Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more
Can't Access your Account?
New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!
Hi all, on the subject of copyright if i have a picture of my wife and superimpose a poster of bruce lee in action and posted it on epz or other websites am i breaking the law? or use a bruce lee poster as a background ?.
Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.
If the poster is legally displayed in a public place and it just happens to form a backdrop to the photo you take of your wife, then I guess that would be OK.
Any other use or manipulation of the poster (which is, of course copyright material) might be a bit dodgy.
If you use it as a background I think you are OK. As it becomes more central to the image then you start getting closer to problems - but equally there comes a point you can claim it as a derivative work.
Do you intend to sell it or just show it? I am sure no-one will come after you if it is just showing on the web and is not derogatory to Bruce Lee (or his estate).
Quote: if i have a picture of my wife and superimpose a poster of bruce lee
Pretty sure if you use an existing image copied from somewhere and add to it you are breaching copyright. If SOPA had been passed EPZ would also be in trouble for allowing you to post it.
Unless EPZ staff have a different take on it of course.
Edit, it does of course all depend on the copyright that has been placed on the image.
Quote: Hi all, on the subject of copyright if i have a picture of my wife and superimpose a poster of bruce lee in action and posted it on epz or other websites am i breaking the law? or use a bruce lee poster as a background ?.
If I take one of your images and superimpose my girlfriend onto it I'd be breaking the same copyright law that protects the Bruce Lee images.
If SOPA had been passed EPZ would also be in trouble for allowing you to post it.
LOL Britain's not quite under US laws yet
Quote: LOL Britain's not quite under US laws yet
Depends where EPZ has the site hosted. Ireland have a similar law going through now too. We would have followed very soon after, still will I suspect.
It's my understanding that it's OK to include a copyright in a pic if the inclusion is "incidental" and does not form an integral part of the new image.
1 You snap a celebrity at an exhibition and there are out-of-focus images in the background - almost certainly OK
2 You set up a studio portrait of the celebrity and there's a copyright work in the background - probably not OK because the other work is deliberately included.
Agree if the OP had photographed his wife in front of a poster of Bruce Lee that would be fine. But if it's been downloaded and then used it's not. If they took a photo of the poster and they were in a public place then merged two shots together I guess that would be fine too.
Quote: if the OP had photographed his wife in front of a poster of Bruce Lee that would be fine
Andrew, I can see why common sense would make you think that, but it's not true. If the copyright work (eg the Bruce Lee poster) is deemed to form a significant part of the new photo then it's an infringement.
If it wasn't then market traders could legally photograph models in front of Calvin Klein posters and put the photos onto T-shirts. They can't and the fact that it's a poster doesn't matter.
The Bruce Lee poster would have to be so small / distant that it wasn't considered a large part of the photo.
Phil, you're probably going to be breaking the copyright laws but I don't think anyone will chase you for it (unless you start selling T-shirts or prints)
Quote: then it's an infringement.
Not if it is deemed derivative work.
Chris, you seem to be right normally so I expect you are this time too. In reality it all depends on the use of the photo and how the photo was made. A photo taken on a public street of a person walking in front of a Calvin Klein billboard isn't going to be considered a breach of copyright even if sold.
I think the classic example is when the photo features a laptop and you can see the Apple logo. If it's a close up and the logo fills the frame it's seen as infringing.
What constitutes a "significant" part would be decided by the courts I suppose.
Quote: it's seen as infringing
Is it? I am not aware of that. Can you show any publicised cases where Apple (or anyone else) have sued on that level?
I can understand it if people are trying to 'use' the Apple logo by trying to associate their image (or goods) with the brand quality of Apple. But simply having it in a picture - what would they be sued for?
I can't show any cases. Not all copyright infringement ends up in court (as anyone who taped a record will tell you)
They could be sued for unauthorised reproduction.
Read the link about taking photos of copyright material
For our part, if you were to use parts of a photo as a manipulation, and do not credit the source (even for stock imagery) we can, and do, remove images. The gallery terms read as such:
Quote: 3. All images must be original and belong to the person uploading, unless the photo is a composite and uses some elements of other people's images but only when you have been authorised by the copyright owner to edit and upload the new version.
So whether or not it's legal, we can't allow it here without permission, out of moral obligation if nothing else. We do like to champion photographers rights.
ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.
You must be a member to leave a comment
Get the latest photography news straight from ePHOTOzine in your email every month and win prizes!
Check out ePHOTOzine's inspirational photo month calendar! Each day click on a window to unveil new photography tips, treats and techniques.
View July's Photo Month Calendar