But, if I take an image (either from the web, or scanned from a book, or from a CD or wherever), pixelate the heck out of it, and run it through a negative emboss, the resulting image should be beyond recognition, and yet serve whatever warped artistic purpose I had. Is this still considered derivative and copywritten? note: I have no skills in the graphics department, so the process above may make no sense, but you get my point. Chris Evans chris at fuseware.com http://www.fuseware.com -----Original Message----- From: thelist-admin at lists.evolt.org [mailto:thelist-admin at lists.evolt.org]On Behalf Of Michael Knepher Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2001 4:26 PM To: thelist at lists.evolt.org Subject: Re: [thelist] quote from Webmonkey site re: copyrighted images ----- Original Message ----- From: "spinhead" <evolt at spinhead.com> > Reading a bit about graphics at Webmonkey, I came across this line: > > "To use an image from the Web, you must either first get permission from the > original owner or edit the image beyond recognition. " > > How true is the second half? Can I really take someone else's graphic, edit > it until it's no longer recognizable, and use it? Doesn't copyright cover > derived works? > > I'm not trolling for 'stealing is bad' comments, I'm wondering if anyone has > genuine authoritative info on that exact technical condition (because I'm > curious, not because I'm planning it; I know enough artists who owe me > favors that I'll never need to do my own graphics again.) > Without seeing the context, I'd expect the second statement may be a bit tongue-in-cheek on Webmonkey's part. After all, if you're going to take someone else's image and truly edit it beyond recognition, there's really no point in stealing that image to begin with, right? You could just as easily start from scratch. It's sort of like stealing the Mona Lisa, but to avoid being caught, you paint a seascape over it so no one knows you stole the Mona Lisa. But hey, now you have the Mona Lisa in your living room. Enjoy it. ;o) In any case, copyright would indeed cover any derivative works (except in the case of the Mona Lisa, which is in the public domain, though any secondary images of it would be owned by the particular photographer/artist). Michael Knepher --------------------------------------- For unsubscribe and other options, including the Tip Harvester and archive of TheList go to: http://lists.evolt.org Workers of the Web, evolt !