I think I know the answer to this (ie: it violates copyright), but I'd be interested if anyone has experience with it. Say you make a sketch based on a photograph (a real sketch, by hand on paper, not a filtered version). You've changed it quite a bit, added some things, subtracted some, changed context, etc.

Have you violated the photographer's copyright?

I think I know the answer to this (ie: it violates copyright), but I'd be interested if anyone has experience with it. Say you make a sketch based on a photograph (a real sketch, by hand on paper, not a filtered version). You've changed it quite a bit, added some things, subtracted some, changed context, etc.

Have you violated the photographer's copyright?

I'd like to know the answer to that one also.

My brother, (the brush and palette person in the family), says it might be called an "interpretation" of the photog's work and thus not be an infringment. But I am not sure about that. If you use a story or song idea from someone else in a work that you do, it's plagiarism.

Also any photo someone takes, even just a simple snapshot, is their own. And unless they give permission, or it goes into public domain, then no one can legally use it.

Get's pretty complicated, seems to me.

Steve C.

I would think that if the resulting image can be recognized as a modified version of the original image (same size, composition / pose, clothing, etc) and it could be demonstrated that it was derived from the original, then it would be deemed to be a copyright infringement. There are however two data points that might be worth checking - and those would be the text of copyright law and the resultsof case law (actual precedents).
Regards, Murray

Doug

Found the following --- The definition of a derivative work and a list of examples. One of the examples is a drawing based on a photograph. This may help.

http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.html

An interesting read. But it covers the copyrightability of the new work, not really whether the new work itself violates copyright. The one sentence that does refer to the rights of the pre-existing work makes me think my initial reaction was correct.

Here's (http://canuq.com/digg/3546537/www.joeydevilla.com/2007/09/22/simpsons-scenes-and-their-reference-movies/index.html) a fun example. Did they need to get clearances? I'm particularly interested in the "Bart as Alex" pair.

In Pete's link it also says...

"Only the owner of copyright in a work has the right to prepare, or to authorize someone else to create, a new version of that work. The owner is generally the author or someone who has obtained rights from the author."

Now I'm really confused.

Doug

What a great site.:grin: You've got to wonder about the amount of time someone spent matching all those stills.

As far as the use of those (stills) references, my guess is that it falls under fair use as a parody. (Defined here at the bottom of the page (http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/9-a.html))

Also, since cameo appearances are popular on the Simpsons (http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/film/article2021776.ece), perhaps permissions were easily obtained. (Swampy's point)

BTW, I have no expertise in copyright matters, so it is only my opinion.