[thelist] Ethical issues concerning re-use (and heavy modification) of images

[Galen]

> Galen wrote:
> <quote>
> As far as legalicy, it would seem to me to be quite legal in the United
> States and probably in the rest of the world as well. People take
something,
> change/modify it, call it their own and sell it all the time here, I do
not
> see why the internet laws would be any different but I am not a lawyer.
> </quote>
>
> What do people change and sell as their own? If person A creates
something,
> they normally own the copyright, if person b changes it, person a still
owns
> the copyright because copyright covers derivative use.
>
> In music if you use a sample, no matter how heavily edit it, you need to
ask
> permission from the original copyright holder to publish it and normally
you
> have to pay them something. Similarly with art/photography, if you use
> someone else's work, you pay them.
>
>
> kind regards,
> Liam
>
We could start with the automobile, the combustion engine, the photocopiers,
the cpu, the modem, all of these things with small twists and each holding
patents...

As for copyrights the line gets a little wavey...  Using the scale of A
minor with a 4/4 time does not a Buddy Holly re-make make, nor would the use
of the C Shaped Grande Barr Chord mean you'd have to pay Stevey Ray Vaughn's
estate. Likewise in art we needen't (should they still be eligable but for
lack of better example) pay the VanGough estate every time we use burnt
sienna in an oil paining.

My origional posting, site the examples he gave at the begining, would in my
personal opinion qualify it as origional work. God forbid if we were still
paying Colemen VonGraff (the German inventor of the white rose) for genetic
splicing and all of it's derivitives. In "my opinion" it would be legal. In
further reference I went on to state that he should get (or attempt to) the
author's permission and perhaps include a bibliography.

Galen