Not sure which words to use for searching this out, so I'll just post it here: Suppose I found a picture on a place like Google images, downloaded it, then bezier drew over it a simplified vector version of the image. Would that be an original, as in mine? Or would it be a derivitive (sp?) work? My impression is that it would be quite original, but before I go do that, give it to freinds, and have it wind up hither and yonder on the 'net, thought I'd see what youse guys thought. 'Specially after the other vinyl logo thread.
Posted by Brent Logan (Member # 6587) on :
That's a good question. I guess it would depend on how "stylized" your version of the original image would be. Another question... How did artists like Andy Warhol and Robert Raushenberg get away with silk screening news photos and movie studio pics of stars like Elvis on their paintings? They called it their art, but the images came from other sources.
Posted by James Donahue (Member # 3624) on :
It's been clearly demonstrated (on the other thread) that my (previous) idea of what's do-able might not fly with a lot of corporations. But, I'm not using a trace program, I'm clicking around 'by hand'.(By hand?!?, that's an intesresting choice of words) Some I actually draw with pencil, scan, then vectorize. Come to think of it, I have some printed material about copyrights buried somewhere, maybe time to find it...
Posted by Curtis hammond (Member # 2170) on :
as i posted before this book can clear up a load of misconceptions about copyrights. Look at thsi link
I don't see a difference between tracing by hand and using a tracing program with regard to copyrights. The results will end up looking a lot the same.
What are the images you are talking about? Celebrities? Cartoon characters? Mountain meadow scenes? If you're just doing the artwork for fun and then giving it away to friends and family, your chance of legal trouble is close to zero. Whether you can call it "your own" is a different story. It depends what you do to it, and how much of your own imagination and style goes into the finished product.
Posted by Todd Gill (Member # 2569) on :
Technically - I agree with Russ.
You're still just copying it from an image that was created by someone else's "minds eye."
quote:My impression is that it would be quite original
I would disagree with this statement....it's only real if you dreamed it up, sketched it, took a photo of it yourself and then created a vector graphic of it.
That being said....I personally wouldn't lose any sleep over doing what you said as described - - minus the explanation to people that it is something you "originally created."
Posted by bruce ward (Member # 1289) on :
i thought I was the only one that did this. I do this all the time and think nothing of it. If you cant find something you need your gonna find it in google images.
I just dont get that involved over a bitmap cartoon of a chicken that I need to use and redraw over. I figure what the hell its on the internet ill use it.
If we actually broke doen everything we can or cannot do we would be so stressed and strapped it aint worth it
Posted by Fred Weiss (Member # 3662) on :
There are more than one issue in play here and, to me, a clear conflict of rights.
One issue is what is the artist's inspiration and when is the line crossed with regard to originality. That line has always been to me a photograph vs. an artistic rendering. The former being fair game and the latter being hands off. But that's just me.
Another issue is the rights claimed by owners and designers vs. the artist's right to use the world around him or her as subject matter. Volkswagen of America has received patent protection for any image of a VW Beetle (the new version) along with some other models. They aggressively challenge anyone who publishes such an image in any form. Major clipart and stock photography sellers such as Fotosearch and Jupiter Media will not use any art or photography that includes recognizeable private property or trademarked products. Yet it seems to me that if anything is within our view that the artist would be having his freedom of speech curtailed if he is told he can draw this but not draw that.
And then there is the issue of what is truly original? In a strict sense, there is really very little that is ever totally new and original. We pretty much derive everything from what already exists.
Posted by Bill Wood (Member # 6543) on :
Last night on the tonight show, Jay Leno was showing different kinds of candy bars that had been altered, turning them into a laugh situation.As everybody knows they do this all the time.I'll betcha they don't pay royalties...they just get a big laugh from the corporates.I believe this is altering a logo but the big corporates...I assume...says,it's free advertising.
Posted by Nevman (Member # 332) on :
Quick question on the Volkswagon copyright...
Does it mean that if I do a wrap on a Beetle that I can't take a picture of that and use it for promotional consideration?
That's too weird...
Posted by Russ McMullin (Member # 5617) on :
Pat, if it were me I wouldn't hesitate to take photos of a wrap and use them in a porfolio to promote locally. Volkswagan made the cars and put them into public view. If they don't want people taking pictures of them, they can do a better job of hiding them.
