posted on August 17, 2001 10:07:39 AM
That you created yourself? Original artwork, created from a photograph but not the actual photograph.
In other words, if I wanted to put an image of a famous person (still alive and well) on a letterhead, note pad, poster or whatever and then tried to sell the item(s).
posted on August 17, 2001 10:17:49 AM
You are violating the photographer's copyright. Don't do it unless you get their permission. Copyright violations can bankrupt the average person before you ever get to court.
Copyright law does not protect sightings. However, copyright law will protect your photo (or other depiction) of your sighting of Elvis. Just send it to us with a form VA application and the $30 filing fee. No one can lawfully use your photo of your sighting, although someone else may file his own photo of his sighting. Copyright law protects the original photograph, not the subject of the photograph.
Granted, the above is not about a photograph of a photograph, but I believe the concept is still the same.
Original artwork, created from a photograph but not the actual photograph would appear to be an infringement on the copyright belonging to the maker of the original photograph.
Of course, I could be wrong...
edited to fix ubb
[ edited by mrpotatoheadd on Aug 17, 2001 10:21 AM ]
posted on August 17, 2001 10:35:33 AM
I see. I was concerned about the famous person's rights more than the photographer's. My thinking was wrong.
I suppose I could create just about anything for my own amusement though, as long as I didn't try to sell it or profit from it?
[ edited by loosecannon on Aug 17, 2001 10:36 AM ]
posted on August 17, 2001 10:36:41 AM
May fall under "derivative works" which means that the copyright is protected under law.
Go to Google.com and type in "copyright."
You will be busy for hours.
ps satire or parody is not protected.
posted on August 17, 2001 10:40:36 AM
Let me preface this by saying, I'm not a lawyer.
However, it would seem to me that it might be an infringement on the rights of the famous person to profit from his own image.
Let me explain...
If you draw an illustration based on a photograph, theoretically you have added creativity ... you may have changed the shading or the angle of the head or whatever. .. Therefore you have created an original work of art, which itself might be protected under the copyright law. After all, people have both photographs and painted portraits made all the time - both sorts of image are protected separately.
But, a famous person's image is usually their stock in trade. If you sold stationery with the image of that person on it, wouldn't you be infringing on the right of that person to profit from their own image? That is probably a trademark violation rather than a copyright violation.
Anyway, as I said, I'm not a lawyer ...
El
"The customer may not always be right, but she is always the customer."
posted on August 17, 2001 10:54:26 AM
I hadn't thought about the person themselves. It looks like you would getting cut from both sides of double-edged sword.
You might be ok with certain historical figures, perhaps like Abe Lincoln--100 years to be safe, but that's about as far as you can go.
posted on August 17, 2001 10:59:49 AM
Loosecannon,
I just don't think it will play in peoria.
Go to Corbis.com and buy something cool and use that.
Or create your own artwork.
If I wanted to sell my own line of Mickey Mouse stationary and notepaper I would have my buns in court faster than I could say Perry Mason...if it even got that far.
When your name is your business, you do a lot to protect it.
I say license Packer's "bad hair day" doll photo and run with it.
I'd bid, that's for sure!!!!
ps...never drop the half baked idea, you may have something cool that that person may be interested in doing!
Write them a proposal (maybe go to nolo.com for some free legal aid)
[ edited by Capriole on Aug 17, 2001 11:01 AM ]
