Derivative work and Copyright

[MarkMyWords]

There is nothing wrong with tracing it is merely copying and copying is copying, whether it is done by tracing or by eye. The latter is more impressive certainly, but it is the end result that counts, especially with digital art, so how you achieve your results is simply a matter of personal preference.

As for those on other forums who object to tracing, point out to them that some old masters used cameras, Vermeer for example was thought to have used a camera and Durer is famous for using a "tracing frame". Many big name illustrators of today have professional photographers take reference images for them to trace/copy.

Just one small note of caution, remember that most photos that you find on line will be copyrighted. You can trace them to your hearts content and even publish the results on line - as along a you neither; claim the original as your own, make money from them, use them to advertise a money making enterprise or use them in a way that will bring disrepute to the owner.

What this means is; if you are just doing this for fun, then for the most part you will get away with using any image in a reasonable manner (i.e. not as part of some sleazey gonzo-porn-pirate-international scamming site or some such). If the owner objects to your use of his image, then you may have to take it down, this is not always backed up by law, when the image is used for non-profit reasons, but most site operators will want to avoid any threat of lawsuits and will usually back such demands.

If you are meaning to go on to look for work using these images, you should ask the originator if you can use them. They will often agree if you include a credit or sometimes a link to their site. Many glamour models actually ask pro or even amateur illustrators to use their photos if you want to try pin up art at some time.

In any case, it's good practice to credit the originator/owner, where you can, even if you don't ask them for permission.

[JokeArtist]

There is nothing wrong with tracing it is merely copying and copying is copying, whether it is done by tracing or by eye. The latter is more impressive certainly, but it is the end result that counts, especially with digital art, so how you achieve your results is simply a matter of personal preference.

As for those on other forums who object to tracing, point out to them that some old masters used cameras, Vermeer for example was thought to have used a camera and Durer is famous for using a "tracing frame". Many big name illustrators of today have professional photographers take reference images for them to trace/copy.

Just one small note of caution, remember that most photos that you find on line will be copyrighted. You can trace them to your hearts content and even publish the results on line - as along a you neither; claim the original as your own, make money from them, use them to advertise a money making enterprise or use them in a way that will bring disrepute to the owner.

What this means is; if you are just doing this for fun, then for the most part you will get away with using any image in a reasonable manner (i.e. not as part of some sleazey gonzo-porn-pirate-international scamming site or some such). If the owner objects to your use of his image, then you may have to take it down, this is not always backed up by law, when the image is used for non-profit reasons, but most site operators will want to avoid any threat of lawsuits and will usually back such demands.

If you are meaning to go on to look for work using these images, you should ask the originator if you can use them. They will often agree if you include a credit or sometimes a link to their site. Many glamour models actually ask pro or even amateur illustrators to use their photos if you want to try pin up art at some time.

In any case, it's good practice to credit the originator/owner, where you can, even if you don't ask them for permission.

Who made the money Brilo and Campbells or Andy Warhol?

Once something is recreated then you have copyright to it ... even if it is from some other source. If you take a photo from the web and do some photoshop to it then no you don't have the write to that image but you vectorize an image and then they have no rights?

Or am I wrong?

[remi]

Hi JokeArtist,

what's allowed and what not is is a difficult question. It depends also on the country.

If you're still in Germany, then there is the rule, that your artwork has to differ in some significant parts from the original artwork. Otherwise it's called a "Plagiarism" and you need a agreement with the Copyright holder.

What are these "significant parts" in detail? There is no clear rule for that. In the end, a judge or legal expert will decide this.

See also:

• Wikipedia article in german language about "Plagiat"
• the same article in english

Remi

[handrawn]

If you take a photo from the web and do some photoshop to it then no you don't have the write to that image but you vectorize an image and then they have no rights?

Or am I wrong?

you are right that, if the vectorisation process involves skill and effort [as defined in law] then the new image is your copyright - that does not give you automatic rights to use the image in any way you see fit though, if for example it is someone else's trademark

worth pointing out slapping it through a bitmap tracer is not defined in law as skill - any more than slapping it through a few photoshop filters would be - it has to be recreated from scratch - and whether tracing by hand does that is a moot point..... over to the lawyers.....

EDIT - just seen Remi's post so worth pointing out mine is a UK statement

[remi]

This article discuss this question regarding to "translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work

Remi

[handrawn]

in US and Canada only I note

somewhere I posted the UK statement as given by a definitive legal site rather than good old [not always 100%] wiki...

can't find it though - may have been in that thread that was deleted - I'll dig it out again if I get time...

[MarkMyWords]

I try not to give too many absolutes when talking about copyright online, mainly because of the different laws in each country, the guide I gave is only meant to be a useful rule of thumb, but it stands up pretty much.

It would be very unlikely that an image created for fun and posted online, which is clearly not advertising, making a profit or bringing the owner into disrepute, would attract serious legal action. Even if the owner were incensed and litigious (like Disney!) the first step would be a formal request to cease and desist using their image.

The big problems tend to come when advertising or publishing images that are clearly "copied" from someone else's original, no matter if you vectorise it or draw it with a burnt stick. Where money is involved the law gets very serious.

Who made the money Brilo and Campbells or Andy Warhol?

Once something is recreated then you have copyright to it ... even if it is from some other source. If you take a photo from the web and do some photoshop to it then no you don't have the write to that image but you vectorize an image and then they have no rights?

Or am I wrong?

Fine art can be a different matter, if you are careful. Any artist can copy any image they like and sell that copy, but if they advertise it (under the name of the original) or publish and distribute it without permission, for any reason other than review/fair use, that would be illegal in most jurisdictions. Warhols work falls under this and also has the added protection that Campbells were almost certainly delighted, at least when the images became famous, at the free publicity. If he had used the images in a disreputable way I'm sure they could have sued for defamation or some such. Copyright tends to deal with publishing and distribution, for the most part.

Though posting online is seen in many jurisdictions as publishing, if you are not using it in advertising (posting it and offering to sell copies - for instance) or defaming the owner in some way, then the worst you can reasonably expect is a stern letter asking you to take it down. Having said that, such low-level (non profit-making) copyright infringements online are largely ignored and accepted as harmless.

Commercial use of derivative artwork is a minefield and should not be entered lightly.

[JokeArtist]

If you're still in Germany, then there is the rule, that your artwork has to differ in some significant parts from the original artwork. Otherwise it's called a "Plagiarism" and you need a agreement with the Copyright holder.

In the case of art though the 'differ in some significant part' could just simply mean the context of the image. As in the case with Andy Warhol ... surely?

I think plagorism is something completely different - that's like if an artist created an image and say you as an artist redrew a Picasso picture then t

[remi]

I think "Derivative work" is the right word, as in the Wikipedia article described.

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bearbeitung_(Urheberrecht)

Remi

[MarkMyWords]

In the case of art though the 'differ in some significant part' could just simply mean the context of the image. As in the case with Andy Warhol ... surely?

Well, I'm no expert in the copyright laws of the US, but I assumed that, with regard to this point, fine art there was treated in a similar way as it is here in the U.K. That is, an artist can make a copy of any image, yes even a trademark or famous painting and sell that copy, I'm pretty sure this is the case in most places. As I say, though complicated with matters such as the owner liking the extra publicity or not caring enough to try and prosecute, it is usually publication and distribution that attracts copyright suits. For instance, if Warhol sold prints of those paintings (yes, I know the original paintings were actually screenprints, but you know what I mean), it would be perfectly within the rights of the owners to demand that either he stop or pay them a fair amount, which may have happened. This may differ from country to country though, so don't blame me if you get chucked in the clink for selling paintings of Mickey mouse.