- NEW!
by debtahals wears a curiosity COAT on May 2nd, 2009
Doesn't really matter what the subject matter of the images is.
1) "used images"
.. Meaning you searched for .. found .. copied .. then made derivitive works from .. images online .. created by someone other than you. (ie not your own work or property).
2) "from the Internet"
.. Since the "Internet" is just technology, the reality is you used images "from a person" who had placed images online.
Just because something is online doesn't mean it's up for grabs .. ie in the public domain.
If you find an image online you like and want to copy and use it for purposes of your own .. other than those clearly contained in "fair use" (not as straightforward as some think) .. then ..
You need to find the OWNER of those images and ask permission to use them .. or buy a license .. depending on lots of factors .. ie your intended use, if that's for commercial gain, what the owner's wishes are about their work, etc
Bottom line: your usage "might" be ok (fair use) and "might" be illegal (illegally creating a derivative work on an image you effectively "stole" minus any permissions or licenses).
Best advice is not to assume anything on the Internet is yours! Locate the owner and go from there.
Best of luck to you ...
by Anonymous on October 30th, 2009
I'm not sure if these peoples' answers are completely accurate. I do know that if your work is different enough from the original (not a close copy), it isn't considered copyright infringement. The fact that you're taking photos and switching to a different medium also helps your case. (though I don't know if that alone will protect you).
Anyone who automatically assumes that "derivative works" are illegal is wrong. Works that are based on other works, inspired by other works, or derived from other works are usually acceptable as long as they aren't too close to the original (and the original concept is not patented...). I'm not sure exactly how the closeness is measured, but I heard that 22 or more differences between your copy and the original is legal.
by OhLook - IamNoLongerAnonymous on August 25th, 2009
Based on the way you worded the question, it seems pretty clear that you know it is illegal. You are trying to rationalize why it should be legal, but at the end of the day you are copying, or at the least, using someone else’s copyrighted work to create a derivative work. Both of these acts are specifically protected by copyright law.
by Wide Awake @ has closing date woo hoo on May 2nd, 2009
Hmm, you're stealing the images created by others, by your own admission. Sound like copyright violation to me.
Just ask the guy who created the Obama "Hope" poster.
Is it copyright infringement to use a photo of a blackberry in a test item? (see description)
by Sethdragon44 on September 7th, 2011
| 1 person likes this
Do you think the RIAA should be sued by the American Public?
by Your sisters cute friend on June 5th, 2011
| 2 people like this
Perhaps your answers are influenced more on people who are affected by my questions than the source of the questioin?
by pearloaf is not yelling and dreams of bal on March 31st, 2011
| 1 person likes this
The American copyright on a song I wrote will expire in 2014. How can I upgrade the copyright?
by GibsonGuy on September 18th, 2011
| 1 person likes this
What do you do when someone steals your uncopyrighted work and takes all credit?
by rifewater on August 12th, 2011
| 1 person likes this
You're reading Say I used images from the Internet to vector over for my Graphic novel. That shouldn't be illegal, right? Say I take the body of a naked blond and vector over her to look like a naked brunet - that shouldn't be illegal, right?
Your favorite Q&A site is on Facebook! Become a fan to connect with the ever-growing community of Answerbaggers, share your thoughts and find out what Answerbag's up to next!
Comments
I actually had a conversation with someone who said that given that it was in public domain, it was in fact up for grabs and the person who had been sued over using someone's image for her own personal gain, won in court.
.
There was a girl whose image appeared on a cell phone ad on the other side of the planet, and she couldn't say anything about not having been paid because it was public domain.
.
And I might be mistaken, but I also think the "Just leave Britney alone!" fanboy hadn't been paid for his part in the Spartans spoof movie.
by Adz3r0 on May 2nd, 2009
You didn't say the image was in the public domain. You just said you found it on the Internet.
Many people assume if something has been published on the web, it's automatically public domain, so I said that wasn't the case. You're also now introducing the idea of a celebrity. The whole ares of what images are "fair use" vs under copyright changes when you have a public figure like a politician or Hollywood celebrity, for ex.
And too, you've now brought up images of photos on cell phones and in an un-named country. In general, when we photograph someone, we get a model release from them to be able to "use them" in say a magazine article or web article, etc. I really don't know if the "usage"/publishing via e:mail or via cell phones is or isn't ok. I know we can't just forward someone else's e:mail. But suspect there are additional laws to check on this score. And of course, laws vary WIDELY from country to country!
So my advice? For YOUR usage of any image, consult with an attorney!
by debtahals wears a curiosity COAT on May 2nd, 2009
Shouldn't it be presumed that if it's on the Internet, it's public domain? Under what circumstance would publishing an image on the Internet be considered private? If I google a given variable (naked woman) and I'm led toward a number of posted links, shouldn't that be considered 'Public'?
Too broke for an attorney. It's cheaper to dodge the subpoenas.
by Adz3r0 on May 2nd, 2009
<< Shouldn't it be presumed that if it's on the Internet, it's public domain? >>
Absolutely not. That's like saying if I walk into a book store and words and stories are found "in public" on the shelves and I can buy a book that now all those novels and nonfiction books are in the public domain! Nope.
In fact, any presumptions of ownership should go the other way .. ie .. something exists because someone create it .. ie OWNS it. Only they have the ability to license/sell/keep/pass on in a will .. the intellectual property rights to those works.
Note also there are many different kinds of rights so one might sell/license 1 or 2 or 5 kinds and retain rights to others .. like .. pubishing in another language, for example or creation of "derivative works".
There are plenty of ways to give up all your rights and DONATE your work TO the public domain like using one of the many Creative Commons licenses, for example.
"Public" or published isn't public domain. Two different concepts.
by debtahals wears a curiosity COAT on May 2nd, 2009
Good to know. Thanks.
by Adz3r0 on May 3rd, 2009