<div>Hi,</div> <div> </div> <div>Greg, I have a question, maybe you can help me:</div> <div>What about a drawing made in Inkscape based on a photograph? Not a vectorized photo, but a drawing (made "line by line") based on a photography. Would it be ok or a copyright violation?</div> <div> </div> <div>If anyone can answer that, feel free to do.</div> <div> </div> <div>Thanks in advance and sorry for my bad English.</div> <div> </div> <div>Leonardo Cunha <br><br> </div> <div><span class="gmail_quote">2007/12/31, Greg Bulmash <<a href="mailto:oneminuteinspirations@gmail.com">oneminuteinspirations@gmail.com</a>>:</span> <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">Mohamed Ibrahim wrote:<br>> Reporters take pictures of actors & actresses and post it all over the<br> > newspapers & web without their consent, actually sometimes the pictures<br>> are in an undesirable situations for them - yet they get posted.<br><br>As the person who built and managed the celebrity photo library for <br>IMDb.com for 5+ years, I'll address that.<br><br>Such photos are considered editorial use. When used for news or<br>commentary, the celebrity's image (however good or bad) can be used.<br><br>I often had to deal with agents or managers saying "who authorized you <br>to post that photo?"<br><br>I'd reply that the photo was shot at a public event with paparazzi<br>present where their client had no reasonable expectation of privacy. As<br>the photo was being used editorially, the First Amendment authorized us <br>to post it.<br><br>What we're talking about in the case of images on OCAL is the "right of<br>publicity"....<br><br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_publicity">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_publicity </a><br><br>It's not protected under copyright. You're violating someone's personal<br>trademark. It's also known under the legal concept of "passing off".<br><br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passing_off"> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passing_off</a><br><br>California's Celebrities Rights Act was enacted to make these rights<br>transferrable, like a copyright, for 70 years after the celebrity's death.<br><br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celebrities_Rights_Act"> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celebrities_Rights_Act</a><br><br>This is what has allowed the estates of Marilyn Monroe, Princess Diana,<br>and Boris Karloff to sue people making t-shirts, collector plates, etc.<br>that bore their likenesses. <br><br>So, if I was writing an article on my blog about Sandra Bullock and used<br>the OCAL image for illustrative purposes, it would be fine. If, like<br>Johnny Automatic pointed out, we put it up with the subhead of "Sandra <br>Bullock Loves OCAL", it would be an unauthorized endorsement and she<br>could sue.<br><br>> I think it is enough to show a disclaimer may be like what wikipedia<br>> does in a clear box:<br>> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:CBSEveningNewsKatie.jpg"> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:CBSEveningNewsKatie.jpg</a><br><br>That's different as it is a copyrighted work that Wikipedia is claiming<br>it believes falls under fair use and does not actually address Katie<br> Couric's rights as an individual to exert some control over the use of<br>her image. Instead, it addresses CBS's rights under copyright.<br><br>That's much more restrictive than an image that's public domain, but has <br>restrictions based on the rights of the individual depicted.<br><br>> when CBS altered an image in a way they thought people would like it<br>> more by making Katie look thinner. She didn't like it and was in the <br>> news headlines for a couple of days even though she worked for CBS for a<br>> period of time.<br><br>Again, a different matter. That was a publicity photo, issued by her<br>employer.<br><br>A drawing or "work of art" depicting someone can veer toward the <br>idealized or grotesque with much more freedom because it's<br>known/expected to be the artists interpretation. A photograph that is<br>issued without a warning that it's been altered is assumed to represent<br> a realistic depiction.<br><br>Secondly, since the photo was "official" from Katie's employer, it could<br>lead people to believe that Katie had approved or even instigated the<br>alterations and thus cause people to think she was vain, damaging her <br>reputation and costing her goodwill, much of that coming from the fact<br>that it's "official".<br><br>Neither issue of being a photo nor the issue of being an "officiall"<br>representation of someone are issues that I believe OCAL has to contend <br>with.<br><br>> So my opinion is to allow addition of celebrity images. If adding the<br>> check box is a trouble then may be vectorizing & cliparting of<br>> celebrity/people images should be outlined in the policy. <br><br>I think if it's a vectorized photo, there are issues that need to be<br>considered, such as whether the copyright owned by the photographer is<br>being violated.<br><br>But if it's a drawing and the copyright owner is the submitter, then the <br>main thing to do is warn the end user of the publicity rights issue.<br><br>- Greg<br>_______________________________________________<br>clipart mailing list<br><a href="mailto:clipart@lists.freedesktop.org">clipart@lists.freedesktop.org </a><br><a href="http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/clipart">http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/clipart</a><br></blockquote></div><br>