CompuServe Thread

Mike: /_______________________From your message________________________\\ For example if you were to paint an oil painting of the 16th chaple … P.S If I'm wrong please correct me. __________________________________________________________________ Well, for starters that's the SISTINE CHAPEL! The chapel was named after one of those men in dresses, Pope Sixtus IV. If you are thinking of the ceilings by Michelangelo then consider that they were not oil paintings but frescoes (as were the paintings on the walls for that matter). Frescoes are painted with pigments mixed with water and usually applied to wet plaster. Well, you asked to be corrected. I'll let someone else comment on the legality of using a slightly altered scan of another's work of art.

Mike, I believe if you research it you will find there is a "look and feel" intrepretation of the copyright law. This has prevented many from just altering a copy of work and then calling it their own. I believe if you jump media you can escape this part of the law. For example you can take a photograph of a sculpture. You can shoot video of a painting. With audio it is very tricky and almost nothing is allowed. My music library company lost a look and feel case a couple of years ago because they had a piece of music that had the same rhythm as the theme from Mission Impossible. Recently there has been a lot of commentary regarding the alteration of art works used as texture mapping and segments in collages and composites as a result of software like Photoshop and image scanners which make alteration and stealing art very easy. So easy in fact that people don't even think it is wrong. Well is it? I don't know. It still remains for the courts to determine. Generally speaking, if I buy a collection of clipart as part of a desk top publishing package I assume I have the rights and permission to use this art in my creations. Most of the time permission is stated in the docs. Sometimes it is not. Most cases the only restriction on this clipart is you are not allowed to redistribute it as "clip art" I recall some years ago a record company produced a series of sound effects records laid out in broadcast cuts. Then it was stated in the fine print that any use of these sound effects other than for listening enjoyment was a violation of reserved rights. I remember this went to court when they went after a sound studio. The record company lost because they produced recordings of generic sounds of public domain and put them in a common form for editing and did not sufficiently and explicitly warn of reserved rights under the law. In other words, _I_ interpret this as you can't market a collection of art icons in a format commonly used for editing prepress and then reserve special rights in the fine print and expect to win a copyright infringement case.

<<If you alter the images or paintings of the great masters there your's , and shouldn't be any copyright problems.>> Since these "old masters" have long sinced past away there is no problem copying their work but normally this means copying a photograph/article or the painting in some other form that someone else alone has copyright. For example, if you were to go to the sistene chapel and photograph the ceilings then you have exclusive copyright to those photos and you can sell them and do whatever you want with them. I'd check up on where the original images of the paintings came from. You are right in that if you alter the pictures enough so that they aren't distinguishable from the original then you can overcome the copyright constraints.

I think you're right for the most part, Mike. But I have heard of cases where the (second) artist found trouble by not modifying the original image enough. For example, an artist created a poster where the only modification to the original was that it was mirrored up and down to create a more vertical format (as a backdrop for some text). This didn't go over too well, needless to say. — James — Choreo Motion —

Hello Mike < When you change a image or bit map it then becomes your art work.> Im not a lawyer but my impression is that how much an artwork must be altered before it is "yours" will be hacked out in court case by case. I read that the guy that won the Corel grand prize had used someone elses picture of an Indian, altered it quite a bit and is now being sued. If he hadnt won maybe no one would have noticed. On a related topic, if one were to read Wired one might think that the notion of copyright of intellectual property is a quaint fading concept. I have faith that huge outfits like Disney who are perfectly willing to bust a tiny daycare certer for painting Mickey on the wall will keep the notion alive, and lawyers busy.

That seems like the best thing to me too. I'll agree 100% with that. It would be in the partys best intrest to get permission on copyrighted art works. Great Mike White [SDP]

Here is a little some thing I found in The graphsupp fourm. I feel this is such a good topic. There's too much grey in the copyright on digital art. My suggesation is create every thing you self. This I what I do. The thought 3 strikes you out Law it isn't worth going too jail for life. This has a chilling effect. Imagine going to jail for copyright infringment on software. Many people are using SDP's software which have not paid for, using hacking software. Do you think it's worth getting busted for using my software which has not been paid for? People don't undestand I know exactly what my textures look like in protected mode and unlocked. We all have to remember it's a Federal Offence. Mike White [SDP] <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< C PYRIGHT "CAN'TS" By Andy Rathbone [75300,1565] As seen in CompuServe Magazine, April 1994 (Page 14) Reprinted with permission of the author and CM Although copyright law is complicated, it boils down to two main rules: First, you can't upload anything that you don't own. Second, you can't download copyrighted images and try to make money from them. Before uploading a graphic or image, members must have permission from the person or company responsible for creating that image. Or, if the character is licensed – Mickey Mouse, for example – the uploader must have permission from the agency responsible for licensing. This precludes the uploading of images scanned from magazines, newspapers, books, calendars and such sources. Copyrighted images may be downloaded only for the user's personal use. They cannot be sold. A member can download a copyrighted image to use as Windows wallpaper, for example, but can't sell that image for a friend to use as wallaper. Alteration and redistribution of the image is not allowed unless the owner grants permission. The Computer Age has placed copyright law into an ever-changing gray area. For the latest advise, head for Section 17, "Copyright and More," of the Graphics Support Forum (GO GRAPHSUP). There, a workgroup discusses the latest copyright legalities and issues. Carl Blessing, an artist who has uploaded more than 100 drawings to various forums, doesn't worry that his drawings will be used by others for commercial gain. "But if you have serious concerns that someone will steal a graphic you created and use it without compensation or attribution, then don't upload it," he says. –AR

>> I'll take lawsuits for $100 million, please. Forget it son, you're gonna get nailed for sure. << Just asking! BTW, what would be the difference between this and all of the pictures of Star Trek ships, etc., regularly posted on CI$?? – darin -Darin Lenderink