Violation of whether copying other people's pictures?

Printable View

02-08-13, 10:06 PM
balgaushulzey5296

Violation of whether copying other people's pictures?

aw7YFk <a href="http://zvjqteawpvoi.com/">zvjqteawpvoi</a>, qbszcvjoqvix, [link=http://vonnwbwiipnp.com/]vonnwbwiipnp[/link], http://mwgydzkjdxos.com/
02-09-13, 10:57 AM
Duke of Buckingham

Re: Violation of whether copying other people's pictures?

balgaushulzey5296 public domain is for definition PUBLIC. There are some sites that oblige to credit the pictures and some that are trying to sell them.

In the first beginning of my activity on the net, I was not paying attention, on the sites or on the rules of copyright but some years ago everyone was doing just the same as me.

In this last times I have been learning and trying to be more inside, of what is a common knowledge, of the copyrights applied to internet.

In this last times I always try to post the link (or credit the pictures) and post a part of it to interest people to see the other part I didn't post and have some visits on the sites I use for pictures, in some of them there is a knowledge from the administrators of this use.

I don't see no point on posting pictures on the open Internet and hope that no one use them. The Internet is changing and the uses of it with the Internet itself. No one can change the past, the better we can do is change the future by acknowledged better the laws and rules of it but we are all learning are we not?
02-09-13, 03:03 PM
DrPop

Re: Violation of whether copying other people's pictures?

Hi, this is an interesting topic being discussed in a lot of circles. My wife has done some commercial photography in years past, and is currently getting a degree in Architectural history from UCSB. I believe the rule of thumb she has told me is, the original work must be changed by 25% or more for it not to violate a copyright. This would apply to a photograph, a schematic, an architectural design; in short, any "original" work of art.

Now, once someone puts their work up for "public use", such as in a computer programmer putting up a program under GPL for everyone to use free of charge, or if a photographer really does just "give away" their photos on the Internet sharing sites like so many do - well, I guess those are pretty much up for grabs and you can do whatever you want with them.

The sticky part is, can you charge someone else for the stuff they already gave away for free? Most often I have heard this answered "no". However, if you modify the product as you were describing - as long as you modify it 25% or greater, it is no longer considered the "original" work, and is now yours to do as you wish.

Hopefully that was of some help?:confused:
02-09-13, 03:55 PM
trigggl

Re: Violation of whether copying other people's pictures?

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrPop

Hi, this is an interesting topic being discussed in a lot of circles. My wife has done some commercial photography in years past, and is currently getting a degree in Architectural history from UCSB. I believe the rule of thumb she has told me is, the original work must be changed by 25% or more for it not to violate a copyright. This would apply to a photograph, a schematic, an architectural design; in short, any "original" work of art.
...
Hopefully that was of some help?:confused:

So, does this mean I'm in the clear with my avatar if I remove the Wine and the Gentoo? I got a magazine page full of Gentoo Penguins, took the head from one and added it to the body of another.

I also made a modification to a Mt. Rushmore picture to relate to the head coaches of the NFC West.

http://imageshack.us/a/img41/5571/mt...fcw800x600.jpg