Copyright laws

[angel919]

Can a person be found in violation of a copyright law if s/he takes an original picture (for example, a picture from a newspaper article on a website) and modify it and use it on a personal website? The recent picture of Elian and the cop holding a gun at him and his uncle was taken and modified into a cartoon and used on a site as a parody. Is that a violation of copyright? The site wasn't used for financial purposes or anything, just simply entertainment.

 

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by angel919:
Can a person be found in violation of a copyright law if s/he takes an original picture (for example, a picture from a newspaper article on a website) and modify it and use it on a personal website? The recent picture of Elian and the cop holding a gun at him and his uncle was taken and modified into a cartoon and used on a site as a parody. Is that a violation of copyright? The site wasn't used for financial purposes or anything, just simply entertainment.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My response:

No, the Fair Use Doctrine protects you. Comedy, parody, and political comment are exempt uses. If they weren't, Jay Leno would be in court every day, and wouldn't have a show.

IAAL



------------------
By reading the “Response” to your question or comment, you agree that: The opinions expressed herein by "I AM ALWAYS LIABLE" are designed to provide educational information only and are not intended to, nor do they, offer legal advice. Opinions expressed to you in this site are not intended to, nor does it, create an attorney-client relationship, nor does it constitute legal advice to any person reviewing such information. No electronic communication with "I AM ALWAYS LIABLE," on its own, will generate an attorney-client relationship, nor will it be considered an attorney-client privileged communication. You further agree that you will obtain your own attorney's advice and counsel for your questions responded to herein by "I AM ALWAYS LIABLE."

 

[lawrat]

I am a law school graduate currently awaiting Bar results. What I offer is mere information, not to be construed as forming an attorney-client relationship.

I specialize in copyright law.
Yes a parady (conjuring enough of an image to make fun of it, to have people recognize the original image, is exempt from infringement). However, if it is a satire (using the original work as a vehicle for social commentary), though a fair use argument can be made, it is not deemed to be protected.

So be careful and call it correctly what it is and go from there.

hope this helps.

 

[Sheila Renae]

Opinion/argument about copyright law

This is my personal opinion concerning artists and photographers. An artist that paints from a photograph under copyright protection can be sued. To me an artist can only add to the fame of the photographer/photo. The photographer is already of some fame or wouldn't be under protection by copyright. A photographer can ride the coattails of an artist to even greater renown. An artist is not known by a photograph but by his talent. His painting would draw an interest in where and how he got his subject matter. Why can't an artist just sign the name of the photographer under his/her own name and carry both to greater interest?

I just think that an artist can carry a photographer but a photographer cannot carry an artist. There should be a better working relationship between the two art forms.
As you can guess--I'm an artist that sometimes finds the works of a photographer so interesting and intriguing that I would like to paint the photo or at least use part of it in a painting. It's very hard sometimes to find the photographer to get permission. I have my eye on a photo of an eye of an alligator. The photographer's name is Gus Arik--but that's all I can find out. His photo is in wallpaper by lstyres and I don't know how to get permission. Any suggestions?

 

[quincy]

This is my personal opinion concerning artists and photographers. An artist that paints from a photograph under copyright protection can be sued. To me an artist can only add to the fame of the photographer/photo. The photographer is already of some fame or wouldn't be under protection by copyright. A photographer can ride the coattails of an artist to even greater renown. An artist is not known by a photograph but by his talent. His painting would draw an interest in where and how he got his subject matter. Why can't an artist just sign the name of the photographer under his/her own name and carry both to greater interest?

I just think that an artist can carry a photographer but a photographer cannot carry an artist. There should be a better working relationship between the two art forms.
As you can guess--I'm an artist that sometimes finds the works of a photographer so interesting and intriguing that I would like to paint the photo or at least use part of it in a painting. It's very hard sometimes to find the photographer to get permission. I have my eye on a photo of an eye of an alligator. The photographer's name is Gus Arik--but that's all I can find out. His photo is in wallpaper by lstyres and I don't know how to get permission. Any suggestions?

A 14 year old thread is not the proper place on this forum to add your personal opinions of the law (and you are confused as to the law, anyway*) nor is it the proper place for your question.

Could you please start your own NEW thread with your question? Thank you.

And, as a note, the Intellectual Property section of the forum (Copyrights/Trademarks) is also a better place for it.

Thank you.


*edit to add - The confusion I mention is in connecting "fame" with "copyright protection." There is no connection. A photographer can become known for a single photograph he takes and not his talent, or he can become known for his talent, or he could never be known. An artist can paint a single remarkable work, or an artist can paint dozens of pictures and never be known for his/her talent or artwork. All created works, however, will have copyright protection.