Copyright LawsDerivative work?

Copyright Controversy After Appropriated Photo Used to Win Art

ContestPublished April 2, 2013 by Michael Zhang

When it comes to copyright, how much is enough to make something your own? The picture on the bottom is a manipulation of the top, thanks to Photoshop. Twenty-three-year-old Frenchman Romain Sarkal Eloy (the manipulator) entered his photo to a contest for the BMW Mini Cooper marketing campaigns based on art contests on a website called Minispace. Eloy’s photo won first place in the contest. The person that won second place recognized the photo and let the holders of the contest know what happened. The article stated that, “[Kevin] Collins [the photographer of the original photo] was never contacted for permission, and he never allowed his photo to be manipulated and published without attribution — much less as an entry in a contest. (He did Creative Commons license the photo, but required that any use carry attribution).” The contest holders response to the second place winner was that the photo was “manipulated enough” to qualify as an original piece of work. After Minispace responded, Kevin Collins had some words to say himself saying that the photo was for nonprofit use only and has a Creative Commons license for it. With this response Minispace decided to disqualify the winner for his non-original work. So the question here is: “At what point does a photograph become Photoshopped enough to qualify as “’100% original work?”’

Summary:

Rob Elliott • Even if it isn't a violation of Copyright, it's a violation of the rules of the contest He took an image cropped it, and then altered 1/4 of the image left and played with the levels a bit. That is not 100% original.

Bob Cooley • Clear copyright violation.A similar example: Thierry Guetta (aka Mr. Brainwash) has been sued (and lost) numerous times for Photoshop manipulations of photographers' work, including Glen Friedman's famous Run DMC photo and Dennis Morris' Sid Vicious photo. Guetta's images were more manipulated than the sample above.

Bossi • 100% sounds pretty clear

to me... You could make an

argument anywhere between or

including 1% and 99%, but it

definitely isn't 100% original.

Comments:

The Question:At what point does a piece of art work become photoshopped and/or manipulated enough to where it doesn’t violate copyright laws?

Ptsuk •http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D... unauthorized derivative work.

What is Derivative Work?

In copyright law, a derivative work is an expressive creation that includes major copyright-protected elements of an original, previously created first work (the underlying work). The derivative work becomes a second, separate work independent in form from the first. The transformation, modification or adaptation of the work must be substantial and bear its author's personality to be original and thus protected by copyright. Translations, cinematic adaptations and musical arrangements are common types of derivative works.Most countries' legal systems seek to protect both works. They grant authors the right to impede or otherwise control their integrity and the author's commercial interests. Derivatives and their authors benefit in turn from the full protection of copyright without prejudicing the rights of the original work's author.

Directly from Wiki:

L.H.O.O.Q. (1919). Derivative work by Marcel Duchamp based on the Mona Lisa (La Gioconda) by Leonardo da Vinci. Also known as The Mona Lisa With a Moustache. Often used by law professors to illustrate legal concept of derivative work.

The Other Question:Is Sarkal Eloy’s photograph considered derivative work ?

What makes a derivative work unauthorized?

Only the owner of copyright in a work has the right to pre- pare, or to authorize someone else to create, an adaptation of that work. The owner of a copyright is generally the author or someone who has obtained the exclusive rights from the author. In any case where a copyrighted work is used without the permission of the copyright owner, copyright protection will not extend to any part of the work in which such mate- rial has been used unlawfully. The unauthorized adaption of a work may constitute copyright infringement.

Article: Copyright in Derivative Works and Compilations

References

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work

http://petapixel.com/2013/04/02/copyright-controversy-after-appropriated-photo-used-to-win-art-contest/

http://www.minispace.com/en_us/competitions/29/

http://copyright.gov/circs/circ14.pdf