[Ghips]

Hello all, I have two questions some of you might be able to help me with. I am designing some t-shirts and want to know if:

1. Is it okay to portray political figures and their families (Romney/Obama) ? If not how do I go about gaining rights ?

2. After playing around with a photograph from the internet in Photoshop at what point it is your work and no longer recognizable as being that of the originator ?


Thanks.

 

[headfirst]

Hello all, I have two questions some of you might be able to help me with. I am designing some t-shirts and want to know if:

1. Is it okay to portray political figures and their families (Romney/Obama) ? If not how do I go about gaining rights ?

2. After playing around with a photograph from the internet in Photoshop at what point it is your work and no longer recognizable as being that of the originator ?


Thanks.

If you didnt take the original picture or create the original graphic then you need to license it.

 

[Ghips]

Thanks for the response but I don't think it answers my question. Once put through Photoshop a photograph or graphic can be completely transformed into something new.

 

[Fenrir]

I can re-draw Mickey Mouse in the style of Salvador Dalí or Picasso, give him green ears and hot pink pants, call it Mortimer Rat, and I'll still get sued (and almost definitely lose) by Disney.

 

[headfirst]

Thanks for the response but I don't think it answers my question. Once put through Photoshop a photograph or graphic can be completely transformed into something new.

But its still not your image.

It may look different, but its still someone else's image.

 

[GN]

Thanks for the response but I don't think it answers my question. Once put through Photoshop a photograph or graphic can be completely transformed into something new.

True but it still isn't yours and you need the license from the original IP holder (the person who took the pic).

I had a graphics arts STUDENT tell me that she could take any picture from the internet, manipulate it enough and then it becomes "hers". OMG we argued over this big time (I'm a photographer)..finally I pointed out the LAW because she claimed her PROFESSOR at school told her she could do this and "get away" with it. I challenged her to take the law to her professor and demand her money back from the class. He was basically (if true) teaching his students that "chances are" you wont get sued, so go ahead and do it. I erupted because she took one of MY photos and edited it and then claimed it as her own. I was like are you effing kidding me?!!! That was MY creation, my composition, my lens my imagination etc and all you did was go into photo shop change some colors add this and that and now you think its yours? Boy I was pissed... we don't talk anymore.

 

[kimura-mma]

1. Is it okay to portray political figures and their families (Romney/Obama) ? If not how do I go about gaining rights ?

All people have a civil right called "Right of Publicity" which grants them exclusivity to profit off their own name and likeness. So any usage of a person's name and likeness without permission would be a violation of those rights and they can take legal action.

That said, most elected officials choose not to pursue legal action in these situations because they don't want the negative publicity of a legal battle. So it's usually ok to use political figures, but I wouldn't include their families. That, for sure, would be crossing a line and could end up in legal issues.

2. After playing around with a photograph from the internet in Photoshop at what point it is your work and no longer recognizable as being that of the originator ?

If you steal someone's car and re-paint it, change the rims and upgrade the sound system, does that legally make it yours? Of course not. If the cops catch you, you will have to prove it's yours otherwise they will arrest you for stealing.

The same applies for intellectual property. If you are using someone's work, and get caught, you will have to prove it's yours otherwise you can be sued for infringement.

Sure, the more changes you make may lessen the risk of being caught. But there is no provision of copyright law that states a certain amount of change will make it legally yours.

 

[mattgainey]

Where i work we are in a competitive market, we shop around and see what other people are printing and take those ideas and manipulate them into our own IE. changing fonts, changing the wording etc and from what lawyers have told us if you change an image at least 33.5% you can claim it as your own and print it or sell it.

 

[headfirst]

Where i work we are in a competitive market, we shop around and see what other people are printing and take those ideas and manipulate them into our own IE. changing fonts, changing the wording etc and from what lawyers have told us if you change an image at least 33.5% you can claim it as your own and print it or sell it.

No lawyer has ever told you that. That is one of the oldest internet wives tales out there.

First, before we can even get to the copyright implications, tell me, just how do you measure a percentage of change in an image?

How can you tell when an image is 33.5% different as opposed to one that is only 27.1% different?

Please enlighten me...

 

[GN]

Where i work we are in a competitive market, we shop around and see what other people are printing and take those ideas and manipulate them into our own IE. changing fonts, changing the wording etc and from what lawyers have told us if you change an image at least 33.5% you can claim it as your own and print it or sell it.

I'd get a new lawyer

 

[GraphixGuys]

this is a very touchy subject with people and it comes to unless you do everypart of the art (take the picture and everything) you can get sued. Political figures are public domain so they are free game but the issue is with who took the picture. Some people say you can't use any picture off the internet no matter how much you change it. Others use bought stock images. But even with bought stock images many won't let you resell the design they just give you the right to use it. Many people are hypocrits in this area. They say you can't use a photograph of obama if you did not take it, but then they will get on google and get an image of a brick wall, sand, a tree, or a lawnmower and use it for a shirt design.

So to answer question 1: Yes you can use a political figure if you took the picture or got consent to who did. Personally I would stay away from the families.

Question 2: Legally speaking never.

