copyright

DUNKS

DUNKS

Messages
429
Name
Peter
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi does anyone know the copyright rules on reproducing (copying) photo's which have copyright.
For instance doing a detailed and exact pencil drawing of a copyrighted photo with the intent to sell this image.
I specifically mean admiralty pictures of ships.
 
copying a photograph in such a detailed way would be breach of copyright unless their was some other factor involved. It'd be tough to prove a drawing was from a specific photograph though
 
I don't think so - any line drawing - no matter how accurate, is an artistic interpretation, not a copy, therefore not in breach of copyright.

However, performing a bit of Photoshop so it looks like a pencil drawing would be.
 
:plusone:

I think Rob has it right.
 
Sounds like a breach of copyright to me. At least as you've stated it.

If you know the copyright holder, you could ask permission. If you give them a copy, that might be all it takes.

You would have to change the drawing significantly from the original to avoid any problems, but 'being influenced by' or 'in the style of' is not illegal. Be wary of derogatory misrepresentation if you do that.

On the other hand, are you intending to copy the photograph, or perhaps more specifically the outline and form of a ship? In this sense, you would not be copying the photograph per se, and clearly not intending to pass off your work as the original image in any way. Could the copyright holder claim any loss as a result of your work, actual or theoretical?

If you use sufficient creative and artistic skill to effectively create a new, original and independent work, there is no breach. It might be difficult in this case, but for example if you take a photo in Piccadilly Circus full of neon logos, all of which are copyright, by creating a new and original image you are not seen to have copied anything. Likewise, all of those wonderful bird illustrations you see in books have been 'copied' from a photograph, but the resulting work is so substantially different, and full of unique creative input, that it effectively becomes a new work.

Bear in mind that copyright exists to protect the original author of a creative work, and not to stop others from doing the same thing independently. But it's very difficult and when it comes to grey areas you often get disagreement.

Edit: crossed post with Arkady. I think we are driving along the same lines but what he has said, basically copying the work in a different medium, is still a breach. You have to change it more than that!
 
Musicman said:
There's a very similar issue in the United States involving the use of a press photo of Obama as reference for a painting.

http://boingboing.net/2009/10/19/shepard-fairey-ap-ba.html

AFAIK, the case is still in court.
Click to expand...

Brilliant example in that link :thumbs: Not seen that before. Be very interesting to see how that turns out. Assuming American big-money justice bears any relation to reality.

I say that is not a breach of copyright. But I just showed it to my wife and she said it was.

There you go ;)
 
European Law is a wee bit different to the US in this matter I think...
In any case, International Copyright law should supercede any ruling by the US Courts...

But as I said, all you're doing by using a photo as a reference for a pencil-line drawing is taking inspiration from it, no matter how accurate the rendition...
 
Arkady said:
European Law is a wee bit different to the US in this matter I think...
In any case, International Copyright law should supercede any ruling by the US Courts...

But as I said, all you're doing by using a photo as a reference for a pencil-line drawing is taking inspiration from it, no matter how accurate the rendition...
Click to expand...

No. That is copying. Clear breach of copyright.

I once nailed a guy for doing just that. He had made a limited edition painting from a photograph (not one of mine) in one of the magazines I published. He denied it at first, stupidly because it was both obvious and could be proved, but then confessed.

I made him apologise (moral victory) and then got a free copy to give to the subject of the picture, who was a World Champion. Then told him not to be so blatant next time :D
 
Article 12 of the Berne Convention (the foundation of international copyright law)

http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/trtdocs_wo001.html#P85_10661

Berne Convention said:
Right of Adaptation, Arrangement and Other Alteration

Authors of literary or artistic works shall enjoy the exclusive right of authorizing adaptations, arrangements and other alterations of their work
Click to expand...

As enacted into English law, this is covered by Section 16 of the Copyrights, Designs and Patents Act 1988

16 The acts restricted by copyright in a work

(1) The owner of the copyright in a work has, in accordance with the following provisions of this Chapter, the exclusive right to do the following acts in the United Kingdom—
(a) to copy the work (see section 17);
(b) to issue copies of the work to the public (see section 18);
(c) to perform, show or play the work in public (see section 19);
(d) to broadcast the work or include it in a cable programme service (see section 20);
(e) to make an adaptation of the work or do any of the above in relation to an adaptation (see section 21);and those acts are referred to in this Part as the “acts restricted by the copyright”.​

(2) Copyright in a work is infringed by a person who without the licence of the copyright owner does, or authorises another to do, any of the acts restricted by the copyright.

(3) References in this Part to the doing of an act restricted by the copyright in a work are to the doing of it—
(a) in relation to the work as a whole or any substantial part of it, and
(b) either directly or indirectly;and it is immaterial whether any intervening acts themselves infringe copyright.​
Click to expand...


s17 is also relevant

Copying in relation to a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work means reproducing the work in any material form.
Click to expand...

[emphasis added]

If your drawing is an adaptation of a photograph (as stated in the OP) the author of that work has the right to control that use.

If they are Admiralty photographs, then they would likely be under Crown Copyright, which extends to 125 years from their date of origination (s163).

e2a: The latter point is one area where the UK differs significantly from US practice, where all government documents (e.g. NASA photographs, those taken by official Whitehouse staff photographers or US Geological Survey maps) are automatically ceded to the public domain and are copyright-free. This position contrasts hugely with what may happen if you copy an Ordnance Survey map without permission - you'll get hammered.
 
If it's Crown Copyright, carry on, as the MoD hasn't the money, time or talent to either spot this in the first place or afford the court case to fight it...lol
 
Arkady said:
If it's Crown Copyright, carry on, as the MoD hasn't the money, time or talent to either spot this in the first place or afford the court case to fight it...lol
Click to expand...

And there's me thinking it was a moral issue... :D
 
Arkady said:
If it's Crown Copyright, carry on, as the MoD hasn't the money, time or talent to either spot this in the first place or afford the court case to fight it...lol
Click to expand...

I don't imagine they would care too much either.



Steve.
 
Steve Smith said:
I don't imagine they would care too much either.



Steve.
Click to expand...

Which perhaps means they would see it in a positive light and give permission. Unless you hit a flat bureaucratic no.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top