Ethical question regarding graphics usage.

[Dawggie]

This was brought up to me in the recent usage by Faux Sports of a Pug pic that was on line, ripped, manipulated and used. See here: http://www.sweetney.com/001944.html?=rss

Someone at fox deleted the background of the pic, put a Santa Hat on the pup and included it briefly in a broadcast.

I often will find content on the web that I will use a a basis for a graphic used on a website but if it's for a for profit site, I will usually make sure that the original cannot be recognized as it was only used for form, texture or a color map. However, I have had much fun with AP and other photos of politicians without hiding the original subject.

The question is: When using publicly accessible graphic content in building a decidedly new and different piece, how much or little ownership of the original should exist?

[porphyrian]

1. I don't feel it's unethical unless you're taking credit, directly or indirectly, for the content...

...that isn't yours. And I believe it's legal as long as the content is significantly altered, whatever that means.

[quigleyunder]

2. I don't know. How could it be enforced or measured?

[Didereaux]

3. you're generally safe if, you give credit AND you do not profit from the use. Satire is protected.

[Dawggie]

7. And when combining....

To make this from these?
(note all items are original in this case)

[sandnsea]

4. You're never supposed to

Unless the original owner is clear and it's clearly for satirical purposes, or limited educational purposes.

It isn't really enforced in most instances. Be prepared to cease and desist if you're ever asked to. Fox should never have used somebody else's graphics, unethical, cheap, low-life.

[Swamp Rat]

5. I photoshop, you decide.

:evilgrin:

[boston bean]

9. i've always loved your stuff, swamprat!

:loveya:

[Swamp Rat]

13. thanks

:hug:

[Dawggie]

11. And you photoshop so well!

And I get a kick out of all your great work!

[Swamp Rat]

14. It's so much fun,

and cathartic. :D

[Didereaux]

12. yah know swampy, if you ever run out of...

red and neon green pixels you're hosed!
LOL
happy New Year btw

[Swamp Rat]

15. I got some yeller ones too.

Happy New Year! :hi:

[Didereaux]

17. ahhh, all is safe and well then! and it looks like yeller chickenhawks will be round awhile. heh

[nadinbrzezinski]

6. In theory once the photo went online it was copyrighted

in theory FOX should have contacted them, assuming it was their photo they took (yes, I am assuming for a second they actually bought a very similar photo... )

And yes, in theory they should have negotiated the use of the graphic, and pay for it.

In reality good luck.

Now don't try this at home with a Mickey Mouse graphic for fun and profit

[evlbstrd]

8. This is not theoretical.

The copyright is held by the creator. You have no rights without permission.

[Dawggie]

10. And in respect to the pic in your sig line which is a parody of the terrible

commercial which shall not be named? Could he/she/corporation demand you pay him for all views of that Jpeg?

[TalkingDog]

19. evlbstrd is showing a parody

he attempting not attempting to sell it, publish it or profit from it, nor is he claiming the work as his own.

He is merely showing you a parody of an image.

Let me give you a real life example: If an artist sells an original painting to an individual or organization, the purchaser only owns the work of art, not the image.

If, say, a museum decides to have a show with that work, they must get permission from the artist or their estate in order to reproduce the image, even though the museum owns the painting, whether for postcards, posters, in a book or any advertising.

If you "cut up" an image, as shown previously, and recombine it or use it with other images, you might get by with it, probably forever. But there are artists that have found out their work was used and recontextualized without permission and lawsuits ensued. (so to speak)

Jeff Koonz: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Koons#Copyright_litigation




My Favorite Master Artist: Karen Parker GhostWoman Studios

[evlbstrd]

20. It's quite possible.

Hey, I'm not a saint.

[ColbertWatcher]

16. I cannot recall...

[Dawggie]

18. LOL!