here is th ebook on amazon;https://www.amazon.com/Guide-Newspaper-Stringers-Routledge-Communication/dp/0805807659
here is th republish comes;
i hope this helped somewhat
You should not use entire picture while changing its elements and claim it as your own work or sell it. You can for sure gain inspiration and use references, as there are lots of ideas out there and its difficult to come up with something new. However, YOUR work should consist of your elements mostly, and other people works should only be used as references and inspiration to realize how they accomplished their piece.
That’s very vague man and contradictory. Your say that you shouldn’t use a photo and “change” it’s elements to make it your own but also say that your works should be your own elements mostly and peoples work should be used as inspiration and references.
If I change the elements of the photo does that not make it my own? The final result of my hummingbird though similar to the photograph is different in medium, idea and concept, has a different message purpose(lsd looking good vibes vs beauty of nature), it’s shape has been changed as well as many other elements such as the ink splatter.
If the main component of the reference photo is literally nothing else but a hummingbird with rainbow wings what would you expect to be changed? The only thing that it shows is a sillouette of a humming bird and rainbow pattern on its wings.
I don’t know how much of the posts you read but I understand that tracing over a picture would be considered a copy. And doing a realistic portrait in watercolour of the bird and selling it would be an infringement. But your answer is entirely vague in an area that is already gray.
That is interesting. Even though an obvious copy of a portion of your comic they found that the less than 10% rule apply. Do you have the court statements at all?
Was it just the 10% rule that they ruled against you?
Based on my in understanding - did they see it as transformative based on is purpose being different? Yours as a political statement while theirs as a design element for a book cover.
Did they see the 8% ruling due to the fact that the main purpose of your comic couldn’t be realised from the portion they used? Or was it just that it was mathematically 8% of the photo
Did the courts mention any lost profits from the book using the photo?
their was no case, my lawyer wrote a letter to theirs, they sent one back
nothing legal happened because nobody “important” cared.
hmmm, did your lawyer say why he didnt pursue?
no money or not worth the settlement, she was good tho.
we, well I perused for credit, which never happened.
today i wrote that i drew that comic on their amazon page
Ah, you didn’t say it was part of a newsclip.
When we seek a newspaper source, we deal with the publisher as it’s their responsibility to care about their contributors’ content. If they released it with permission, that would usually satisfy our clients’ due diligence requirement.
if i did say newsclip, i would have misspelled the word like i did in the post!
ouch, that text i typed was bad, the perils of using a smaller screen laptop.
i even mistyped “the”
MrChoob — First, let me say that your vector design is really cool and I could see why you would want to create shirts out of it. But what could you possibly raise in income for the sale of the shirts? Then compare your potential sales against the very expensive cost of defending yourself in court. Even if you won the suit, your winnings could be totally absorbed by your attorney’s cost to you for defending yourself (i.e. potential shirt income versus your cost to defend.) On that basis, you may discover it is not a chance you would want to take.
You could avoid the bullet and just use this really nice work as a portfolio piece.
