Copyright Hmm.

[gwpriester]

Daver1 this is terrible advice. There have been cases where a derivative artist has applied so many filters to an image that it is barely identifiable from the original. But if there is a shred of the image that is recognizable you can lose in court if you are sued. It is not a good idea to make this assumption.

[steve.ledger]

Paul isn't talking about using an existing image or someone's copyrighted photo, guys.
The clue is in his post "I'm not talking about copying specific images."
He's talking about him taking a photo of a common real world object, such as a plastic toy robot (as an example) and using that for something.

I think it's a non-issue, crikey - imagine if a precedent like that was set?? We'd have to clear the room, street, scene of any other objects when we take group photos and holidays snaps in case we got something in the picture that was 'photo protected' ..

Pandora's box discussion imho.

[mwenz]

Unless the design patent has expired, it would still technically be copyright infringement taking a manufactured item and drawing it.

Not that I care...I do it for practice all the time.

Photography copyright--that is, who holds the copyright--has run amok in the past few years. If you set up a trip (physical, motion sensor, etc) and a photo is taken of that wonderful frog you shot, Steve, the courts have recently ruled the copyright would belong to the frog. Cure, huh?

[steve.ledger]

No, the Macaque doesn't own copyright as the USCO ruled that only works created by a human can be copyrighted under US law, which excludes photographs and artwork created by animals or by machines without human intervention and the UK Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA) stated that the author of a work is the person who creates it. As a monkey is not a person under UK law, it cannot be an author, and therefore cannot be the owner of the disputed images..
The Intellectual Property Office (IPO) also indicated that under UK law animals cannot own copyright.

But yes, it's all rather silly and the sort of silliness which can at times take all the fun, spontaneity and love out of life.

[gwpriester]

You really would need to ask a copyrights lawyer.

I repeat.

[Daver1]

Gary, what about dvd covers? Do not people use cars in their imagery? various buildings? bridges? whether drawings or photo manipulations etc.. Are they not man made objects? I think people get ridiculous when it comes to this.. I had people try to monopolize a historical building for the selling their own photos, when they did not own the building.. they claimed I did not have authorization to sell photos of a building when I had just as much right as they did. I went through the copyright office to get answers, I found out my rights, I found if it is public I can sell it. As much as anyone else can. Of course branding and trademarks we have to avoid but public imagery cannot be controlled. A law suit does not mean they have a legit claim. I say if he wants to use a robot go ahead just do some modifications to make it indistingishable do some cloning change it up.. Who would really waste time and money on a suit really.. When it after modification has resemblance of the original.. A judge would laugh at a suit.

Use reason that's all I am saying.. As far as terrible advice I don't think so Gary.

[pauland]

Daver1, in terms of modifications, the robots in the images (one from eBay, one from a book cover) are completely faithful reproductions of the robot - unmodified (as far as the robot goes) images. I have the robot toy and the original box it came in - it's from an unknown chinese manufacturer.

So, I'm not sure how modification figures in this.

If I wanted to use the robot I doubt I could even trace the manufacturer (if I had to).

I know the robot represents a genre rather than a specific toy or manufacturer.

I suspect that it's about the prominence of a specific identity. So, if I take a picture of someone sat at a table with a coke bottle to the fore, it might look as though I was specifically using the coke bottle to be a fundamental part of the composition and sell my image or product by association. If that coke bottle was less prominent and set amongst other bottles and brands I'd hope that association wouldn't be possible.

[mwenz]

No, the Macaque doesn't own copyright as the USCO ruled that only works created by a human can be copyrighted under US law, which excludes photographs and artwork created by animals or by machines without human intervention and the UK Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA) stated that the author of a work is the person who creates it. As a monkey is not a person under UK law, it cannot be an author, and therefore cannot be the owner of the disputed images..
The Intellectual Property Office (IPO) also indicated that under UK law animals cannot own copyright.

But yes, it's all rather silly and the sort of silliness which can at times take all the fun, spontaneity and love out of life.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2...egulators-say/

It's all rather stupid. Copyright law in the US is fairly fluid in that the rules get more "defined" (worse) over time.

Which just brings us back to Gary P's statement...consult a lawyer.

[pauland]

It's a pretty sad world in many ways that for such a basic question I would need a lawyer.

[Albacore]

How many of us who worked for a living doing drawings hasn't taken an image of something and copied its shape then published it without asking permission to do so. I have worked in 3 offices where this has gone on and no one has bothered copyright. It's like the movie and music business where this goes on all the time and it's got to be blatant before anyone does anything about it. I saw this great picture, online, of a view in Scotland and I thought that it was great and I took virtually the same picture at a different time of the year and put it online for sale. In the online image brochure/Page both are placed side by side which I thought slightly funny with no ramification from other photographer and in fact he made a very complimentary remark underneath. What's right or wrong.