PDA

View Full Version : How much must pics change to avoid copyright infringement?


samhill
03-25-2006, 10:37 PM
How much must pics be changed in order to avoid copyright infringement? I have a friend who's a professional photographer and a pastel artist obviously took his photograph off the web, flipped it horizontally, took out a tree here and added another one there, changed the color scheme (quite a bit actually), and added a different sky.
It's a very unusual and specific place, so there's little doubt the artist used the photo (that is unless he went to Thailand and knew exactly where this particular mountain valley was). My friend's upset, but I told him to forget about it, that it had been changed too much to worry about. But again, how much does something have to be changed before it's infringement? Does flipping it and adding/subtracting a few things qualify?
Thanks very much for your thoughts....

SabZero
03-26-2006, 07:15 AM
There is no such thing as a "how much to change to not infringe". Whenever you take someone elses work without permission, it's per definition copyright infringement. The question you pose is more about how things work in real life, as opposed to the rules and laws. Therefore, if noone can proof you took that other work, you wouldn't be condmened by a court (it doesn't safe you from legal expenses though, and possibly a hit on your reputation).

I don't get how people are always after "fast" ways to make money (or whatever the reason) by stealing somone elses efforts, when all you need to do is ask :angel:

Your friend, being a photographer himself, should understand that it's not ok to just take someone elses pictures. :heart:

beautifulfreak
03-28-2006, 02:51 AM
I use the theory it must be change so much that the original artist doesn't see his/her own work in it. Just switching around a few things ain't enough. There is no % of change rule, if it looks like it or some elements of it came from the same image its copyright infringment. Could we have the links to the 2 images to see?...why? because i'm nosy :)

samhill
03-30-2006, 02:19 PM
Thanks so much to both of you for your replies. I'm sorry for the delay in replying myself. Okay, so I guess I was mixing up copyrights with product, vs copyright for an image. I didnt know there was such a dramatic difference between the two. With product you only to need to change it a certain percentage in order to be safe legally.
I would love to post pics to this, but my friend asked that I not do that, so I'm sorry about that.
THanks again!

Gerard Ado
04-03-2006, 03:42 PM
what? I am not sure I understand what you mean "With product you only to need to change it a certain percentage in order to be safe legally."
The copyright protecting a "product" is the same as those for an image, or for that matter a song, a book, a piece of software or a film.

samhill
04-06-2006, 03:18 AM
what? I am not sure I understand what you mean "With product you only to need to change it a certain percentage in order to be safe legally."
The copyright protecting a "product" is the same as those for an image, or for that matter a song, a book, a piece of software or a film.


for instance you only have to change a jewelry design approx 30% to get around copyright laws.....so that's why I wondered if the same was regarding images.

timelady
04-08-2006, 09:29 AM
Well, that's not true of jewellry designs here in the UK as far as I know (I have several jewellery designer friends) - the copyright is the same, with no % rule. So I would question a blanket 30% rule. (The US and UK laws are generally the same as they're part of the Berne copyright convention.) That's not to say that if something is changed 30% it won't be different enough, it could be. It could be different enough with 10% changed, it just depends what's changed and how identifiable it is compared to the original.

Perhaps there's some mix-up here talking about copyright when 'products' might actually fall under patent or trademark laws? Those are different and would/could apply to more mass-produced items.

Tina.

sks
04-08-2006, 11:28 AM
I feel you were right to tell your friend to "let it go" - it is annoying when someone does that but it's almost more of a moral issue than law breaking.
Just my opinion, of course.:o

Gerard Ado
04-10-2006, 08:00 AM
Just as Tina said above, and I said earlier, copyright applies to Jewelery or any other product just as much as to drawings or paintings. It is a complete myth about the percentage you must change to avoid a copyright infringment.

Have a look at this page, which answers copyright questions specific to Jewelery design:
http://www.jewelersresource.com/Business/Studio/Copyright.html

From the page:

When is a copy an infringement?
The standard for infringement is that the piece is substantially similar and, of course, that the infringer copied the piece. There is no hard and fast standard of substantial similarity, but if the piece looks the same, even though it is not identical, it probably infringes (the rumors that it has to be 10% different are wrong: if the Mona Lisa were copyrighted, and you copied only the eyes and smile, it probably would still be infringement). A copyright lawyer should be consulted before any charges of infringement are made.

