©opyright and ®eferences
admin
I'm looking at a potential consulting job that might come my way, so I started reading up on the latest contract & legal issues. I bought the latest PEGS book (once again, indispensable resource) and it clarified quite a few issues about copyright.
Josh mentioned here the common 20%-remaining misconception about copyright infringement. The reality actually places a much heavier burden on artists who use photo reference of actual people (flickr, google images, etc).
This usage falls into a legal area separate from copyright law, something called "the right of publicity", which recognizes the general right for a person to control the commercial use of their likeness, among other things. This right is covered by separate laws in each U.S. state, and is covered internationally by multiple standards.
Basically, if you don't get a signed release from the person in your reference photos, that person has every right to take you to court. Even if you simply sold a quick sketch you made of them.
Fortunately 3d.sk has their models sign releases, so that's covered. But if you use Flickr or the web for your human reference...
Most artists can get away with using someone without that someone ever noticing themselves in the art, or if they do, many don't want the hassle of bringing it to court.
Anyhow, good to know when you might be crossing the line, instead of blindly trusting the 20% rule.
Josh mentioned here the common 20%-remaining misconception about copyright infringement. The reality actually places a much heavier burden on artists who use photo reference of actual people (flickr, google images, etc).
This usage falls into a legal area separate from copyright law, something called "the right of publicity", which recognizes the general right for a person to control the commercial use of their likeness, among other things. This right is covered by separate laws in each U.S. state, and is covered internationally by multiple standards.
Basically, if you don't get a signed release from the person in your reference photos, that person has every right to take you to court. Even if you simply sold a quick sketch you made of them.
Fortunately 3d.sk has their models sign releases, so that's covered. But if you use Flickr or the web for your human reference...
Most artists can get away with using someone without that someone ever noticing themselves in the art, or if they do, many don't want the hassle of bringing it to court.
Anyhow, good to know when you might be crossing the line, instead of blindly trusting the 20% rule.
Replies
Thanks Eric
B
I think the rules change slightly if the person is not the subject of the photo. For example you take a picture of a building and people happen to be walking by, you don't need a release from everyone walking by, since they are not the focus of the shot?
However I think you do need to clear it with the buildings owner if you're not on public land when the photo is taken...
most of these shmucks couldn't re-create someone accurately anyway. chumps!
I'm not a lawyer, just reading the summaries here, but apparently Fair Use isn't precisely defined by law, it is up to the court to determine whether the artwork meets that bar. Fair Use commonly includes news reporting, teaching, scholarship/research, and parody, satire, or caricature.
Apparently a court will use certain guidelines to figure out if it's fair use: the purpose and character of the use, the nature of the copyrighted work, the amount of the work copied/extracted, the effect on the potential market value of the copyrighted work, etc. Totally open to interpretation.
Also Vig, the people in the shot wouldn't matter I guess if you're selling the photo, since the focus is the building. But if you used one of the people as a reference, that's where the right of publicity could be an issue.