Posted by James Donahue (Member # 3624) on :
I'll have to go look at the link, but here's a little clarification: I'm using photos of people, birds, things like that, but the end result will be very politically biased. So, as usual, somebody will let their emotions rule their mind, rather than the reverse, and I need to be sure the artwork is on solid legal ground (if such a thing exists apart from how many lawyers one can afford). I've tried my limited trace software, and the posterizing feature, but what I do is not like either. It really requires a lot of decisions as to where the lines go.
Posted by Dave Draper (Member # 102) on :
James, We use "brands of the world.com" and other sites as well as tons of clip art to get our ideas. Many times we use bits and pieces of several logos to form the idea for a new logo. Art work is used the same way. Who doesn't do this? Who doesn't look at SignCraft magazine and imitate something they like about someone's work in a new project?
Last week I needed a "heart" and a pair of arms and hands and eyeballs.... a little cartoon logo. I took pieces of three different logos to form the new one, quickly, effeciently and it barely resembles anything of the components we started with.
If building on others work is illegal...everybody is guilty, EVERYBODY! (and not just in sign and design work) Just my 2 cents worth! Posted by Russ McMullin (Member # 5617) on :
If it's for making a political statement you have much wider latitude. Parody and satire can often dance freely around copyright laws. MAD Magazine and Saturday Night Live come to mind as the most famous examples.
Images of political figures and celebrities are often copied. Caricature artists and polital illustrators have stacks and stacks of pictures harvested from magazines and other sources. I've never heard of them getting into trouble over that.
Posted by Ray Rheaume (Member # 3794) on :
Two words....
ARTIST'S RENDITION.
Rapid
[ December 05, 2006, 11:55 AM: Message edited by: Ray Rheaume ]
Posted by Dan Sawatzky (Member # 88) on :
Reference material is a must for any designer. How close we stick to what we find is the question.
Combining elements of our sources into something new is the way to go. The key is to use our source material 'for inspiration' and not simply to copy it. There is a world of difference.
As far as truly original... I don't think there is such a thing. But in most cases on viewing the work of a good designer you will be hard pressed to find the source of the inspiration.
In my work I am constantly seeking things to inspire me and help me out in my designs. If my source is something which is very stylized I will take a good look then put it away and keep in mind what I saw while redrawing in my own style. Working rough on paper is also a good way to do it. With two or three redraws I find the original source materials get diminished greatly and my own style and other influences make the idea much more my own.
THe further we can get from a trace the more the ideas become all our own.
-grampa dan
Posted by Gene Golden (Member # 3934) on :
I guess answers to any of these questions depend on how good your lawyer is or how good your conscience is!
Legal or Illegal...?
1) If someone takes my sketch for a sign design and turns it into a sign? 2) If someone photographs my sign and gives it to a graphic artist to make a logo from it? 3) If someone takes a picture of the building with my sign on it an produces a photo, print or tee shirt from it? 4) If someone someone asks you to continue lettering their fleet of trucks the way the last guy did? 5) If someone prints a font page from the Adobe or Letterhead Fonts internet site (they don't own the font) and then digitizes their own copy from it?
In my opinion, if you are trying to reproduce someone's artwork, and pawn it off as your own, then you are guilty of fraud and copyright infringement. If you are producing derivitive artwork from a Volkswagen or a Harley, or even a flower or a landscape from an internet image, I'd consider it fair use. If you are copying someone else's artwork of that Harley or Volkswagen, then what?
Where does this end?
Posted by Russ McMullin (Member # 5617) on :
Dan, your method is similar to mine. I use the Internet for research, but I don't want my work to look like my research material.
Several months ago a customer requested a logo which was to include the image of an angry-looking bear. Lacking an angry bear of my own to photograph, I scoured the Net for photos. The search yielded 5 or 6 useful images.
I didn't want the image in my logo to be a literal copy of any of them, so I used them as reference to create thumbnail sketches to familiarize myself with the anatomy. Then I put the photos and the sketches away. From that point I started doing sketches out of my head. I came up with one that I liked and refined it as far as I could with what I remembered about bear anatomy. When I finished I pulled out the photos and used them to tweak a few details, like the shape of the nostrils, etc. From there I posterized and stylized my own sketch to create the final vector artwork in the logo.
I used reference to arrive at the final product, but that product doesn't look anything like the referece material.
Posted by Ray Rheaume (Member # 3794) on :
Same two words, Russ?
Posted by Deb Fowler (Member # 1039) on :
If a realtor comes to you bearing two logos, one for "the rock" and one for a certification of the realtors, do you tell her to give you a letter of permission or is there a site to show what is definitely allowed?
![[Smile]](smile.gif)