LynnDigby
04-24-2006, 02:11 PM
My sister's company that manufactures goofy dog and cat toys is CONSTANTLY ripped off. They do have a copyright attorney, and were told that a 20% change probably was enough not to have a case. They have been ripped off by pretty much most of the big pet companies, too, and those guys know just how far to go before it gets tricky.

samhill
04-25-2006, 02:50 PM
My sister's company that manufactures goofy dog and cat toys is CONSTANTLY ripped off. They do have a copyright attorney, and were told that a 20% change probably was enough not to have a case. They have been ripped off by pretty much most of the big pet companies, too, and those guys know just how far to go before it gets tricky.


Hi Lynn - yes, I'm too familaiar with that sort of thing. I'm truly sorry for you guys on that. I have heard that a 30% change, even as regards to size changes, means it's not worth pursuing.
But if you want to hear something even sadder, we know a gal who's a creative genius when it comes to jewelry. She has her own designs manufactured, however, she tired of doing all the assembly work and submitted her work to a large jewelry company in the hopes they would distribute for her. They not only rejected her, they blatantly ripped off several of her designs exactly, having them manufactured on a huge scale in China. She hired an attorney, and they had their FIVE attorneys, and by changing venues, and appealing and delaying, they finally wore her out after 2 years and she had to quit as she was allowing it to actually destroy her physical and mental well-being..... plus she paid over $10,000 to her lawyer, and all for nothing.
"Liberty and justice for all" (All the rich, that is)

Anyway, that's why I origianlly asked about images and copying them. I'm afraid it would be mighty hard for a defendant to prove anything....especially by changing a few things around with a differet color scheme, etc.

tomnackid
04-25-2006, 03:02 PM
Q: "How much must pics be changed in order to avoid copyright infringement?"

A: Enough that no one can tell.

Bringer
04-27-2006, 03:37 PM
Hi,

When I want to use someone elses photo that is not public domain, I ask for it. it goes without saying that the copyright is always of the owner of the photo and/or owner of the rights.
I can tell you that I had my request denied more than once and I don't have another choice but to respect that.
Honesty can open many doors, don't forget it.

Regards,

José

dfcurran
05-22-2006, 03:44 AM
:rolleyes: When I (I'm ashamed to say) used to write for the National Enquirer I wrote an article called the 10 most common places people hide their valuables according to a burglar. It was my idea. But the burglar wouldn't say what the Enquirer wanted him to say and they killed it. I got a small kill fee. Some time later, after I copyrighted the article and printed it elsewhere, the National Enquirer printed the article, written by someone else, but all my burglars places were there. . . .
I tried asking for payment. They said no. I threatened to sue for copyright infringement. They didn't reply. I imagine they were laughing at me.
The reason they could laugh is the loser of a copyright suit pays all court costs, etc. So I could not afford to sue because I could not afford to lose to a company with millions.

:eek: So point #1. A copyright infringement is not something you can pop into small claims court about. The minimum award is $250,000 or it was when I took a course on the subject. So we are talking big money for court costs and lawyers.

:eek: Subpoint #1 If you get ripped off by someone without enough money to pay and sue them, you'll end up paying the costs anyway.

:mad: The FBI is no use, by the way. when I called them to complain about an infringement long long ago (it is illegal too) they told me unless I was a major movie company they would not bother to help me.

:o There are other concerns. A jewelry design or even a still life where you arranged your apples oranges and bottles in special way might be a lot easier to protect (it may not be practical to sue someone copying your still life arrangement onto cards sold on Ebay, but you may be able to stop them from distributing.)

:eek: However, you can't copyright found objects, things you did not create. You can copyright a photo of a person, or an ancient artifact that you composed and lit, but you did not create the face, nor the artifact. Scanning and publishing an exact copy of your photo is clearly wrong. But we get into unclear areas when they paint (or pastel in this case) the person in your photo.

:( Someone could argue that any photo of a person in real life is non-fiction (journalism) and fair use applies.... That the face, and the sunlight that day was created by God, not you, and thus in the public domain. Or that they were out on the same day and saw your and your model and drew her from memory.

So I would ask how much creativity do you feel comfortable in borrowing from someone else?

madster
05-23-2006, 10:38 PM
:rolleyes: So I would ask how much creativity do you feel comfortable in borrowing from someone else?Priceless. If everyone would ask themself that question BEFORE using ANYONE else's work but their own, Oh! What a WONDERFUL world this would be...

