Copyright

I have been involved in a discussion on copyright in another group.

How close does image composition need to be to violate
copyright and what determines copyright violation. I am looking for
examples to illustrate protections (or not) offered by copyrights.

Walter..

On 2010-04-19 08:43:46 -0700, Walter Banks said:

I have been involved in a discussion on copyright in another group.

How close does image composition need to be to violate
copyright and what determines copyright violation. I am looking for
examples to illustrate protections (or not) offered by copyrights.

Walter..

That is going to depend on how you use the copyrighted image, and how
the copyright holder chooses to defend their ownership.

An obvious lifting of the image from a source, and then claiming it as
your original work is asking for some sort of legal action.

Taking that same image and using it in your art work, or publication
without attribution, or payment of use fee or license, is also going to
attract attention.

Simply cropping that image and claiming that makes it your creation
does not work.

Then there is the area of "derivative works" these are work based or
derived from another copyrighted work, this is the exclusive province
of the owner of the original work. Taking a work, be it photograph,
written piece, sculpture, painting, architecture, etc. and creating a
close approximation of the original can be considered a violation of
U.S. Copyright Law. This can be true even if the new work is part of a
highly creative process. You might have to defend your claim of
originality and ownership in Court.

Parody is a different issue. Use of the image as part of a parody falls
within fair use. However, using the image as a non-parody, and then
claiming it is one when challenged does not work. You may copy and use
an image, find yourself sued for copyright infringement. Your defense
might be "fair use" however the end result in Court will be a
subjective judgement of things such as your intent and goals.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

Savageduck wrote:

On 2010-04-19 08:43:46 -0700, Walter Banks said:

I have been involved in a discussion on copyright in another group.

How close does image composition need to be to violate
copyright and what determines copyright violation. I am looking for
examples to illustrate protections (or not) offered by copyrights.

Walter..

That is going to depend on how you use the copyrighted image, and how
the copyright holder chooses to defend their ownership.

An obvious lifting of the image from a source, and then claiming it as
your original work is asking for some sort of legal action.

Taking that same image and using it in your art work, or publication
without attribution, or payment of use fee or license, is also going to
attract attention.

Simply cropping that image and claiming that makes it your creation
does not work.

Then there is the area of "derivative works" these are work based or
derived from another copyrighted work, this is the exclusive province
of the owner of the original work. Taking a work, be it photograph,
written piece, sculpture, painting, architecture, etc. and creating a
close approximation of the original can be considered a violation of
U.S. Copyright Law. This can be true even if the new work is part of a
highly creative process. You might have to defend your claim of
originality and ownership in Court.

Parody is a different issue. Use of the image as part of a parody falls
within fair use. However, using the image as a non-parody, and then
claiming it is one when challenged does not work. You may copy and use
an image, find yourself sued for copyright infringement. Your defense
might be "fair use" however the end result in Court will be a
subjective judgement of things such as your intent and goals.


I am trying to find actual examples and then extrapolate to software.

For example, the fine line of derivative works at one extreme it
is starting with an image and photo shopping clouds into a clear
sky and at another extreme going out to half dome and
re-creating an Ansell Adams shot maybe in color.

I completely agree the copyright owner often sets the standards
for violation, for example J.P Getty material.

w..

"Walter Banks" wrote in message
...


Savageduck wrote:

On 2010-04-19 08:43:46 -0700, Walter Banks said:

I have been involved in a discussion on copyright in another group.

How close does image composition need to be to violate
copyright and what determines copyright violation. I am looking for
examples to illustrate protections (or not) offered by copyrights.

Walter..

That is going to depend on how you use the copyrighted image, and how
the copyright holder chooses to defend their ownership.

An obvious lifting of the image from a source, and then claiming it as
your original work is asking for some sort of legal action.

Taking that same image and using it in your art work, or publication
without attribution, or payment of use fee or license, is also going to
attract attention.

Simply cropping that image and claiming that makes it your creation
does not work.

Then there is the area of "derivative works" these are work based or
derived from another copyrighted work, this is the exclusive province
of the owner of the original work. Taking a work, be it photograph,
written piece, sculpture, painting, architecture, etc. and creating a
close approximation of the original can be considered a violation of
U.S. Copyright Law. This can be true even if the new work is part of a
highly creative process. You might have to defend your claim of
originality and ownership in Court.

