For a few graphics, I have looked on Google a few pictures to it to create masks and stencils. So the basic form and individual contours come close to the original picture. If I now my "work" to what extent published, because I can now get worse?
A simple example, what with only one filter was changed. The original picture here: http://www.empresuchas.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/bolexsideview.jpg
and my own version here:
Antwort von B.DeKid:
Hmm so I Perso. do not understand now what you mean.
Could that again somehow "explain correctly."
What do you mean with ...`?
- Masks - Your work - With publication
You talk of ...'?
- Images - A product (replicas) - Scenes in a movie - A logo - 3D models / animations
........................
MfG B. DeKid
Antwort von Johannes:
So I have a picture from the Internet. Then I change the Picture or'll take this as a basic framework for a new one. But I process them or so but take only parts from the original.
I think I can still somebody something. If the picture has just changed so as example in the example. Or you tell yourself it is not or hardly detectable?
Antwort von stefanf:
Basically, there always remains a copyright and synonymous. Do you use so synonymous s.Werk one another, no preference as artistically or technically made complicated.
Whether we recognize of course that you have used the Stillimage a mask for an overlay, I doubt it. Then create a proof is difficult.
Antwort von bjelgorod:
Hi John, I think that's all a question of image and interpretation. If you take for example a known copyrighted Picture and alienate it, you can get trouble. Example Picasso Münster place, there was one of Robert Capa been shot portrait photograph taken of Picasso as a template. This of course had to be synonymous rights Capa abgelichen and there is the consent of the Picasso heirs was required. Here one could argue synonymous, that the picture was still been heavily distorted. Purely legal point of view you'd have to probably match the rights. In your case, I do not believe that you have to expect this Stillimage with anger.
Greetings
Antwort von B.DeKid:
I can tell me if you really do not know where it comes from then you own it as "art" view.
The word masks I understand but still do not.
I think no one can tell you the synonymous here whether and why you use the "Picture" or not allowed to use.
Just think about it well after himself and is
It shall not be such a relevant picture than you're sued directly if you use it. But as I said you can tell no one where nobody knows what you have before.
MfG B. DeKid
Antwort von Johannes:
Thanks for your tips and hints.
I just wanted to know, as with such things. I mean it is enough lawyers throughout the day, thousands Syndicate data on the Internet and then make a "catch". But it seems still not to be the case with my concerns. In this respect, thank you.
Antwort von Corpse:
you not have the right to change the work of someone else. You need the permission of the copyright holder.
That's the theory.
If you alienate the so it will probably never before seen someone interested and tuts usually synonymous anyone.
But legally speaking, you may not, for it is not your property.
Antwort von stefanf:
But we must still synonymous in mind that the Picture of the camera side is not necessarily a "special" work. There are dozens of security with others, ibid one of these or similar cam have shown similar.
So it could of iorgend be one and is no longer identifiable.
Antwort von B.DeKid:
If you do not see me again via http://www.tineye.com/ there is not a problem if you use any of Google Images and alienated!
MfG B. DeKid
Antwort von Corpse:
"B. DeKid" wrote:
If you do not see me again via http://www.tineye.com/ there is not a problem if you use any of Google Images and alienated!