~M

DesertDarlene
06-04-2006, 03:05 PM
There was a small article in Art News recently about an artist being sued because he created a work where he used a small part of an ad for an airline company. The painting he did was absolutely nothing like the ad in any way, but he used a picture of a woman's legs from that ad. Somehow, the legs alone (because of the shoes on the legs, as well as the model's toes), was recognizable to the ad creator.

The judge ruled that it was not copyright infringement because he agreed with the artist's claim that he "transformed" the meaning of the legs and had sufficiently altered the photograph.

You can find this article in the January 2006 issue of Art News on page 32.

Paintbrushgal
06-04-2006, 04:05 PM
If you think this is a problem NOW....wait and see what happens to copyright laws if the Orphan Works bill passes. If someone makes a diligent effort to find the owner of a copyright and can't, they will be able to use the art or design or photo. What definition of "diligent" will prevail is anybody's guess. Let's face it, it is not in the interest of someone who would willfully infringe another's work to give it a wholehearted effort to locate that creator if all they have to do if caught is pay what would have normally been earned and not a penalty.

Check this one out artists! This bill, slated to be passed this week, will eventually affect anyone who places their art in the public eye. Don't close your eyes to what is happening to copyright laws in DC. Big Business is behind this one, you can be certain of that. They want our art and they don't want to have to pay for it. They aren't interested in copying the art of long times past. They want ours - trends - money making current art and they are going to make sure they conveniently can't find who the creators are. IMHO. Been there with infringements. It's so costly you cannot believe. Luckily, I prevailed but with this new law, the compensation to the creator might not even make the expense and effort worth it.

Don't blindside yourselves on this one, artists!

madster
06-06-2006, 01:35 PM
No, the Orphan Works bill is NOT going to make the sky collapse around artists and their works. PARTICULARLY in situations such as transformative collage, if ANYTHING, the Orphan Works bill will make it EASIER for collage and assemblage artists, as well as film/video cinematographers to create without having to look over their shoulders every 3 seconds, worrying that some litiginous, overly-paranoid "artiste," who wants to ensure they squeeze every possible penny out of any and every viewing of their works, will be less motivated to hunt you down, just because you used a pair of legs from a print ad as a part of your composition, and they feel that you should pay dearly for the usage...

I agree with Paintbrush gal about "don't close your eyes to what is actually going on." Do not be goaded into an emotional response based on scare tactics like those being put forth by Paintbrushgal. Do not blindly accept the claims that the Orphan Works bill is going to ruin your copyright protections. Do not buy into the "knee-jerk reaction" that this bill will financially be devastating to artists. It is NOT big business behind this legislation, as much as it is Museums and other artists who are tired of being hassled and made out as criminals anytime a recognizable image is seen in their creations.

If you create ANY works that incorporate ANY object not manufactured by you, such as pictures, products, logos, body parts, textures, etc. that could in any way be identifiable as having been created by someone else, you will be able to create a little more freely due to the Orphan Works bill.

If you are interested in this issue, read the Orphan Works bill Q&A thread here in the legal section, and be sure to scroll down past the original post to access links to more balanced explanations of the bill, how it will BENEFIT artists and the viewing public.

Don't let alarmist hype scare you into unnecessary stress. The Orphan Works bill is NOT evil, and will NOT take away your copyright protections. This is being revealed more and more each and every day on the Internet, as others are trying to defuse the emotional panic alerts and posts by providing more balanced, less biased information.

Never simply accept any one side to an issue. Seek the middle ground that presents you with BOTH sides of the situation, and then rely on your intellect, not your emotions, to make your OWN personal choice, rather than be whipped into a frenzy for a "tempest in a teapot," with one sided, biased propaganda that attempts to persuade you by scaring you.

PS, Paintbrushgal, are there ANY images of ANY of your works ANYWHERE on the Internet? You don't have any links in your profile, and haven't uploaded any of your work here at WC...What medium(s) do you work in? How long have you been producing art? What galleries (if any) have you worked with, and which was your favorite?

It would be much easier to give your arguments a bit of credit, if there were something more tangible to attribute your concern about this bill to beyond "the sky is falling" type predictions of how horrible you think the Orphan Works bill is going to be...

