In a message dated 2/26/2009 12:41:00 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
dd-b@xxxxxxxx writes:
>Depends what was done to whatever the original image on the way to
making
>the poster. If you picked a convenient reference shot to
get the face
>right, it seems likely you'd want to adjust various things
for optimal
>appearance in the poster still, and anything spatial would
make the
>overlay not be exact.
If an artist realized he was stealing a photograph he could do some
alterations in the spatial aspect to hide the theft. However in this case
he did none. He just took the photo and added some color to it and some text.
Another photographer I correspond with emailed me this
"As I understood it the Associate Press was suing and the photographer
had no real objective in the proceedings. The poster in question is
unquestionably from the AP photo. I superimposed the poster over the
photo in Photo shop. The AP case is pretty strong given the facts, how
it holds with the court of public opinion may be another thing.
What
the public doesn't know regarding the use of images is that most
all uses
of imagery we see on TV news etc are licensed through long
standing
agreements with the major service providers. "
With regards to a derivative work the copyright law is clear. The
derivative artist needs the consent of the original copyright owner to publish
and distribute the derivative work legally. Now in the somewhat distance past
many people got away with this as no one complained as the perception of money
value was small. Andy Warhol's is probable the biggest
example of this. But the tide changed when the large Hollywood company's
started perceiving the $ they were losing. All of a sudden the person making a
few Starwars or Star Trek costumes by hand and selling them were seen as
ripping off copyrights. The son of "Scotty" from the original Star Trek Series
was stopped from naming his bar
"Beam Me Up Scotty".
Roy
