Comments on: Dear Photographer: Is Appropriating Someone Else’s Images Breaching Copyright?

By: J. Law

J. Law — Mon, 03 Sep 2012 07:24:27 +0000

I suggest you take a History of Photography class. Or Google Sherrie Levine. It will be instructive from a postmodern perspective. Then Google Jeff Koons copyright infringement. It will be instructive from s copyright perspective. I am both a photographer and a lawyer.

By: Seaside_Mike

Seaside_Mike — Sat, 01 Sep 2012 22:06:13 +0000

Using someone elses finished product,
without permission or payment is just bad manners.
Changing it to suit yourself and then passing it off as your own,
thats breach of copyright.
Thats what copyright, patents and trade marks
were developed to Stop.
Be it artistic or mechanical, if you use it for generating income,
you breach the Trust of the creator/developer to at least
Ask if not Pay for permission and recognition of their effort.
If I took a marker pen to your montage and sold it as my own work ,
I would expect to be asked about the original underneath,
and would accept that many would be upset that I
had no permission to use or deface someone elses work.

By: Alison Zavos

Alison Zavos — Mon, 13 Aug 2012 17:29:08 +0000

Just came across this on PDN:
http://pdnpulse.com/2012/08/self-proclaimed-photo-montage-virtuoso-is-sued-for-stealing-photos.html

By: Luminous

Luminous — Sun, 05 Aug 2012 17:29:47 +0000

As someone who has had her own images stolen over and over again, I say that yes, it is copyright infringement. If I know of someone who uses my images without permission, no matter how artistic the intention is (my work has its own artistic intent — which, by my request, should never be modified), I will do my best to report them in whatever website they’re posting, or sue them if the volume or value of the theft justifies it.

Taking someone’s work without consent is always copyright infringement. Altering it is even worse, in my opinion. Just search for images that are free for use or contact the artist — many of us don’t mind having their work changed.

By: Erik

Erik — Sun, 05 Aug 2012 14:40:23 +0000

Appropriation art is all about what will be traditionally seen as copyright violation. Saying you should use Creative Commons images is useless, since if you’re working with advertising those images will never be CC licenced. You could look at Richard Prince, yes, and see that he got in trouble when his work wasn’t commenting on the images he appropriated. If your work is commenting on advertising, it should be OK as fair use. In the end you might still have to go to court to defend the work – but you’d have the backing of the art world.

By: anonymous

anonymous — Sat, 04 Aug 2012 21:28:27 +0000

Do we think it boils down to personal ethics?

By: Josh R.

Josh R. — Sat, 04 Aug 2012 07:56:30 +0000

You are going to want to look into Richard Prince. His whole career is based on the appropriation of other people’s photography. The “internet culture” has no bearing on the law and your use of other people’s work.

By: Denise Worden

Denise Worden — Sat, 04 Aug 2012 03:09:30 +0000

Look for photos that have creative commons licenses. Be vigilant and don’t infringe on copyrights. Never assume that because an image is posted on the Internet or in print it is free for the taking.

By: Philipp Lunch

Philipp Lunch — Fri, 03 Aug 2012 18:18:47 +0000

Copyright Questions are always tough questions.
In Photography it is not that common to alter (or remix) an original image as it is for instance in music (especially in electronic music such as techno / house). I guess the rule will forbid your action, but the internet culture in which we live will promote such actions.

No clear answer, sorry for that, just trying to express some of my thoughts.