Gerard Ado
06-06-2006, 02:58 PM
I agree wholeheartedly with madster on this one, the Orphan Works bill should not be seen as something which artists must fear. It is not something which is out to fleece artists but rather re-empower them.
My belief is that every work of art builds on past works, be it directly or indirectly. The internet gives us an opportunity to have access to an unimagined abundance of creative works. The possibilities for how creativity may evolve because of this access are to my mind hugely exciting but for this I think we need to open up to the idea of open-source creativity, the copyleft movement and the creative commons to allow this evolution to take shape. Any bill which moves in this direction is a step into something that artists themselves need to embrace and work with.


By the way, to the best of my knowledge it was Jeff Koons who was sued over using feet from an advert which featured famous shoes. It was not the first time he was sued for making a derivative work but in this case he won- the judge ruled that in the case his appropriation was “fair use”.

DesertDarlene
06-06-2006, 05:53 PM
Yes, Gerard, it was Jeff Koons who won that case and he had been sued before.
Also, Madster, on one of the other posts, somewhere, there was a link the Paintbrushgal's website. I believe she does something related to greeting cards.

madster
06-06-2006, 07:07 PM
Thanks, Desert, I will check again, but last night, I found no such link, certainly not under the member profile, nor in her introductory post. Every post since then has only been to warn us about "the End Times," with no solid "presence" beyond a vague testimonial to the horrors of copyright infringement that she battled once upon a time in a situation far, far, away...

EDIT: No, Desert, "Paintbrushgal" has NO links to any art whatsoever. The link for stationary and greeting cards is the link to the original woman who started this "Chain Letter" of Copyright Horror. Even the posts Paintbrushgal has posted on this subject are not her own words, merely chain letters warning us all, and requesting that we "forward this message to everyone you can..." Similar to the "Forward this message and Bill Gates will send you money..." [/Edit]

I love Koons, just because his work makes you stop for a moment to see if you can "make a story" to fit his images.

That is why I am rooting FOR the Orphan Works bill. It won't hurt artists as much as it will help them. And, the more successful artists there are, the more taxes they pay, which of course, means the more that the politicians can spend, as well as more money that artists can donate to their political candidates. It would be foolhardy to pass legislation that hurts the artists who produce the works that "big business" needs. Museums have been hit especially hard in the past few years in their ability to even print souvenir postcards of the works in their collections due to overzealous enforcement of Copyright law. The Orphan Works bill does not take away an artist's right to sue for infringement. Nor does it place undue financial strain upon artists attempting to sue for infringement. It merely loosens the chains a bit, so that artists can, for example, paint a scene of Times Square, in New York, with all the signage, logos, brand names, etc. that one sees everywhere they look, without having to obliterate identifying details, or try to disguise them.

While the desire to make a working living off of one's artistic efforts is something to be encouraged and nurtured, uninformed histrionics protesting change, without clear cut explanations, just apocolyptic potential scenarios, goes beyond defending your livlihood to potentially hurting other artists who also feed their families and pay their bills through their art. Not to mention hamstringing any other artist whose work (like collage, assemblage, or cinematography or photography) incorporates objects and images already in existance.

~M

Paintbrushgal
06-06-2006, 09:41 PM
Paintbrushgal doesn't have a link to her website here.

May I suggest you educate yourselves about this bill before you call anyone an "alarmist".

May I also suggest that if you do not earn your living from your art then you are not qualified to speak for those who do.

DesertDarlene
06-07-2006, 12:56 AM
:eek:

Sorry, I thought "Lakeside Design" was yours, but I was wrong. I didn't mean to cause any confusion or misunderstanding. Please don't be upset with me. My Bad.

madster
06-07-2006, 12:39 PM
It does not take more than a 6th Grade Reading Comprehension skill level to be able to be able to accurately and correctly determine that the one-sided, over-emotional, propaganda you have been posting regaring the Orphan Works bill is "alarmist," as in:alarmist: a noun or adjective form of "alarmism," the often unwarranted exciting of fears or warning of danger.May I suggest that you heed your own advice regarding educating yourself more fully regarding this bill.

I also strongly suggest your study and usage of a dictionary, with an emphasis on the words "alarmism," "propaganda," and particularly, "activism."