Parody is a different issue. Use of the image as part of a parody falls
within fair use. However, using the image as a non-parody, and then
claiming it is one when challenged does not work. You may copy and use
an image, find yourself sued for copyright infringement. Your defense
might be "fair use" however the end result in Court will be a
subjective judgement of things such as your intent and goals.


I am trying to find actual examples and then extrapolate to software.

For example, the fine line of derivative works at one extreme it
is starting with an image and photo shopping clouds into a clear
sky and at another extreme going out to half dome and
re-creating an Ansell Adams shot maybe in color.

I completely agree the copyright owner often sets the standards
for violation, for example J.P Getty material.

w..

A similar problem exists with music. I can change almost every note in a
song, and it still will be recognizable as the same song. On the other hand,
I can change just a few notes and change the whole character of the song, so
most juries would say it is a different song. It's whatever a jury would
decide that counts. But by the time it gets that far, (To a jury) it is
costing you big bucks.......

On 2010-04-19 11:11:52 -0700, Walter Banks said:



Savageduck wrote:

On 2010-04-19 08:43:46 -0700, Walter Banks said:

I have been involved in a discussion on copyright in another group.

How close does image composition need to be to violate
copyright and what determines copyright violation. I am looking for
examples to illustrate protections (or not) offered by copyrights.

Walter..

That is going to depend on how you use the copyrighted image, and how
the copyright holder chooses to defend their ownership.

An obvious lifting of the image from a source, and then claiming it as
your original work is asking for some sort of legal action.

Taking that same image and using it in your art work, or publication
without attribution, or payment of use fee or license, is also going to
attract attention.

Simply cropping that image and claiming that makes it your creation
does not work.

Then there is the area of "derivative works" these are work based or
derived from another copyrighted work, this is the exclusive province
of the owner of the original work. Taking a work, be it photograph,
written piece, sculpture, painting, architecture, etc. and creating a
close approximation of the original can be considered a violation of
U.S. Copyright Law. This can be true even if the new work is part of a
highly creative process. You might have to defend your claim of
originality and ownership in Court.

Parody is a different issue. Use of the image as part of a parody falls
within fair use. However, using the image as a non-parody, and then
claiming it is one when challenged does not work. You may copy and use
an image, find yourself sued for copyright infringement. Your defense
might be "fair use" however the end result in Court will be a
subjective judgement of things such as your intent and goals.


I am trying to find actual examples and then extrapolate to software.

For example, the fine line of derivative works at one extreme it
is starting with an image and photo shopping clouds into a clear
sky and at another extreme going out to half dome and
re-creating an Ansell Adams shot maybe in color.

Taking an original copyrighted image and cropping, or adding to it with
Photoshop, in an attempt to create a new work, I believe would be a
"derivative" copyright infringement, at lease under U.S Copyright Law.
I think the issue with the Adams classic Yosemite shots is not so much
trying to emulate or re-create the shot. He certainly did not have an
exclusive right to the subject or shooting site, and thousands of
photographers have tried to capture the essence of an Adams Yosemite
shot. I am one of them. However what makes an Adams image unique is his
process. You and I can take that Half Dome shot, some have even tried
to watch the lunar calender to have the same full Moon position and
time of day for their attempts. They still will have no way of knowing
what was going on in his mind as he worked his process in the darkroom.
No number of classes on the "Zone" system would help.

We might be inspired to try the re-creation, but the likelihood of our
work meeting the "derivative" standard is slim.

I know my attempts didn't make it;
http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechut...me-0955-2w.jpg
http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechut...DSC0907B2w.jpg
http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechut..._DSC0931Bw.jpg


I completely agree the copyright owner often sets the standards
for violation, for example J.P Getty material.

w..


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 12:34:21 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2010-04-19 11:11:52 -0700, Walter Banks said:



Savageduck wrote:

On 2010-04-19 08:43:46 -0700, Walter Banks said:

I have been involved in a discussion on copyright in another group.

How close does image composition need to be to violate
copyright and what determines copyright violation. I am looking for
examples to illustrate protections (or not) offered by copyrights.

Walter..

That is going to depend on how you use the copyrighted image, and how
the copyright holder chooses to defend their ownership.

