Login or Join Now

Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more

Username:
Password:
Remember Me

Can't Access your Account?

New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!

Like 0

copyright

Join Now

Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!

New PortraitPro 12 SALE + 10% OFF code EPZROS814
mex
mex e2 Member 6mex vcard United Kingdom3 Constructive Critique Points
1 Feb 2012 - 3:54 PM

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 ?.
cheers phil.

Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links 
1 Feb 2012 - 3:54 PM

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

User_Removed
1 Feb 2012 - 4:02 PM

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.

mikehit
mikehit  56329 forum posts United Kingdom9 Constructive Critique Points
1 Feb 2012 - 4:23 PM

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).

779HOB
779HOB  21018 forum posts United Kingdom
1 Feb 2012 - 7:07 PM


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.

Last Modified By 779HOB at 1 Feb 2012 - 7:08 PM
User_Removed
1 Feb 2012 - 10:26 PM


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.

Quote:
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

779HOB
779HOB  21018 forum posts United Kingdom
2 Feb 2012 - 6:28 AM


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.

thewilliam
2 Feb 2012 - 10:00 AM

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.

779HOB
779HOB  21018 forum posts United Kingdom
2 Feb 2012 - 10:21 AM

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.

User_Removed
2 Feb 2012 - 12:19 PM


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.

See here

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)

mikehit
mikehit  56329 forum posts United Kingdom9 Constructive Critique Points
2 Feb 2012 - 1:32 PM


Quote: then it's an infringement.

Not if it is deemed derivative work.

779HOB
779HOB  21018 forum posts United Kingdom
2 Feb 2012 - 1:38 PM

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.

User_Removed
2 Feb 2012 - 4:06 PM

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.

mikehit
mikehit  56329 forum posts United Kingdom9 Constructive Critique Points
2 Feb 2012 - 5:08 PM


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?

Last Modified By mikehit at 2 Feb 2012 - 5:08 PM
User_Removed
2 Feb 2012 - 5:16 PM

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

discreetphoton
discreetphoton Site Moderator 93452 forum postsdiscreetphoton vcard United Kingdom20 Constructive Critique Points
2 Feb 2012 - 5:22 PM

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.

MODERATOR POST

Add a Comment

You must be a member to leave a comment

Username:
Password:
Remember me:
Un-tick this box if you want to login each time you visit.