Your lack of any artistic background or presence (on a website specifically composed of art and artists), with all of your posts since registering having been concentrated on the Orphan Works bill, as well as your inability to respond to an opposing viewpoint with anything except clumsy and obtuse attempts to insult my intelligence and comprehension level, speak absolute volumes about your qualifications to speak for anyone, especially as some sort of political activist, who potentally could surf the web for groups and forums composed of specific target demographics that could be swayed into "vigorous action in support of, or opposition to one side of a controversial issue" through a concentrated effort of scare tactics and incomplete information regarding the Orhphan Works bill.
It takes nothing but a reply e-mail address to join such groups, you don't have to use your real name (certainly, if you are a "successful artist," you would want anonymity), and if you give yourself a nickname that fits the forum in a friendly "fit in" fashion, such as "paint brush gal", you will be accepted as one of the crowd, making your posts more easily accepted, your words and warnings more easily internalized by fellow artists, trying to survive on their art, swayed to the point of action at the potential threat to their efforts, suceptible to the scare tactic of their art being stolen and pirated by big business, with one of your best works adorning cheap t-shirts imported by the gazillions from China...

And those are EXACTLY the members I presume to speak for around here, or anywhere else I come across overblown, cut and paste, panic posts from individuals like yourself, who talk the talk, but start to get real hedgy and defensive when confronted with some queries about your abilities to walk the walk. You appear to have no real understanding of this bill, yourself, relying only upon the hysterical tone of the orignal forwarded message as you recieved it and posted it here, combined with your past experiences with copyright infringement, possibly sensitizing you to the tone of that e-mail.
You don't know me, just as you don't know any of us here. What makes you think that just because you write that you are a "working artist," with absolutely no history here and no evidence of any artistic history, nor examples of any artwork, my questions or concerns regarding your posts regarding this issue are irrelevant to any other member, or that I have to be somehow qualified to ask them?

You actually might be surprised at just how much credence I do have around here. I am loved and despised on these forum boards, by professionals and amateurs alike. But, in general, I am respected, because over the years, I have become a part of this community. I have previous work experience in the legal field, better enabling me to read and understand complex government documents than many of my fellow members, whose focus is creating works that they ask my opinons about. These same fellow members, many of whom DO create art as their livlihood, also discuss a great many legal, ethical, and moral issues regarding not only their art, but their lives, their families, and more. And, in NO WAY am I unique in this regard, except in my legal work experiences and ability to ask questions as well as provide answers in a consise (sometimes less-than-politically correct) manner. EVERY MEMBER of Wet Canvas is provided that same general level of respect and believability, but it does have to be somewhat "earned" through interaction on more than just an activist level regarding one topic, posted in various ways.
I'm not saying that you are simply some activist, trying to stir things up in order to politically motivate action against this bill, with no real justification in doing so. I'm just saying that in this day and age, when the Internet is better able to reach great masses of people, and controversial legislation is presented, it is not unknown for organizations to use any means at their disposal to attempt to get people to "see things their way."
We share stories here of all types of manipulative efforts, both for and against artists who are trying to simply be artists. You don't have to be supporting yourself with your art to be subjected to frauds, scams, and manipulations.

Repeated attempts to discuss why you feel this bill is not beneficial have so far been futile. And, your presence here, to this point, has merely consisted of your efforts to scare artists with this issue, which has been in existance since February. AND, as submitted on May 23 of this year, the Orphan Works bill is actually softer and more considerate of artist concerns than originally drafted. But you do not discuss this, either...

In yet ANOTHER attempt to provide factual information, rather than overblown emotional hype, here (http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/392) is an analysis of the bill from a collage artist's point of view. Here (http://www.joegratz.net/archives/2006/05/23/orphan-works-bill-introduced/) is another artist's commentary.
Here (http://www.publishers.org/press/releases.cfm?PressReleaseArticleID=332) is the "evil" publishers' reasoning behind their support, and the need for this bill.
And, THIS (http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/?p=217) provides the best, most balanced, response to all of your "end of the world" concerns regarding possible exploitation of orphan works.

I am still more than willing to discuss the opposing viewpoints on this issue, but cannot attempt to do so with little more than histrionic "what if scenarios," and feeble attacks on my intellect.

I have, and will continue to champion the support and passage of the Orphan Works bill.
I AM educated and understanding of what it offers to ALL artists, not just assemblage artists (of which I am one). I understand that like any law, it will not be perfect. But, I understand that it will not unduly harm fellow artists by enabling rampant theft, and that it does not take away any artist's Copyright.