An obvious lifting of the image from a source, and then claiming it as
your original work is asking for some sort of legal action.

Taking that same image and using it in your art work, or publication
without attribution, or payment of use fee or license, is also going to
attract attention.

Simply cropping that image and claiming that makes it your creation
does not work.

Then there is the area of "derivative works" these are work based or
derived from another copyrighted work, this is the exclusive province
of the owner of the original work. Taking a work, be it photograph,
written piece, sculpture, painting, architecture, etc. and creating a
close approximation of the original can be considered a violation of
U.S. Copyright Law. This can be true even if the new work is part of a
highly creative process. You might have to defend your claim of
originality and ownership in Court.

Parody is a different issue. Use of the image as part of a parody falls
within fair use. However, using the image as a non-parody, and then
claiming it is one when challenged does not work. You may copy and use
an image, find yourself sued for copyright infringement. Your defense
might be "fair use" however the end result in Court will be a
subjective judgement of things such as your intent and goals.


I am trying to find actual examples and then extrapolate to software.

For example, the fine line of derivative works at one extreme it
is starting with an image and photo shopping clouds into a clear
sky and at another extreme going out to half dome and
re-creating an Ansell Adams shot maybe in color.

Taking an original copyrighted image and cropping, or adding to it with
Photoshop, in an attempt to create a new work, I believe would be a
"derivative" copyright infringement, at lease under U.S Copyright Law.
I think the issue with the Adams classic Yosemite shots is not so much
trying to emulate or re-create the shot. He certainly did not have an
exclusive right to the subject or shooting site, and thousands of
photographers have tried to capture the essence of an Adams Yosemite
shot. I am one of them. However what makes an Adams image unique is his
process. You and I can take that Half Dome shot, some have even tried
to watch the lunar calender to have the same full Moon position and
time of day for their attempts. They still will have no way of knowing
what was going on in his mind as he worked his process in the darkroom.
No number of classes on the "Zone" system would help.

We might be inspired to try the re-creation, but the likelihood of our
work meeting the "derivative" standard is slim.

I know my attempts didn't make it;
http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechut...me-0955-2w.jpg
http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechut...DSC0907B2w.jpg
http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechut..._DSC0931Bw.jpg


I completely agree the copyright owner often sets the standards
for violation, for example J.P Getty material.

w..
I think I prefer the second shot.

The collection raises an interesting question. The EXIF data shows
that you have claimed copyright under the name of 'Savageduck'. Is it
possible to claim copyright under a nom-de-plume or must you be able
to prove you are a legally identifiable person?



Eric Stevens

Eric Stevens wrote:

I know my attempts didn't make it;
http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechut...me-0955-2w.jpg
http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechut...DSC0907B2w.jpg
http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechut..._DSC0931Bw.jpg

I think I prefer the second shot.

The collection raises an interesting question. The EXIF data shows
that you have claimed copyright under the name of 'Savageduck'. Is it
possible to claim copyright under a nom-de-plume or must you be able
to prove you are a legally identifiable person?

You can use any name you want to as long as no fraud was intended.
Proving that a pseudonym was yours is not actually all that difficult.

w..

Bill Graham wrote:

I completely agree the copyright owner often sets the standards
for violation, for example J.P Getty material.


A similar problem exists with music. I can change almost every note in a
song, and it still will be recognizable as the same song. On the other hand,
I can change just a few notes and change the whole character of the song, so
most juries would say it is a different song. It's whatever a jury would
decide that counts. But by the time it gets that far, (To a jury) it is
costing you big bucks.......

What I am looking for is definitions of the dividing line. In music look at all
the local watering holes in Texas that suddenly find themselves liable for
royalties after hiring a garage band for a weekend gig.

w..

On 2010-04-19 13:14:32 -0700, Eric Stevens said:

On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 12:34:21 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2010-04-19 11:11:52 -0700, Walter Banks said:



Savageduck wrote:

On 2010-04-19 08:43:46 -0700, Walter Banks said:

I have been involved in a discussion on copyright in another group.

How close does image composition need to be to violate
copyright and what determines copyright violation. I am looking for
examples to illustrate protections (or not) offered by copyrights.

Walter..

That is going to depend on how you use the copyrighted image, and how
the copyright holder chooses to defend their ownership.

