[thelist] quote from Webmonkey site re: copyrighted images

[Bob Boisvert]

It sounds like you would be better off with a new image. To me, beyond
recognition means a big blurred mess. If you take an image from a book,
basically your plagiarizing it to the web. I believe copyright laws say that
you have to make a specific reference to the origin of the information
presented, so you would have to give the artists name, the book you got it
from and any other pertinent information about it.

We went over plagiarizing in logics class in college but maybe things have
changed.

Bob

-----Original Message-----
From: thelist-admin at lists.evolt.org
[mailto:thelist-admin at lists.evolt.org]On Behalf Of Chris Evans
Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2001 4:41 PM
To: thelist at lists.evolt.org
Subject: RE: [thelist] quote from Webmonkey site re: copyrighted images


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 !



---------------------------------------
For unsubscribe and other options, including
the Tip Harvester and archive of TheList go to:
http://lists.evolt.org Workers of the Web, evolt !
---
Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.274 / Virus Database: 144 - Release Date: 8/23/01

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.274 / Virus Database: 144 - Release Date: 8/23/01