I still strongly urge all members not to fall victim to propaganda that does not address the pros and cons of any issue, and only tries to scare you. That is why I ask questions, and why I provide a differing point of view, with additional information. Make your own choices. Don't be swayed by hype.

~M

timelady
06-08-2006, 01:58 PM
Thanks you both for BOTH views. I've read both and am undecided now, though I'd rather be informed and undecided. :)

Tina.

Mkent41616
06-11-2006, 02:37 PM
well my 2 cents I am an artist thoguh i admit ihave sold little fo my work.

in college i had a professor that good artists borrow from otehrs work but great artists steal from it.

I have used images i have found and altered them in most cases significantly for my own use in my works. I would actually be flattered if someone foudn somethign in my works or my phtographs that they found good enough to perpetuate into thier own. I myself see it as a process of building. I would however hesitate to take someone elses work and pass it off as my own this is clearly wrong.

But sadly not everyone can afford to go to thailand, mainland china, europe or australia. Over all from the presentations i feel the orphaned works if used properly liek any law can be bane or benefit. We will sut have to see how it goes.

W.J.Lexie
06-25-2006, 09:08 PM
Was the photo just a snapshot or did the photo artist do something particular in prosessing or aranging the scape ? Could the photo be a copy of the pastel ? Are either of these people selling the work in mass or commerical ways ?

yours
stillbill

Tadema
07-08-2006, 01:16 PM
I have a couple of questions just out of curiosity. How did your friend find out about the use of his photograph? Did he contact the pastelist, if so what was the reply?

tjfreem
07-09-2006, 11:49 AM
Truth be told, appropriation of others works has been upheld, in courts of law, time after time. For example Sherrie Levine is famous for photographing (or rephotographing) reproductions of historic work, such as Monet's and Walker Evans's, from Gardner's Art Through the Ages or Jansen's Art History. She then matted and framed the works and presented them as her own, titling them After Monet or After Walker Evans. These have sold for hundreds of thousands of dollars. Even more aggressive was is Mike Bidlo. He has recreated various bodies of work produced by very famous and historic artists such as Picasso. Bidlo goes to great lengths to recreated the paintings however he uses photographs of the originals as his source material so the resultant images have a uniform surface quality. This has become known as the Bidlo surface. It seems That so many people in this forum are so concerned about copyright issues but particularly in painting, it is very difficult to defend ones own work. The only real threat come when some else is trying to pass off one of you actual works as his or her own. Copying some else's work is fair game so long as you don't claim it was made by the original artist (this is forgery) or if you tag it with after so and so.

I am college instructor and an art critic for several national magazines and I find that the people who are most concerned with copyright issues are the ones who have the least to worry about. If you are noteworthy enough to be copied there is almost no threat of someone "stealing you work". And if you are copying someone else's work simply tag it correctly.

tjfreem
07-09-2006, 11:51 AM
Truth be told, appropriation of others works has been upheld, in courts of law, time after time. For example Sherrie Levine is famous for photographing (or rephotographing) reproductions of historic work, such as Monet's and Walker Evans's, from Gardner's Art Through the Ages or Jansen's Art History. She then matted and framed the works and presented them as her own, titling them After Monet or After Walker Evans. These have sold for hundreds of thousands of dollars. Even more aggressive was is Mike Bidlo. He has recreated various bodies of work produced by very famous and historic artists such as Picasso. Bidlo goes to great lengths to recreated the paintings however he uses photographs of the originals as his source material so the resultant images have a uniform surface quality. This has become known as the Bidlo surface. It seems That so many people in this forum are so concerned about copyright issues but particularly in painting, it is very difficult to defend ones own work. The only real threat come when some else is trying to pass off one of you actual works as his or her own. Copying some else's work is fair game so long as you don't claim it was made by the original artist (this is forgery) or if you tag it with after so and so.

I am college instructor and an art critic for several national magazines and I find that the people who are most concerned with copyright issues are the ones who have the least to worry about. If you are noteworthy enough to be copied there is almost no threat of someone "stealing your work". And if you are copying someone else's work simply tag it correctly. Remember, some of Van Gogh's famous works are copies of other artists he admired.

madster
07-10-2006, 08:46 PM
It's only an issue if it confuses people as to which work is the original, or if it devalues the original work.

Transformative works, such as collages, legally "get away" with using pre-created images as "fair use" because of the above statement.

Oh, how I agree that those most paranoid are often those least in danger...

~M