I tend to agree with you but at what point is a new work created? I've never understood when a new work does not violate copyright with collage/assemblage artists or those who use short audio samples when making music. At what point? If someone makes an image using photos that are only perceptable using a magifying glass is that not a new creation? I'm not arguing for either side but have always wondered this as an artist. Do royalties go do the guy who made the urinal Marcel Duchamp used or to Cambells soup from Andy Warhol's estate? Regards, Dean -----Original Message----- From: owner-photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Emily L. Ferguson Sent: Saturday, January 15, 2005 5:39 AM To: List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students Subject: Re: Copyright question: re tiny thumbnails. At 12:16 PM +0000 1/15/05, Bob Talbot wrote: >Is there a point (in terms of thumbnail size) at which you could safely >(without breaking copyright) use a small version of other's pictures >downloaded from the web? No. Size has nothing to do with infringement. Only permission status. And, in practice, whether you're actually going to publish the result. Literally, it's an infringement if you take it off the web and use if for your own amusement, but in actuality, because it's unenforcable, you can do it with impunity. Once you move to making a poster, or any other public airing of the composite, then you need to locate every copyright holder and arrange permission. So have fun, and keep a database of the URLs of every image you have on hand. -- Emily L. Ferguson mailto:elf@xxxxxxxx 508-563-6822 New England landscapes, wooden boats and races, press photography http://www.vsu.cape.com/~elf/