An obvious lifting of the image from a source, and then claiming it as
your original work is asking for some sort of legal action.

Taking that same image and using it in your art work, or publication
without attribution, or payment of use fee or license, is also going to
attract attention.

Simply cropping that image and claiming that makes it your creation
does not work.

Then there is the area of "derivative works" these are work based or
derived from another copyrighted work, this is the exclusive province
of the owner of the original work. Taking a work, be it photograph,
written piece, sculpture, painting, architecture, etc. and creating a
close approximation of the original can be considered a violation of
U.S. Copyright Law. This can be true even if the new work is part of a
highly creative process. You might have to defend your claim of
originality and ownership in Court.

Parody is a different issue. Use of the image as part of a parody falls
within fair use. However, using the image as a non-parody, and then
claiming it is one when challenged does not work. You may copy and use
an image, find yourself sued for copyright infringement. Your defense
might be "fair use" however the end result in Court will be a
subjective judgement of things such as your intent and goals.


I am trying to find actual examples and then extrapolate to software.

For example, the fine line of derivative works at one extreme it
is starting with an image and photo shopping clouds into a clear
sky and at another extreme going out to half dome and
re-creating an Ansell Adams shot maybe in color.

Taking an original copyrighted image and cropping, or adding to it with
Photoshop, in an attempt to create a new work, I believe would be a
"derivative" copyright infringement, at lease under U.S Copyright Law.
I think the issue with the Adams classic Yosemite shots is not so much
trying to emulate or re-create the shot. He certainly did not have an
exclusive right to the subject or shooting site, and thousands of
photographers have tried to capture the essence of an Adams Yosemite
shot. I am one of them. However what makes an Adams image unique is his
process. You and I can take that Half Dome shot, some have even tried
to watch the lunar calender to have the same full Moon position and
time of day for their attempts. They still will have no way of knowing
what was going on in his mind as he worked his process in the darkroom.
No number of classes on the "Zone" system would help.

We might be inspired to try the re-creation, but the likelihood of our
work meeting the "derivative" standard is slim.

I know my attempts didn't make it;
http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechut...me-0955-2w.jpg
http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechut...DSC0907B2w.jpg
http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechut..._DSC0931Bw.jpg


I completely agree the copyright owner often sets the standards
for violation, for example J.P Getty material.

w..
I think I prefer the second shot.

The collection raises an interesting question. The EXIF data shows
that you have claimed copyright under the name of 'Savageduck'. Is it
possible to claim copyright under a nom-de-plume or must you be able
to prove you are a legally identifiable person?

Certainly for the purposes of posting my resized, original images for
Newsgroup publication, I am using my nom de guerre of "Savageduck" for
all other instances I use my actual name.
I can demonstrate a complete, unbroken trail from today's posting back
through my Usenet server to my computer, which is registered in my
actual name, to the RAW files with my actual name imbedded in the EXIF
data. I am also able to demonstrate I have used "Savageduck" regularly
for many years as an identity in newsgroups.

This might be similar to that photographer, most of us are aware of,
with the byline "Weegee" he certainly had his style and unique
photographs. He owned and /or shared copyright on his photographs.
How many know him as Arthur Fellig?
The copyright to his work is now held by "The Weegee Portfolio
Incorporated" formed by his widow.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/20/ar...expl.html?_r=1

Then there is William Wegman, so many have tried to take his concept of
posing animals ( in his case weimaraners) in anthropomorphic
situations. That could be considered in some way as "derivative" but I
doubt he would contest the issue, unless the complimentary copy were
falsely sold as his work.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 10-04-19 11:43 , Walter Banks wrote:
I have been involved in a discussion on copyright in another group.

How close does image composition need to be to violate
copyright and what determines copyright violation. I am looking for
examples to illustrate protections (or not) offered by copyrights.

Reading this post and the exchange between you, duck and Stevens and I'm
really wondering what the real question is.

If you mean that you photograph the same subject in the same manner to
achieve a similar or same look, I do not believe it is a copyright
infringement as your work is original. If you can produce the negative,
slide or camera raw (or even high quality JPG), then I don't think
you're at risk.

An example is Anne Geddes. Her gawd awful style has been ripped by
dozens and dozens of photographers.

--
gmail originated posts are filtered due to spam.