Who owns the rights to a photochop?
 

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

Like this one for example...

http://www.headlessthumbs.com/petegay.jpg

its illegal to photoshop a copyrighted image.

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...

Is a photochop considered art thus governed by different laws?

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.

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

I would say the original owner of the pic.

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? :1orglaugh :1orglaugh If I did dont you think I would be bashing your ass left and right?

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 :)

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

:1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

Oh ok, hey headless what do u run?

A business. :thumbsup

hehe what kind? paysites, tgp, traffic?

An internet based business.. :1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

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!

You're welcome!

:)

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.

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

http://mypage.bluewin.ch/garg/pictur...ain_build2.jpg


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

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

:thumbsup :thumbsup :thumbsup

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

kool thanks juicy

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.

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.

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.

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...

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...

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.

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.

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?

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.

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. :1orglaugh
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. :1orglaugh

Hiiiiiiiiii I am PEte

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.

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 :winkwink:

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.