If it weren't for you pesky kids!Desmond said:Yeah, I thought as much. Pesky infringement of copyright law! And I would have gotten away with it too.......
Desmond said:Would I be able to take an image from say, Google Images, fiddle with the contrast, plonk it on a tee, and sell it? Or would I be arrested, beaten, spit-roasted, fined and possibly embarrassed?
The date I heard was 31st December, 1922. On the one hand that information could be out of date, and one would expect it to move forward a year per year. 1924 could very well be right. On the other hand governments keep extending copyright duration, and grandfathering in older works (at one stage there was actually a bunch of stuff that went out of copyright, then came back in). At any rate, it's some time in the early 20s.Twinge said:It is [...] free to use if it is [...] made before 1924 (I think that date is correct, could be wrong...)
In this case, it's an easy "no" because if it still looks like a storm trooper helmet it will be infringing on Lucasarts copyright - even if you hand-drew it from scratch that would be the case.BangBangT-Shirts said:I have an image of a stormtrooper helmet that I've found through Google, manipulated in photoshop using various tools. Am I not allowed to sell this even though I have made sigfinicant changes to the image (although it still looks like a stormtrooper helmet).
Again, Mr. T isn't fair game.BangBangT-Shirts said:I've also manipulated a 'Mr T' image that I found on Google.
While it's not always clear, it's also not as wavy as people think. The general rule of thumb is "If in doubt, it could get you sued into oblivion." (I think there's also a corollary "If not in doubt, you should be").BangBangT-Shirts said:I thought that I would be specific about my case seeing as this issue has such a wavy line between wrong and right.
Even users on this forum break the law (I'd be lieing if I said I'd never done it), so unfortunately you can't take what they do and don't do as proof of what is or isn't illegal.BangBangT-Shirts said:I've seen so many websites that have t-shirts with images of famous people on them. Including users of this forum so I'm hoping that there is at least some way around the law.
I don't know of any, but you can be absolutely positive that any big media (i.e. A-Team, Star Wars) is copyrighted.BangBangT-Shirts said:Are there any other good links for finding out if an image has been copyrighted/trademarked?
Incidentally, if you're particularly interested in images of famous people, 1) Politicians are fair game, 2) Parody is considered a grey area (but it's nowhere near as protected as people think).BangBangT-Shirts said:I've seen so many websites that have t-shirts with images of famous people on them.
Good question... I believe they have to ask both the copyright holder of the photograph, and whoever owns the rights to images of that person. In a lot of cases this will be the same person (as they will have purchased the copyright to particularly sucessful images of that person). To be honest though I'm not 100% certain. I think this is where 'right to publicity' comes into it, which I think Rodney knows a bit more about.BangBangT-Shirts said:This site [example] Sells t-shirts with musicians images on them. They credit the owner of the image or photographer on the site. Would they only have to go to that person to get permission to use it on a tee or would they also have to go to the record company or whoever owns the musician's image rights.
It probably wouldn't be appropriate for me to speculate on which specific sites are or aren't breaking the law, but in general terms some sites are legal and some aren't. The majority are most likely not (but the bigger the site, the more likely it is that they have gone through the proper legal channels).BangBangT-Shirts said:Do you think this website actually did this or is it likely that they're just breaking the law?
Yes.Ross B said:if you take someone else's image and mess around with it and manipulate it to fit your own vision of a Tshirt, providing the source image is not obvious, are your actions truly against the spirit of copyright law?
That's, of course, an entirely different matter.Ross B said:Secondly, however are you going to get "caught" anyway?
Music and visual art clearly aren't the same thing. Besides that... they're not all recognised as original works... that's sort of the point.Ross B said:I can't see how manipulating an image to serve your own original artistic vision is any different from many thousands of manipulations of the 12 bar blues format that are all recognised as original works.