Stevertigo wrote:
page..... ) it should be fair game.. especially if you know the original source, and... if you modify the image a bit yourself... Look at the Redd Foxx portrait which i merged from two crappier photos I found on the web...
This is almost certainly a useless activity. Merging two photos into one doesn't reduce the copyright problems, it compounds them. The new work would be a "derived work" from both the originals, and a violation of the copyright on both of the originals.
neither one of these can directly be tied to this one, and theirs were rip- offs anyway...
"I ripped it off from someone who ripped off the original copyright holder" is not a valid defense.
But either way, Ive run across a few images that were questionable in origin, and the solution to removing any tie to the original is to modify the image...
This solves absolutely nothing.
A company I worked for was engaged in the shady business of scanning other peoples high-end catalogs for use of the images on the web. After consulting a lawyer, who said that it was ok to use the images provided there were seven changes made to them... seven degrees of removal from the original... I don't know if this holds water well enough for here.. (Most places dont worry at all...) but... in the strictest sense, its not hard to alter a photo with a few different operations...
This is just wrong. I strongly encourage people not to follow this kind of advice here.
--Jimbo