Posted: Sat Apr 07, 2012 2:27 pm Post subject: Copyright question...
Not sure if I've put this one in the right place but...
My graphic tutor at college quoted to the class if you change 75% of an image or something, then it's no longer copyrighted. Whats the law?
I'm in the mids of doing a logo for someone and they really like an image but its copyrighted and costs a fortune to buy it so if I was to take the idea, and re-make it so it was the same but wouldn't be recognised at its twin as such would that be ok? The logo is for someone that wants to use the logo publicly so it needs to be right so she doesn't face any problems.
Any help is great help. Thanks in advance _________________ Those who dare to waste one moment of time have not yet discovered the value of life.
Joined: 05 Mar 2003
Posts: 3987
Location: Cheltenham, UK
Posted: Sat Apr 07, 2012 4:56 pm Post subject:
The law is frankly different depending upon where you live or in extreme cases where the complainant lives in relation to you.
I'm a little two sheets to the wind at the moment, but if no-one else interjects in the mean time, will dig up some links tomorrow for you. As for the 75% claim, it's nonsense. Works are either derivative or not, attributable or not and a few things in-between, but not 75 %
Of course if you live in China/Russia (substitute your favoured country here)
fuma.jpg
Description:
Filesize:
12.01 KB
Viewed:
623 Time(s)
_________________ If life serves you lemons, make lemonade!
Joined: 26 Nov 2010
Posts: 368
Location: Australia
Posted: Wed Apr 11, 2012 3:39 pm Post subject:
Lawyers aren't going to count how many pixels have been changed. Anyway. how do you define "75%"? Problematic.
If it looks the same, you might have trouble. If it's original and it looks different you probably won't have trouble.
But even then, who knows? Apple took on Woolworths recently (in Australia) for using an apple in its new logo (even though it was a different apple, which looked like a 'w', nothing like Apple's logo). Mind you, I don't think they won.
But what about the Men at Work song "Land Downunder" which had a little bit of a flute riff (can flutes riff?) which sounded a bit like "Kookaburra sits in the Old Gum Tree"? The guys who bought the rights to the old Kookaburra classic saw them in court and got a handsome payout.
You're allowed to look at other people's work for inspiration, though. If your image is original and "wouldn't be recognised as its twin", it's hard to see how there can be a problem.
Joined: 26 Nov 2010
Posts: 368
Location: Australia
Posted: Wed Apr 11, 2012 4:01 pm Post subject: Couldn't resist again
Just responded to a different post about frustrations and call centres. Nearly posted this pic there, but given that it involves a logo, it's probably better off here. Telstra is the biggest telco in this country and its call centres are notorious.
GetTelstrated.jpg
Description:
Some postcard size versions were mysteriously left with advertising leaflets in a tray outside a Telstra shop.
Posted: Thu Apr 12, 2012 1:28 am Post subject: Re: Copyright question...
Cloudless_Creative wrote:
Not sure if I've put this one in the right place but...
My graphic tutor at college quoted to the class if you change 75% of an image or something, then it's no longer copyrighted. Whats the law?
I'm in the mids of doing a logo for someone and they really like an image but its copyrighted and costs a fortune to buy it so if I was to take the idea, and re-make it so it was the same but wouldn't be recognised at its twin as such would that be ok? The logo is for someone that wants to use the logo publicly so it needs to be right so she doesn't face any problems.
Any help is great help. Thanks in advance
Ok, answering your question properly would require about 10,000 words of text and still not really give you any good answers. So, with my usual caveat of I'm not an attorney, just a guy who works in copyright every day, aside, I'll take a stab at the short(er) version of the answer.
This question deals with two separate areas of copyright law, derivative works and fair use. Derivative works are works that are based upon an original creation, such as sequels to a novel, remixes of a song, etc. Fair use are uses of a work that would be infringing if they weren't found to be of greater public good than harm.
Copyright holders have the exclusive right to create a derivative work of their creations. You wrote Harry Potter, you get to write the sequels. But when does a work go from being a derivative work to a wholly new one? There is no bright line, certainly no 75% rule.
The law uses what is known as an "ordinary observer" test. Basically, whether an ordinary observer could see that A is based on B. If they could, the work is a derivative and likely an infringement. You can easily change a great deal of a work and have it be derivative. Fan fiction, for example, only uses the characters from a series though it's widely regarded as derivative work (though it's often highly tolerated).
Fair use is a defense that says, while this use violates the rights of the copyright holder, it's not an infringement because it was for some more noble cause.
There is no bright line on fair use either. Instead, it's determined by how a judge and/or jury interprets the four factors. You can read more about those factors here:
So what does this mean? Well, it means there's no good bright line and the only way to be certain is to do something, be sued and win/lose. There's no 75% rule within the law or any other rule based on percentages, seconds, pixels, etc. It's all subjective and open to interpretation, by design.
So, if anyone tries to tell you that if you do X you're completely safe, they're probably being misled.
Joined: 20 Dec 2008
Posts: 710
Location: Oklahoma PS Version: photoshop cs5 OS: win7 pro 64 bit, i7-3.2g, GTS 450,
Posted: Thu Apr 12, 2012 8:53 am Post subject:
hi,
my 2 cents worth.....
1. copyright law are very broad and vaque!! rarely will you find any specifics in them...
note: title 17 of the copy law is where logos fall unders...
2. as far as the 75% .. I believe that is just a basic rule of thumb .. your tutor should have mentioned his source for that number.. also he should be aware that most images, the copy right includes "no changes or modification" that a important point...
for your discussion... you should talk in terms of imsperiation or similar designs ... to use terms like to modify a design... leaves you in soft grounds...
at 75%, overall difference, not just one aspect, should be enough tokeep you clear of any potential isssues ... but keep in mind there can be 99% difference and there people/cmpanies that will still sue...lol.. for example apple is one of those companies they always sue just to intimadate even though they may NOT have a leg tostand on ..
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
Thanks Jonathan.
