Apparently Copying News Photos is NOT legal

[Uncle Pete]

Back to this one again. After reading, many cases it depends on what state and which celebrity. But I'd argue in a generic sense, the photographer still owns the rights to their work, or the news agency owns the rights to their collection. It's not all about the personality or their personal image.

News agency claims painting of prosecutor copies an AP photo

George Zimmerman could find himself caught up in another legal entanglement.  Zimmerman, who found himself at the center of a high-profile trial after fatally shooting teenager Trayvon Martin in Florida, has been hit with a cease and desist letter by the Associated Press over a painting that depicts attorney Angela Corey, who prosecuted Zimmerman in the trial.

The Associated Press claims that the painting is a copy of one the news agency�s photos.

In case it's not clear. Another one of those cases where an "artist" is just copying some source material from a magazine or newspaper photo and painting it in their own style or their impression.

Some days when I look, there's more of this on FAA than there is original work. I'm guessing it's a common practice for people learning and in classes, but what I can't understand is why they don't leave it behind after that.

These people have fine skills and talent. Seems a waste to be just copying others creations?

And then the other part, trying to sell it, which FAA does nothing about and on their forums anyone who asks will be shot down, attacked and shut off. Thread closed.

[Ariene]

Did you ask them, write an email and find what they think about it? I believe they're friendly in personal contact (nobody likes talk about faults public, in marketing site).
I notice there is a lot of that kind work (copied) and I hope it'll be changed soon...

[BaldricksTrousers]

They're not interested. They just assume that everything that's copied is public domain or the artist has got permission from the copyright owner.  I reckon that the copyright owner would have to send them a lawyers' letter before they would take any action on anything.

[U11]

The most of POD services don�t really care about copyright. Because ignoring the issue bring them content and money. And their business can run  in cheap  automatic mode. They �assume� that contributors submit only their own copyright work. And they even take any work down if you send them DMCA notice.
That�s why all POD sites are crammed with tons of badly traced copies of Somebody Else's intellectual properties. It is not feasible for individual artist to pursue all copyright infringements on POD sites using DMCA notice mechanism. And if the thieves are not from US you can�t get them any other way

[Uncle Pete]

True, True, and Yes

The most of POD services don�t really care about copyright. Because ignoring the issue bring them content and money. And their business can run  in cheap  automatic mode. They �assume� that contributors submit only their own copyright work. And they even take any work down if you send them DMCA notice.
That�s why all POD sites are crammed with tons of badly traced copies of Somebody Else's intellectual properties. It is not feasible for individual artist to pursue all copyright infringements on POD sites using DMCA notice mechanism. And if the thieves are not from US you can�t get them any other way

and

They're not interested. They just assume that everything that's copied is public domain or the artist has got permission from the copyright owner.  I reckon that the copyright owner would have to send them a lawyers' letter before they would take any action on anything.

and

Did you ask them, write an email and find what they think about it? I believe they're friendly in personal contact (nobody likes talk about faults public, in marketing site).
I notice there is a lot of that kind work (copied) and I hope it'll be changed soon...

Yes, I tried but the whole thread went into accusations, name calling (for people trying to point out it was illegal) and ended with the moderator saying, "If you aren't a copyright lawyer, then you can't have an opinion on this." Thread locked.

So that's how much they care. Until Getty or AP comes online and says, hey, you are selling illegal copies of our photographs, it's going to be wide open to tracing and artistic renditions. These are not protected as derivatives, because the source material is copyrighted. That's the problem.

Just throwing some Photoshop filter on someone's photo and changing some colors isn't really enough. But I'm not a copyright lawyer... 

[unnonimus]

re: "News agency claims painting of prosecutor copies an AP photo"

this sounds like fair use because the new work is a different form, it has been upheld in court many times.

[disorderly]

re: "News agency claims painting of prosecutor copies an AP photo"

this sounds like fair use because the new work is a different form, it has been upheld in court many times.

I doubt a court would agree with you.  It certainly didn't agree with Shepard Fairey over his famous Hope painting of Barack Obama.  The Associated Press sued over his use of one of their photographs as the basis of his work.  Not only did Fairey lose; he was convicted of falsifying evidence to hide the link between the original and his derived work.  Fair use will only take you so far.

Shepard Fairey Is Fined and Sentenced to Probation in �Hope� Poster Case

Oh, and old thread alert.

[cathyslife]

OLD THREAD ALERT

[unnonimus]

you said: "I doubt a court would agree with you.  It certainly didn't agree with Shepard Fairey over his famous Hope painting of Barack Obama. "

you are completely wrong and your statement is misleading. Fairey did not lose a copyright infringement case with the AP. they settled out of court because the AP never would have won in court, and Fairey doesn't now any better. He got into trouble for lying in court and destroying evidence, not for copyright infringement.

http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/07/shephard-fairey-is-fined-and-sentenced-to-probation-in-hope-poster-case/?_r=1

"When the case began in 2009, Mr. Fairey argued that his use of Associated Press imagery constituted fair use under copyright law. But the civil lawsuit was settled before that question was decided, and the two sides agreed to financial terms that were not disclosed.The parties also agreed to share the rights to make posters and merchandise bearing the �Hope� image."

[Sean Locke Photography]

You can stop raising old threads from the dead.