re-drawing or vectorising copyrighted images.

[true_blue1878]

Just interested to know if we have any copyright experts here who would know if drawing or vectorising an iconic copyrighted image or a still from a music video, but changing it in several different ways, like colours, removal of parts, adding things, but generally keeping the basic look, would still be infringement?

Let's use the "Nirvana baby" on the cover of Nevermind, for instance, if you vectorise that and only use a basic handful of colours and clean it up a bit, it will look more like a cartoon or drawing. So is that still going to be copyright material after I say, remove the dollar bill and replace it with teddy bear or something?

And similarly, if you draw a copyrighted image to copy it as best you can but with your own hand, is that copyright infringement?

And do these rules apply internationally, or are you more likely to be sued if you live in the US or UK? (I am in the UK).

I also am semi-aware of a "comedy law" which lets you somewhat bypass copyright rules, as long as you are clearly making a joke out of the copyrighted material. Is this true and does it apply if I were to produce and sell them as like "memes on t shirts"?

Attachment is from The Simpsons and not my work. But it's clearly created to be similar to the Nevermind album cover.

Thanks!

 

 

[Old Bruce]

28 minutes ago, true_blue1878 said:

Just interested to know if we have any copyright experts here who would know ...

As copyright law varies from nation to nation I would not trust any information from this or any Internet forum.

Having said that, look up "Fair Use".

[true_blue1878]

2 minutes ago, Old Bruce said:

As copyright law varies from nation to nation I would not trust any information from this or any Internet forum.

Having said that, look up "Fair Use".

Yeah I am finding that the info around the web is very hit and miss and often very complicated.. But figured this forum might have some people who want to do the same sort of thing. 

But I am not Matt Groening, so I guess the bottom line question is.. are they going to pick on a little old etsy/ebay seller over something that might "look similar" to their material? 

I think the "fair use" goes out the window if you charge for something, but I'll read more on it. 

Cheers!

[Old Bruce]

15 minutes ago, true_blue1878 said:

I think the "fair use" goes out the window if you charge for something, but I'll read more on it. 

I think I might perhaps sometimes possibly agree with you on the "Charging for something negates Fair Use".

18 minutes ago, true_blue1878 said:

are they going to pick on a little old etsy/ebay seller

Do you have any idea just how many hungry lawyers are roaming about nowadays? The Simpson's most likely would have gotten waivers from the Record company, the band (and the estate of Curt what's his name) plus they may well have paid the album cover designer a fee as well.

[v_kyr]

In order to answer that Q it would probably need to have some lawyer among the people in the forum here, one who is specialized on this materia and things. Since the internet and it's contents is still a big gray area in certain regions of the world and not every country handles things here in the same manner or equal ways. - Further a lot of things are still undefined, as for example how things generated by AI systems are to be treated and handled at all, etc.

[true_blue1878]

3 hours ago, Old Bruce said:

I think I might perhaps sometimes possibly agree with you on the "Charging for something negates Fair Use".

Do you have any idea just how many hungry lawyers are roaming about nowadays? The Simpson's most likely would have gotten waivers from the Record company, the band (and the estate of Curt what's his name) plus they may well have paid the album cover designer a fee as well.

I wouldn't be surprised. The Simpsons definitely have a long history of collaborating with real artists and stars. But then look at the makers of South Park, they literally make things just to upset them and laugh when they get court orders. I don't really know much about how it goes for them though, but they're still going strong after like 30 years, continually offending and winding celebs up, portraying them negatively. So 🤷

1 hour ago, v_kyr said:

In order to answer that Q it would probably need to have some lawyer among the people in the forum here, one who is specialized on this materia and things. Since the internet and it's contents is still a big gray area in certain regions of the world and not every country handles things here in the same manner or equal ways. - Further a lot of things are still undefined, as for example how things generated by AI systems are to be treated and handled at all, etc.

It's crazy how these things are still wildly open to interpretation. But I see tons of questionable stuff on etsy and ebay and they seem to stay there for months or years, so I guess it's just down to whether or not you're a big enough fish for them to fry? But some of the stuff I have designed is very vaguely similar and not direct copying. I suppose I could see how it goes with "print on demand", that way I'm not risking losing large amounts of stock if I'm ordered to cease and desist. But POD services are so expensive and not viable for long-term. 

Maybe a copyright lawyer will see this thread eventually and give a more in-depth answer.

Thanks guys!

[Ron P.]

5 hours ago, true_blue1878 said:

Maybe a copyright lawyer will see this thread eventually and give a more in-depth answer.

Why post a legal question on a graphic design forum? Would you post a design, photo developing question to a forum of lawyers?

Copyright Lawyers

[NotMyFault]

The real problem is that there is no definitive answer to rely on. 
 

