Copyrighted Image Usage

[sabian1982]

I am currently in the process of putting together some really unique collages that combine real life photos and vector graphics, each design will be based around either a music group/artist or a film.

Obviously i understand that if i were to print (say for example) an image of Elvis there would obviously be copyright issues regarding that image however where do i stand if i do a lot of editing to that image and the final image/print that is to be sold is no longer a true reflection of the original image.

Am i right in thinking that as soon as an image has been edited, transformed, twisted, tinted and combined with other images to form a unique collage the image is no longer copyright as it is a totally new and unique image and hence no longer the same as the original???

[gospastic]

Thin ice mister, thin ice.

I think you have got it right to an extent - but it is always dangerous using material that is owned by another person or company... You may get pulled up for it but usually you will be asked to remove it and that is it. Unless you are some kind of giant firm blatantly using material in some huge campaign, you will not get into serious bother.

Also, there is the fair use law - where you can use material for non commercial reasons - check out my page on yellow60.com new media design agency, web design company, brochure designers, photographers, web design, print design and photography in Kettering Northants, Northamptonshire - Yellow60 - the approach and identify link on my page (Colin Marlow)

Hope this helps!

[sabian1982]

Which obviously begs the question how to poster and tshirt people get away with it? :p

80% of an image has to be altered or it has to cover less than 20% of the canvas if its un-altered!

*EDIT* so in theory, all the visable surfaces of a t-shirt are the canvas so a 6x8 print on the front will cover less than 20% so theres nothing the copywright holders can do!

[Mack]

they $$ for the rights.

[sabian1982]

Originally Posted by dave

80% of an image has to be altered or it has to cover less than 20% of the canvas if its un-altered!

*EDIT* so in theory, all the visable surfaces of a t-shirt are the canvas so a 6x8 print on the front will cover less than 20% so theres nothing the copywright holders can do!

Give the man a gold star :) I liked that answer!!!

Is there any specific website that confirms that information?

Im not planning to print to tshirts, im planning to print to canvas... therefore i could print an edited image and ensure it didnt cover more than 20% of the design, correct?

As for 80% of an image needing to be altered, surely if you vectorise an image etc thats completely changing the image?

[Arkady]

Originally Posted by dave

80% of an image has to be altered or it has to cover less than 20% of the canvas if its un-altered!

*EDIT* so in theory, all the visable surfaces of a t-shirt are the canvas so a 6x8 print on the front will cover less than 20% so theres nothing the copywright holders can do!

This is not strictly true. The 20% rule in copyright only applies when the inclusion is incidental. That is to say If you take a photograph on the street and there is lets say an exhibition poster in the shot then provided it occupies less than 20% of the frame then that's ok. This does not hold if you deliberately use a piece of copyright material as source material for a new work. Under that circumstance the law is very clear, no matter how small a part of the new work the copyright work occupies you must have obtained a rights issue release statement from the copyright holder.

[LeadMagnet]

Originally Posted by Arkady

This is not strictly true. The 20% rule in copyright only applies when the inclusion is incidental. That is to say If you take a photograph on the street and there is lets say an exhibition poster in the shot then provided it occupies less than 20% of the frame then that's ok. This does not hold if you deliberately use a piece of copyright material as source material for a new work. Under that circumstance the law is very clear, no matter how small a part of the new work the copyright work occupies you must have obtained a rights issue release statement from the copyright holder.

Good thing you pointed that out, i was about to suggest that no single piece of the collage would occupy >20% of the whole and therefore would not be illegal. That would be silly.

[Cwilk]

Arkady is correct about even using just a small piece of a photo that is copyrighted or has copyrighted elements in it. But also know that photos used for references in artistic pieces of work are protected to a certain extent. Many artists create their work from references of photos and then they sell their art without permission of anyone.

Here's some great reading from The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) website about using copyrighted materials:

Legal Pitfalls in Taking or Using Photographs of Copyright Material, Trademarks and People

[sabian1982]

Heres a little story... a fair few years ago Guiness decided to use the harp for their logo, unfortunately another irish company was already using it (hence the logos would have been identical). The company told Guiness that they had to change the logo otherwise they would sue Guiness - if you've ever seen the Guiness logo though, you'll know that the design is still a harp; how did they get round it? Guiness simply flip reflected the harp image hence creating a unique logo yet still with exactly the same image...

Theres obviously been saying yes its ok and no it isn't and tbh i'd prefer to be safe than sorry (although as mentioned i still don't see who tshirt and poster makers get round the issue, and even print film promotional posters).

Can anyone recommend a website where i could get access to film and music (group/artist) photos? From everything from Elvis and the Beetles to modern day artists and rappers?