On a side note:
I break the law all the time, I speed, jaywalk, shoot fireworks in the city limits. They just got to catch me

 

[headfirst]

Now that I think about it, I think that the official presidential portrait is paid for with tax dollars and is within the public domain as is almost all taxpayer funded gov't publications.

I'd check to be sure, but I'm pretty sure that is the case.

 

[kimura-mma]

Where i work we are in a competitive market, we shop around and see what other people are printing and take those ideas and manipulate them into our own IE. changing fonts, changing the wording etc

Yeah, this is probably fairly common. But using a copyrighted photo and using a similar design layout from a competitor are a bit different.

and from what lawyers have told us if you change an image at least 33.5% you can claim it as your own and print it or sell it.

I doubt an experienced IP attorney told you that. There is no concept within IP law that substantiates such a claim. If an attorney did tell you that, they gave you awful advice.

That said, you can claim whatever you want. But whether that claim holds up in court is a different matter. And the 33.5% defense will not work.

 

[kimura-mma]

Political figures are public domain so they are free game

Do you have a link that substantiates this?

The way I understand it, it is not mandatory for elected officials to waive their Right of Publicity. Most choose not to pursue legal action. But they can if they want. Jesse Ventura and Arnold Schwarzenegger have both filed lawsuits, while in office, for violations of right of publicity. Granted, both have celebrity status beyond their political office, so I'm sure that is part of the equation. But political figures do have rights to take action if they choose.

 

[mattgainey]

This is just what I was told, not saying it is written in stone somewhere. I approached my employer about this subject a year ago and that's what i was told about it....

 

[EmbroideryImages]

A lawyer may tell you what he believes (like you have the right to use a design that has been changed 33%) and swear up and down that it will hold up if you have to go to court. But... the bottom line is how the judge/jury interprets the law. The lawyer's job is simply to present the case and his opinion. The ruling comes from the judge/jury and legal precedent.

Embroidery Images - Screen Printing - Rhinestones Garments - Vinyl - Tackle Twill - DTG - STEPHEN JOSEPH BACKPACKS - MONOGRAMS

 

[GraphixGuys]

Do you have a link that substantiates this?

The way I understand it, it is not mandatory for elected officials to waive their Right of Publicity. Most choose not to pursue legal action. But they can if they want. Jesse Ventura and Arnold Schwarzenegger have both filed lawsuits, while in office, for violations of right of publicity. Granted, both have celebrity status beyond their political office, so I'm sure that is part of the equation. But political figures do have rights to take action if they choose.

I stand corrected. I did research and there is nothing that states a political figure gives up his Right of Publicity when he takes office. However, Right of Publicity is a state by state law and some states ie Maryland does not recognize the law. So does that mean if you live in Maryland you can use the likeness?

Also, Right of Publicity is not a copywrite issue so the mickey mouse reference does not apply to this case.

 

[kimura-mma]

However, Right of Publicity is a state by state law and some states ie Maryland does not recognize the law. So does that mean if you live in Maryland you can use the likeness?

If a person violates a celebrity's right of publicity, the legal jurisdiction will be based on where the celebrity lives, not where the violator lives. The celebrity is protected by the civil rights of the state in which they live. Even though Maryland does not have all of the same laws, their residents still have to respect the rights granted to residents of other states.

If you want to use the likeness of Maryland resident, that would be different. They would not have right of publicity. But apparently, there is legal precedence where a celebrity can sue for violations of Right of Privacy instead of Right of Publicity.

Also, Right of Publicity is not a copywrite issue so the mickey mouse reference does not apply to this case.

The Mickey Mouse reference was a bit exaggerated, but it still applies to an extent. There is more to it than just right of publicity. When using a photo of a political figure, there are still copyright issues to take into consideration. The person that took the photo still owns the copyright. A good example of this is Shepard Fairey's use of an AP photo in his Obama Hope poster.

 

[dot-tone]

I can re-draw Mickey Mouse in the style of Salvador Dalí or Picasso, give him green ears and hot pink pants, call it Mortimer Rat, and I'll still get sued (and almost definitely lose) by Disney.

Actually, it's a little more complicated than that. You can make that art you described. You can do it all day long but just don't try to sell it. You can sell it to Disney ( if they want to buy it). You can also be close, but then it's left up to the opinion of a judge. They key to most copyright infringement cases is to prove you were knowingly trying to be deceptive and convince buyers that is was a Disney item.

 

[Ghips]

If you didnt take the original picture or create the original graphic then you need to license it.

Let me think of a few extreme examples to illustrate how I am thinking the point at which permission should be sought from the prior owner/creator of a work before you can use it can be tested and argued.

Imagine I need a green square for the development of a graphic design. I could either draw it myself in MS Paint or even in Photoshop; or go to Google image search, type in "green square", choose one, left click, right click, go back to Photoshop, right click, left click, voila ! I have my green square. Now, should I seriously seek permission from the person who created that green square before I use it in my own work ?

Taken to another extreme, what if I wanted a particular shade of white ? Again, Google Image Search, copy white thumbnail, Photoshop clone stamp tool. Voila, I have that shade of white I want. And let us say added to that I actually change the colour using the colour balance tool.

So, at what point should I seriously think about seeking permission to use other peoples images/photographs from the internet ?