I wanted to take some illustrations out of Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas and digitally redraw them into big posters for my own amusement. But I was curious if I could also sell those online once I was done? Who would I need to contact about this sort of thing?
Would it be illegal
- Thread starter Murphy Durphy
- Start date
im sure somewhere on the book or magazine there are words that say something about not reproducing any part of the book or magazine without written permission...
the publisher is dead?..lol
u mean the author is dead?
contact the publishing house (ie Penguin or Bantam or Corgi or whoever it says on the damn spine) and ask them who holds the rights to those illustrations....if no one does then gopher it, do what u like with them, if someone does then you need to contact whoever it is and ask permission, they might say sure no probs no charge, or they might want royalties, whatever you do make sure you have a legally signed document stating whats been agreed before you do anything with them.
However for your own amusement you can do what you like, you just cant make them public, for finance or for free.
oh and if the publishing house is no longer around either, then contact your local library and they can find out for you if there is a foundation set for the original artist/author...
if not and they been dead a certain amount of time then its usually fair game....
It's like a 100 years till the Copyright wears off though. Ick.
That's what I thought though.. the drawings are in black and white pen and I'm going to be redoing them myself in full color and digital ink. So long as I'm not selling scanned copies of the image, I'm not sure it is exactly illegal.
meltdown75
Lifer
- Nov 17, 2004
- 37,548
- 7
- 81
Wrong. That is still copyright infringment. I suggest you read this:
http://www.meredithkeyhani.com/copyright/information.html
# Section 106 of the 1976 Copyright Act generally gives the owner of copyright the exclusive right to do and to authorize others to do the following: To reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords;
# To prepare derivative works based upon the work;
# To distribute copies or phonorecords of the work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
# To perform the work publicly, in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works;
# To display the copyrighted work publicly, in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work; and
# In the case of sound recordings, to perform the work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission. It is illegal for anyone to violate any of the rights provided by the copyright law to the owner of copyright (this is copyright infringement). These rights, however, are not unlimited in scope. The Copyright Act establishes limitations on these rights. In some cases, these limitations are specified exemptions from copyright liability. One major limitation is the doctrine of "fair use". In other instances, the limitation takes the form of a "compulsory license" under which certain limited uses of copyrighted works are permitted upon payment of specified royalties and compliance with statutory conditions.
Phoenix86
Lifer
- May 21, 2003
- 14,644
- 10
- 81
I doubt it, because it would be using the "heart" of the content, and kinda goes against the "less is more" rule.
http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/9-b.html#3
nothing is illegal about seeing something and then drawing your interpretation of it so what i said is correcct....its the scanning of the document to prepare the interpretation that makes it illegal.
Even in our Visual Communications class the kids are taught that they can't copy paste an image into their works due to Copyright laws but they can recreate it.
wrong. i depends on how close your "interpretation" is to the real thing. if it is a ripoff then yes it is illegal and you can be sued. "influenced" is one thing "interpretation" is another.
UglyCasanova
Lifer
- Mar 25, 2001
- 19,275
- 1,361
- 126
What a little chode, for both tracing (which I have no problem with if used as a tool to your own end, but not just for copying someone else's work) and stealing someone else's illustrations. It is great to be inspired by someone else's work, but that is their work not yours. Draw inspiration from it all you want, but make your own damn pictures.
null
I'm a little chode?
I like the illustrations in the book and I think it'd be cool to have full sized color posters of them. That book/movie is quite the cult icon and I'm sure others would like them too, that is why I was interested in selling them.
Yeah okay...
This is the type of illustration I was talking about. Redrawn, and in full color.
Text
I'm a little chode?
I like the illustrations in the book and I think it'd be cool to have full sized color posters of them. That book/movie is quite the cult icon and I'm sure others would like them too, that is why I was interested in selling them.
Yeah okay...
This is the type of illustration I was talking about. Redrawn, and in full color.
Text
http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0679785...57?%5Fencoding=UTF8&p=S007#reader-link
Contact Ralph Steadman?
Contact Ralph Steadman?
Phoenix86
Lifer
- May 21, 2003
- 14,644
- 10
- 81
Which is why I said it probably wouldn't qualify as fair use. In the OP, he said "redraw them into big posters"
More specific.
"Not a fair use. A poster of a "church quilt" was used in the background of a television series for 27 seconds. Important factors: The court was influenced by the prominence of the poster, its thematic importance for the set decoration of a church and the fact that it was a conventional practice to license such works for use in television programs. (Ringgold v. Black Entertainment Television, Inc., 126 F.3d 70 (2d Cir. 1997).)"
Also...
"Fair Use. A search engine?s practice of creating small reproductions (?thumbnails?) of images and placing them on its own website (known as ?inlining?) did not undermine the potential market for the sale or licensing of those images. Important Factors. The thumbnails were much smaller and of much poorer quality than the original photos and served to index the images and help the public access them. (Kelly v. Arriba-Soft, 03 C.D.O.S. 5888 (9th Cir. 2003).)"
Since he's making a *larger* image I'd think the reverse logic would apply.
Also the actual use is important. If you want to hang it in your room, that's one thing, but if you make $$ off of it, that's another.
And for the record, even though it doesn't sway the law by any means, I'm not trying to make money off them, I'm merely trying to cover the costs of printing out giant full color posters...
MikeyIs4Dcats
Lifer
- Nov 5, 2001
- 18,366
- 3
- 0
Illegal, Immoral, whatever you wish to term it. They are copyrighted works and you may not reproduce them, or any likeness of them, for any reason.
You need to pay attention in your Visual Communications class. You have to redraw pie charts and graphs and such in your own hand, not copy and paste. You can't photoshop them using them as a basis of the work.
You need to pay attention in your Visual Communications class. You have to redraw pie charts and graphs and such in your own hand, not copy and paste. You can't photoshop them using them as a basis of the work.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter