copyright holder.

For example, if you run a humour site, it's probably alright for you to scan a picture from a newspaper and modify it in some way to make it funny.

Or if you run a photography site, it shouldn't be a problem for you to take a pic or 2 of each photographer for the purpose of critiquing his lighting technique. (even if the pic is unmodified)

Of course I'm aware of this.. However I believe in the context of the thread, they are referring to more contemporary material that is most certainly subject to copyright :)

That is a part of "Fair Use", and generally refers to satire, news reporting, critiques, etc. However Fair Use is not an all-encompassing umbrella, so it's best to ensure you fall within the laws and policies of fair use before assuming. Generally fair use applies to news organizations ....:)

SexEducation.com since inception has been a magazine.

In the US the only specific statutory reference to moral rights in the Visual Arts Recording Act, who's protection expires with the death of the artist. So if you're going to put a ribbon on your duck, kill the artist first.

It is my understanding the US courts have shown little interest in protecting moral rights, for example the case of Shostakovich v. 20th Century-Fox. In short the court ruled against the Soviet composers who objected to their (uncopyrighted) work being used in a movie with an anti-soviet message.

I'm not getting into this with you tonight. You aren't worth my time.

That's the thing..there have been more and more people exercising their moral rights in the last few years as people are becoming more informed about them. Yes, they do expire with the death of the artist, I guess you could always hope the guy who made what you're altering is dead :) hehe.