Legal problems are ultimately decided Case-by-case, and interpretation of laws can change over time.

see recent example about Andy Warhol using a photo of Prince

[firstdefence]

One could say that everything is a copy of something, how else would an artist/photographer/designer realise art. Lines, a group of lines arranged in a particular way form a drawing, an art piece with red striped straws hanging down on super fine fishing wire, you use yellow stripes and choose a different arrangement, you could replicate the same image a photographer has taken and it is yours, it could be identical but you took it so it's your image to do with as you please. As far as I am aware you cannot copyright composition nor imitation, an insect imitates a leaf, does the tree sue the insect, lego arranged to make a form/shape, you cannot copyright that form/shape, they take a photo and so do you you own copyright to your image.

Having said that, I am applying common-sense and as well are all aware the law is an ass and is malleable, is interpretive, manipulated and twisted to meet an agenda, as the saying goes "just because it's law, it doesn't make it right" doing the decent thing, the right thing is about as far removed from law as anything can be. Corruption 101.

[Bad_Wolf]

To avoid all copyright problems, ask the artwork's creator; if you can draw it over, make changes. If they give written permission, you are in the clear. Maybe you have to pay for what you want, but that is normal, not?

I think there are enough websites like Unsplash and Favicon to free-to-use- artwork and photographs. For other pictures/artwork, you have to pay but hey! We all have to make a living!

Chris

[true_blue1878]

8 hours ago, Ron P. said:

Why post a legal question on a graphic design forum? Would you post a design, photo developing question to a forum of lawyers?

Copyright Lawyers

Don't be ridiculous. The issue of  copyright and/or protecting intellectual property is a big part of graphic design whether you like it or not. So the logic was that someone may have asked the same question in their past and have experience or research in the matter. 

I can't be the only one on here who has wanted to design something but worried about infringement. There are millions of questionable designs out there and they certainly weren't made using MS paint. 

[true_blue1878]

7 hours ago, NotMyFault said:

The real problem is that there is no definitive answer to rely on. 
 

Legal problems are ultimately decided Case-by-case, and interpretation of laws can change over time.

see recent example about Andy Warhol using a photo of Prince

That's a good example thanks! I found this part especially interesting

So they felt that just changing the colours wasn't enough to be distinguished from the original. 

As you say though, every case is different and I doubt anyone will take me to the supreme court but just wanted to be careful before I started. 

Thanks for that! 🙂

[true_blue1878]

6 hours ago, firstdefence said:

One could say that everything is a copy of something, how else would an artist/photographer/designer realise art. Lines, a group of lines arranged in a particular way form a drawing, an art piece with red striped straws hanging down on super fine fishing wire, you use yellow stripes and choose a different arrangement, you could replicate the same image a photographer has taken and it is yours, it could be identical but you took it so it's your image to do with as you please. As far as I am aware you cannot copyright composition nor imitation, an insect imitates a leaf, does the tree sue the insect, lego arranged to make a form/shape, you cannot copyright that form/shape, they take a photo and so do you you own copyright to your image.

Having said that, I am applying common-sense and as well are all aware the law is an ass and is malleable, is interpretive, manipulated and twisted to meet an agenda, as the saying goes "just because it's law, it doesn't make it right" doing the decent thing, the right thing is about as far removed from law as anything can be. Corruption 101.

Yup I think at the end of the day it boils down to "if you're making enough money" then someone will target you and use whatever little loopholes they can to get some of your it.

Thanks for your reply as always I appreciate it mate! 

5 hours ago, Bad_Wolf said:

To avoid all copyright problems, ask the artwork's creator; if you can draw it over, make changes. If they give written permission, you are in the clear. Maybe you have to pay for what you want, but that is normal, not?

I think there are enough websites like Unsplash and Favicon to free-to-use- artwork and photographs. For other pictures/artwork, you have to pay but hey! We all have to make a living!

Chris

Cheers. Yes I've bought material from a few of them before. Freepik is a nice site also where you can pay monthly for commercial rights to everything on there. A handful of designs are also free to use as long as you attribute credit to the designer. 

Will check out the two you mentioned!

 

Thanks all

[R C-R]

3 hours ago, true_blue1878 said:

So the logic was that someone may have asked the same question in their past and have experience or research in the matter. 

But since we know that there is no one definitive answer that applies everywhere in the world for every possible use scenario, it should be obvious that asking about it here will yield little or no useful info about it.

[laurent32]

25 minutes ago, R C-R said:

should be obvious that asking about it here will yield little or no useful info about it

I think it is a very interesting question, and I think that all feedbacks are good to read and learn from.

[R C-R]

22 minutes ago, laurent32 said:

I think it is a very interesting question, and I think that all feedbacks are good to read and learn from.

The only thing to learn is there is no one answer that will cover all uses everywhere in the world the images might be used. So the only thing anyone can reasonably suggest is to hire a lawyer if you have any concerned about your use(s) of these things.