The hamsters ate BrandonR’s OP, but I guess the question is pretty much self-explanatory.
You’d have to get a ruling, but it’s doubtful you could use an image under fair use. One of the criteria is the amount of the work used. If you use the entire work, then it doesn’t fall under fair use.
\
I disagree. Fair use covers any protected work. It depends on what the image is. For instance, we see photos of paintings in newspaper articles about museum shows; we see stills in movie reviews. This is all fair use, and it’s pretty uncontroversial. However, anything more than that is going to depend heavily on individual facutal situations, such as the purpose, the permenance of the display, the percentage of the work shown (one frame from a film is not the same as a color photo of a painting), whether you derive profit from the display, and whether the putatively fair use impinges on the rightholder’s ability to make his own profit.
–Cliffy, Esq.
P.S. I know absolutely nothing of the facts in this matter, I am most likely not licensed in your jurisdiction, and I do not practice in this area of law. If your interest is more than purely hypothetical, you should consult with an attorney in your area with a full knowledge of the facts and expertise in intellectual property. I am not competent to offer legal advice in this matter. You are not my client. I am not your lawyer.
Like Cliffy said. Fair use does apply to images too, but the standards of what actually constitutes “fair use” can be somewhat more stringent and subject to more pitfalls. It might be best if the OP returns to explain his or her specific situation in detail.
Fair use = copyright attorney full employment act.
I don’t disagree. I was considering the case where someone took an image and used it, say, on a web page, without permission; that’s not fair use.
Chuck:
Keep in mind that there is no black and white in Fair Use considerations. Identical uses by two separately situated people could conceivably result in opposing outcomes. The short answer to the OP is that yes, Fair Use extends to photos. No one of the factors used in considering Fair Use is controlling and therefore you could use an entire photograph without infringing the copyright. It would just depend on how you used it.
CJ
I can’t think of a single situation where you can take an entire photo and use it without permission of the copyright holder. Profit doesn’t enter into it. Just because you don’t profit from it doesn’t absolve you from seeking permission. How you use it is not an issue if the copyright holder objects.
FWIW when my SO did his webpage, he sought permission from the publisher to use images of the front pages of his books. It was probably going too far but at least then we knew our butts were covered if the publishers objected.
According to The Style Manual
‘Copyright is infringed if a person who is not the copyright holder (or someone licensed by the copyright holder) exercises one or more of the owner’s exclusive rights without permission. Unauthorised reproduction is the most common type of infringement.’
That’s from the Australian ‘bible’ on these matters but international law doesn’t differ greatly. If anyone can find an authoritative source which says it is OK to lift entire photos without getting permission, I’m interested in seeing the logic in that source.
Actually, profit is important.
So, how’s this for a fact pattern: Without receiving any pay, I write a scholarly article about counterfeiting money for a non-profit law journal. In it, I discuss the 1985 case of Time magazine having a full-color cover picture that showed a pile of money, the money being approximately actual size. I include a picture of the cover. Time refused to give permission because they are embarrassed over the whole incident. The law journal prints the picture anyway.
I have no idea who will win, but I have a damn good argument that since (1), (2) and (4) all weigh in my favor, I should prevail.
It does depend on the situtation. If you’re a teacher and wish to discuss art with students, it is fair use to make a limited number of copies of Worhol’s Campbell’s Soup paintings and distribute it to the class.
OK Enderw24 but that’s fair use in an academic setting. I should have specified that the rules for that are different. Although here and in NZ there is a fee paid in situations like that by academic institutions.
Pencil Pusher
Fair use is for the purpose of educational institutions. If I were editing that law journal, I’d do what I have been taught to do and request permission. If it is refused, well, then I choose another image which is either public domain or that I can get permission for.
Non-profit doesn’t mean license to pinch stuff which is copyrighted.
I have a question that is directly related to this, so I’ll ask it here.
I am an artist, and I’ve been showing off my portrait drawing abilites on my website by showing portraits of celebrities.
Obviously, I have to use photos as reference for these portraits. While my artwork is original, the photo reference is copyrighted by someone else (usually a movie studio) and it’s usually obvious which photo was my reference (even though I don’t do an exact copy). I am not selling the portraits, just showing them off. I understand that there is an issue if I started selling, say, pencil portraits of Han Solo from “Star Wars”. But I’m not doing that. Just showing off what I can do. (And, I am not even directly selling any portraits of anyone on my site! Just showing off my artwork.)
I also have a section on my site with lessons how to draw portraits, and I use some of these celebrity portraits as examples of drawings, since people will be able to tell how good of a likeness I am able to get. (And it’s so much more effective to show a drawing of a celebrity than of, say, my mom, because they don’t really know what my mom looks like.)
As far as I know everything I’ve done falls under fair use but I am not 100% clear on the whole thing, to be honest.
Another question—what if I ever made an e-Book or a print book of my artwork? I’ve seen many art books and illustration annuals where artists show portraits of a variety of celebrities (to show off their skills, or to demonstrate an art technique) and I don’t recall seeing any credit given to the photographer of the original celebrity photo that the artist had to use as reference. However, I’d hate to make up an e-Book showing off my portraits, only to find out that I’d violated some copyright law. What say you, Dopers? Anyone have any insights on this issue?
Gray area. On ebay, people sometimes take the image of an item from the manf web site & I read the manf sometimes has shut down the auction when they catch it. However, using your own photo of an item is alright. I guess it depends on what you’re using it for.